Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 12:04:59 GMT -5
But applicable law does not simply consist of statutes. There is plenty of stuff not specifically covered in statutory law. If statutes specifically cover something, they rule. In the absence of that, it is court cases and common law. And courts resolve any ambiguity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 12:31:51 GMT -5
I should also note, by the way, that while I think oxford commas usually add clarity, it's also possible for them to introduce confusion if you are not careful. E.g.: "Participants in the thread included Rob, an asshole who had no idea what he was talking about, and Cass." Are there three people in that series, or is the segment between the commas referring to Rob? Reordering the sentence is the answer to the problem, of course.
It's important generally to pay attention to potential ambiguities in writing -- but especially when you're talking legal issues.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 20, 2017 12:56:30 GMT -5
But applicable law does not simply consist of statutes. There is plenty of stuff not specifically covered in statutory law. If statutes specifically cover something, they rule. In the absence of that, it is court cases and common law. And courts resolve any ambiguity. Again, sure. Nonetheless, this is not the same thing as laws passed by the legislature or by a body granted power by legislative action to make rules for the workplace. So it's not the case that Maine labor laws stipulate that ambiguity within them should be read to benefit the employee over the employer. Yet, many articles seem to be saying tht this is the case.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 20, 2017 13:03:40 GMT -5
I should also note, by the way, that while I think oxford commas usually add clarity, it's also possible for them to introduce it if you are not careful. E.g.: "Participants in the thread included Rob, an asshole who had no idea what he was talking about, and Cass." Are there three people in that series, or is the segment between the commas referring to Rob? Reordering the sentence is the answer to the problem, of course. It's important generally to pay attention to potential ambiguities in writing -- but especially when you're talking legal issues. Of course. But again, if there is fault here it lies with the State, first and foremost. I have to admit that seeing the State--in the form of the Courts--punish a private entity because of an error by the State--the legislature--annoys me quite a bit. That said, I think the company should have paid the back overtime wages and sought absolute clarity from the State before paying any more.* * Again, if the company actually did seek clarity here from a State official and that official told the company that their reading of the statute was correct, as far as I'm concerned that puts all of this on the State: if companies have to abide by the workers' reading of the statute, the State should be on the hook for the bill until they fix their ambiguous statute.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 13:07:20 GMT -5
No, it isn't a statute. But it IS in fact prevailing law.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 20, 2017 16:06:24 GMT -5
It's still not "Maine labor law." Because Maine labor law is ambiguous here. That's what the ruling says. And the State mandated--through the legislature--that it be such, however unintentionally, according to this last ruling.
I get the rulings, I get the arguments, but imo the totality of the actual statutes make it clear what was intended by the law; it's not actually ambiguous, per this and the grammar requirements of the legislature for all statutes. But that doesn't mean it's a good law. Made it's a bad one. And I'm not sure what theory suggests that drivers--above all other workers--are entitled to overtime pay. That strikes me as at odds with common sense, since really that tends to suggest the statute was not even remedial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 16:16:43 GMT -5
The "ambiguity is interpreted in favor of little guy" is a basic principle underlying the labor law, intended to further the law's intended purpose. It applies to any ambiguity in the statute, not just that clause.
So -- the statute's wording was ambiguous; that being the case, applying the basic principles that ambiguities in the statute are read in favor of labor. Thus, the interpretation most beneficial to labor wins.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 20, 2017 18:10:38 GMT -5
That's a valid opinion. But mine is--as I've explained--different. The wording wasn't ambiguous in context. It was quite clear. As to basic principles, The intended purpose of this part of this particular law is to protect the producers (farmers) and by extension, consumers, not to protect labor. It's creating an exception for overtime requirements as a means of protecting the farm industry and the prices of foods. The finding being cited again: That means construing to benefit producers and consumers, by my reading. A history of the exemption in the FLSA, which also is common in many (most? all?) States: students.law.drake.edu/aglawjournal/docs/agVol10No2-Canny.pdfI think there's a good argument to get rid of this exemption, entirely. But again, it's not there for the benefit of labor at all, in either State or Federal laws.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 15:24:29 GMT -5
