|
|
Post by Don on Mar 15, 2017 13:25:08 GMT -5
This is a fun story. The gerund argument just makes it better. Now here's the offending passage. Have at it. If you don't spot it, the answer's at the link.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 13:58:40 GMT -5
I spotted it immediately. But then, I'm a lawyer.
I'm a fan of the oxford comma for this exact reason. Most of the time meaning is clear without it -- but then there are those times it isn't. Since I prefer to be consistent with using or not using it, I'd rather use it.
As a lawyer, I've seen my share of contract disputes hinge on potentially ambiguous punctuation. Commas matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 15, 2017 15:40:34 GMT -5
Ooh,that's gotta hurt.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Mar 15, 2017 17:35:30 GMT -5
The senate dems should ask Neal Gorsuch about this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 21:07:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 20, 2017 8:44:51 GMT -5
Okay, so I keep looking at these stories and I feel like I'm missing something. Yes, the correct way is to have a comma before the "or," but here's the statute in full:
chrome-extension://bpmcpldpdmajfigpchkicefoigmkfalc/views/app.html
The problem with the decision is (imo):
1) There's no "or" or "and" before "packing."
2) In the body of 3. and in section A., the style is crystal clear:
Obviously, the statute was written sans Oxford commas.
It's a stupid decision, imo.
But yes, I think the Oxford comma should be standard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 8:54:04 GMT -5
I can explain it.
The disputed sentence can be read two ways, even if one considers that the rest of the document omits the Oxford comma. That creates an ambiguity. Any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the drivers.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 20, 2017 9:06:57 GMT -5
*shrug*
It's only ambiguous if taken out of context, if the rest of the statute is ignored. For me, that's just not sensible. I think understand why ambiguity would be read to favor the drivers as a matter of course (I say "I think" because this is not a contract, it's a State law, so maybe clear that up for me), but I don't see this as ambiguous, since the other instances lack the supposed ambiguity, due to the nature of the lists. If they were also ambiguous, I could see it. But they're not.
ETA: And wouldn't the companies here have reason to go after the State for passing this law? Might the State ultimately be on the hook for overtime pay?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 9:40:02 GMT -5
No -- it's ambiguous regardless.
Assuming you are an oxford comma omitter, you would write that sentence exactly the same way whether you meant to say "packing for shipment and distribution" (meaning the act of packing the milk for both purposes) or "packing for shipment, and distribution" (separating the act of packing for shipment and the act of distribution). The absence of the comma tells you nothing. Either way, an Oxford comma omitter would not use a comma there.
If, on the other hand, the rest of the statute included the oxford comma, THAT might well be evidence that its omission in this instance was deliberate. An consistent Oxford coma user would have used a comma there if he meant to separate the acts. But you cannot assume the reverse is true from the comma omitter.
Again, this is why, as a lawyer who reads, interprets, and argues contracts and statutes for a living, I favor the consistent use of the Oxford comma. Most lawyers do, in my experience. It's the Maine legislature that was stupid.
ETA:
I doubt they can sue the state. The statute is what it is. And what's to say the company wasn't perfectly aware of the statute's meaning, and just decided to get extra work out of their drivers and weasel out of paying overtime?
As I said, as a lawyer, I spotted the issue on first read. Doesn't the company have lawyers? If I were working for the company, and they asked me whether they had to pay overtime to drivers, I would have said "yes."
Now, maybe if they sought clarification of the ambiguity from the state, and the state advised them incorrectly on the meaning, and acted on reliance on that advice...
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 20, 2017 9:57:17 GMT -5
No -- it's ambiguous regardless. Assuming you are an oxford comma omitter, you would write that sentence exactly the same way whether you meant to say "packing for shipment and distribution" (meaning the act of packing the milk for both purposes) or "packing for shipment, and distribution" (separating the act of packing for shipment and the act of distribution). The absence of the comma tells you nothing. Either way, an Oxford comma omitter would not use a comma there. Disagree. You're ignoring the lack of a conjunction before "packing." But seriously, I think I understand why ambiguity should favor the drivers, but again I'm not 100% positive, since this is a state law, not a contract. Can you clarify? Also, my addendum: do you think the companies would have grounds for suing the state for passing an ambiguous statute, especially if--at any point--a company agent checked with the state for clarification? ETA: Lol, you edited and read my mind, more or less, while I was posting. And to be clear here, I spotted the issue immediately, as well, even though I'm no lawyer. I also noted immediately that none of the stories I saw were quoting the statute in full. So I went looking and found it, making it clear that Oxford commas were not being used throughout. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 10:09:18 GMT -5
The case, if you are interested. law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/16-1901/16-1901-2017-03-13.htmlAs it notes, under Maine labor law, ambiguities are resolved in favor of labor to accomplish the overtime law's remedial purposes. Otherwise, too easy for management to demand hellish hours and underpay its workers. The law is there to protect the little guy working from paycheck to paycheck. ETA: I actually think the company was stupid in not checking this out before allowing the delivery guys to work overtime. I spent some time working in house for a large corporation -- questions like this, with gobs of money riding on them, routinely crossed my desk. And if they did run it past their lawyer, and s/he just said "pfft, no problem", I think they need to replace him or her! |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 20, 2017 10:24:17 GMT -5
As it notes, under Maine labor law, ambiguities are resolved in favor of labor to accomplish the overtime law's remedial purposes. Otherwise, too easy for management to demand hellish hours and underpay its workers. The law is there to protect the little guy working from paycheck to paycheck. Yes, this is what I more or less assumed the rationale would be, but I have to see the actual regulations, now. *goes off to google* |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 20, 2017 10:40:13 GMT -5
Okay, from the decision: Here's that case: legaliq.com/Case/Director_Bur_Of_Labor_Stan_V_CormierFrom it: So that standard is not a law, per se. It's part of another decision, right? Also, I find this portion of the decision fascinating: If that's the standard for drafting laws, it's a standard that creates ambiguity by rule, no? That suggests to me that the companies impacted by this ruling would very much have a case against the state of Maine, itself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 10:55:14 GMT -5
FYI, the standard favoring the worker is pretty much the standard when it comes to overtime laws, and not just in Maine. That case sets it out, but it's not alone. Such laws have a distinct mission; resolving ambiguities in favor of the laborer effectuates it. Resolving them in favor of CEOs and investor profits would not.
But hmmm...I'll have to ponder on that last point. I do agree that the comma-omitting standard is what created the (quite unnecessary) ambiguity. At the very least, it should provide that one uses a comma when there is any possibility of ambiguity.
I wonder if Maine will now reconsider that drafting standard. They should.
ETA:
Once or twice, I have battled the Oxford comma issue with clients when drafting settlement agreements and the like. But generally pointing out the pitfalls of potential ambiguity is enough to get them over their silly prejudice to Oxford commas.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 20, 2017 11:51:42 GMT -5
FYI, the standard favoring the worker is pretty much the standard when it comes to overtime laws, and not just in Maine. That case sets it out, but it's not alone. Such laws have a distinct mission; resolving ambiguities in favor of the laborer effectuates it. Resolving them in favor of CEOs and investor profits would not. Sure. And the standard for contract law is that ambiguity should be read to benefit the person who did not draft the contract, right? But my point was only that this standard is not a part of Maine's labor laws; there's not a statute that says this.  |
|