As to basic principles, The intended purpose of this part of this particular law is to protect the producers (farmers) and by extension, consumers, not to protect labor. No, it's not. It is about ensuring workers get adequate pay. A look at the entire statute makes that quite clear. The relevant section you've quoted is from Title 26, Title 7, SubChapter 3 of the Maine Revised Statutes. (Title 26 is Labor and Industry, Title 7 is Employment Practices, Subchapter 3 is Minimum Wages.) Take a gander at the opening subsection of SubChapter 3, entitled "Declaration of policy". In its entirety, it reads: That, right there, tells you the purpose of Subchapter 3: to make sure workers receive appropriate compensation. Not a word about employers or consumers. There are laws to protect them, yes, but that's not what this one is about. The subsection of SubChapter 3 at issue here is a couple paragraphs down (§ 664) -- the one you quote from above. It opens with these words: Note: everything that follows it is a subheading of that sentence. It's about the employees' rights and the employer's obligations with regard to the minimum rates an employee must be paid -- nothing more. Remedial statutes should be liberally construed to further the beneficent purposes for which they are enacted. That means construing to benefit producers and consumers, by my reading. And again, see above -- no. The remedial purpose of the overtime laws like this, and labor laws in general, is to protect workers. See Dir. of Bureau of Labor Standards v. Cormier, 527 A.2d 1297, 1300 (Me. 1987). This is the case that, as you noted, this Oxford comma case cited for the proposition of the remedial purposes of this statute. Note -- the Cormier case did NOT create this law or this purpose. Rather, it cited the Maine act itself -- the provision I just quoted above -- for the remedial purpose of the act: And since you raised the FLSA... See also, e.g., flsaovertimelaw.com/tag/remedial-purpose/ . That page quotes a few cases discussing the remedial purpose of the FLSA, but this quote (from a 3rd Circuit case, Gordon v. Maxim Healthcare Services) says it best: (bolding is mine, btw.) See also, e.g., smallbusiness.chron.com/functions-labor-laws-61595.html ("Labor laws have a uniform purpose: they protect employees' rights and set forth employers' obligations and responsibilities. They also have multiple functions. The primary functions of labor laws are to provide equal opportunity and pay, employees' physical and mental well-being and safety, and workplace diversity. ") I could find a yuuuuuuuge pile of cases and discussions on the remedial purpose of labor laws, if you want them, and on what it means to effectuate a remedial purpose. (Though not right now, since I really need to get back to some work.)
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 21, 2017 16:12:36 GMT -5
As to basic principles, The intended purpose of this part of this particular law is to protect the producers (farmers) and by extension, consumers, not to protect labor. No, it's not. It is about ensuring workers get adequate pay. A look at the entire statute makes that quite clear. In the same way a look at the entire statute makes the issue of ambiguity in the statute not an issue at all? Regardless, I disagree. The exemptions in that section have an intended purpose. Again, the purpose of the one under discussion here is the protection of farmers (and the population at large, in terms of having affordable foodstuffs), a purpose echoed in federal statutes and in other States which have the same exemptions ( though apparently without the ambiguity). I think it's fair to wonder of this particular exemption should go the way of the dodo, as it comes from a time when the farmers who needed protection were individual, small farmers for the most part who were trying to make a living, not corporations who were doing whatever they could to maximize profits and minimize costs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 16:28:20 GMT -5
Grammatically, as I note above, I don't agree with you that the fact the statute omits the oxford comma elsewhere makes it the meaning of this one clear -- indeed, I think it is that very fact that makes this particular sentence ambiguous. It can STILL be read either way because an oxford comma omitter would not put a comma in that particular spot in any case. A careful oxford comma omitter, however, would order his sentence so that no ambiguity was possible. It could have been done quite easily.
Legally, while certainly one can argue that the statute should be amended to clarify this exemption and have a different result in future cases, or alternatively, that the legislature should do away with the exemption altogether, it is NOT the case that the remedial purpose of this statute is anything other than to protect paycheck-to-paycheck workers. That's it -- that's the purpose. And the court was quite correct, as a matter of law, that any ambiguity must be read in favor of the workers because of that remedial purpose.
I do not opine on whether this case comes out with the very best policy with regard to whether these particular workers ideally should get overtime. But that was not the court's job. It is the legislature's job. The court's job was to look at the words of the statute, and the purpose of the statute, and apply the law. The court correctly found that there was ambiguity in the words of the statute, correctly noted that the purpose of the statute was to protect workers, and correctly resolved the ambiguity to read the words in the way that favored the workers.
If the legislature does not like that result, it is their job to amend the words of the statute to resolve that ambiguity. It would take them all of five minutes.
Meanwhile, businesses can easily avoid paying delivery guys overtime: hire enough delivery guys, and don't have them work extra hours. The end.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 21, 2017 17:34:37 GMT -5
The court's job was to look at the words of the statute, and the purpose of the statute, and apply the law. The court correctly found that there was ambiguity in the words of the statute, correctly noted that the purpose of the statute was to protect workers, and correctly resolved the ambiguity to read the words in the way that favored the workers. In. Your. Opinion. Mine remains different. I think the district court ruled correctly, so I'm hardly alone in this regard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 18:31:14 GMT -5
To note: The district court was reversed by the First Circuit, which is, of course, a higher court. Unless the Supreme Court decides to take on the case and reverses the First Circuit, the First Circuit's interpretation (also mine) is deemed the "correct" one. You will not get far in legal circles relying on a reversed decision. (Though, heh, I had opposing counsel try it once! Guess who won? ) Also, while I have not yet read the district court decision, I highly doubt they disagreed with what I said about the job of the court or the remedial purpose of the statute, nor that ambiguity must be read in favor of the drivers. (Why? Because that is simply the law. Really. It is.) Based on what the First Circuit decision said, I gather that the District court thought the wording of the statute was sufficiently unambiguous, and that the dairy's interpretation was correct. I get that you agree with the District Court, but like I said, in the legal world, the fact that the First Circuit said the District Court got it wrong means something everything. Of course, if the Supreme Court rules, that's what will mean everything. But I'm kinda doubting they'll take it on. ETA: Also, the First Circuit decision involved THREE judges, and the District Court only one! Three to one! I win! Neener neener neener! (Just showing our members how mature moderators disagree with one another.) ETA: Although, in all seriousness, it is worth noting that we've just completely disagreed with one another for two solid pages without either of us calling each other a name, dragging in ancient disputes, or sneering at one another's intellects or characters -- instead we have set forth our arguments and cited support. IT CAN BE DONE.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 19:40:48 GMT -5
Stop the presses! I just found and skimmed the District Court opinion (and god, am I going to hate myself for spending this much time looking at this when I, um, should have been doing other stuff). Also to note -- the District Court decision was actually a one page decision adopting a 12-page Magistrate Court recommended decision. I am quoting below from the Magistrate decision, since that's what contains the relevant reasoning. To put it in a nutshell, while the decision did note that the oxford comma was omitted elsewhere in the statute, the decision that the clause was not ambiguous ultimately turned on its view that "packing for shipping and distribution" (read as one activity) would be redundant because there was no essential difference between packing for shipping and packing for distribution. Therefore, the decision turned on the court's view that "shipping for packing" and "distribution" must be two different activities, because there was no reason for the statute to use redundant wording: Thus: The District Court adopted the decision, adding only this quibble with the Magistrate's recommendation: So. The First Circuit took a look at whether the legislature might have deemed "packing for shipping" and "packing for distribution" two different things. And it found that yeah, indeed it might: So -- since the legislature had previously made a distinction between these activities, it was possible that they might have meant to do so here. Ambiguous, yes -- but ambiguity is interpreted in favor of the drivers. Fascinating, right? Right? Bueller?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 21, 2017 19:48:41 GMT -5
The district court was reversed by the First Circuit, which is, of course, a higher court. Unless the Supreme Court decides to take on the case and reverses the First Circuit, the First Circuit's interpretation (also mine) is deemed the "correct" one. You will not get far in legal circles relying on a reversed decision. (Though, heh, I had opposing counsel try it once! Guess who won? ) Also, while I have not yet read the district court decision, I highly doubt they disagreed with what I said about the job of the court or the remedial purpose of the statute, nor that ambiguity must be read in favor of the drivers. (Why? Because that is simply the law. Really. It is.) Based on what the First Circuit decision said, I gather that the District court thought the wording of the statute was sufficiently unambiguous, and that the dairy's interpretation was correct. I get that you agree with the District Court, but like I said, in the legal world, the fact that the First Circuit said the District Court got it wrong means something everything. Of course, if the Supreme Court rules, that's what will mean everything. But I'm kinda doubting they'll take it on. I agree that it's unlikely this case will end up before the Supreme Court. But it has been going on for over two years, so it's not the case that it was ever a cut and dried thing, evidenced of course by different findings by different courts (there was an original decision by a magistrate as well, no?). But this ins't legal circles and I'm not trying to argue that my interpretation should be some sort of fact. It's not, it's an opinion. And sure, I don't have a law degree. And sure, right now, this last ruling decides the matter: as far as the statute goes, it IS ambiguous according the courts and therefore by law. But that doesn't make the ruling axiomatic. Like all rulings of this sort, there are multiple interpretations, differing opinions on whether the court was right or wrong. And the standard it set is subject to change by a different court, not just ten or twenty years down the road, but tomorrow. You're basically--in my view--explaining now at length why the ruling must be accepted, why the argument is over. In the courts, it is over. I recognize that. But I no more need to accept this ruling--from an intellectual perspective--than I do Kelo (though this is hardly in the same class, of the same importance, lol). I still think that ruling was wrong and deeply flawed. Telling me "well, it's the law of the land now" isn't a counter to my arguments, my point of view in that regard (not saying my point of view on Kelo can't be countered; obviously it can be and was by a SC majority, but I think O'Connor's dissent eats the majority's lunch, fwiw). As to remedial purposes, I admit that when this discussion started I didn't actually have my current point of view on such; I got there by research (yes, I've read all of the decisions being discussed in full, along with a number of bits on remedial statutes). I think I understand the concept and even if my argument wouldn't end up convincing anyone with legal expertise, I don't think it can be simply dismissed out of hand: the remedial purpose of the statute in question here is not the same throughout the statute. Really, the listed exemptions are remedial with respect to the initial statute and the history of the exemptions in question here indicate a very clear purpose: to protect farmers by helping to lower their labor costs. FWIW.
|
|