There's no financial rationale because the case didn't concern financial rationale. This is a question of how to interpret the existing National Labor Relations

There's no financial rationale because the case didn't concern financial rationale. This is a question of how to interpret the existing National Labor Relations Act. Thus, your comments make no sense. Regarding "put someone on the spot"; you are veering close to "JAQing off" territory. The question you had were general ones addressed by the article, and here are many easily found sources that would give you the insight you are looking for. Your one line response to shawnee_ did not give any evidence that you understood the context, or cared to do your own research, it had a implicit assumption that a random HN should educate you, a full answer would have required multiple paragraphs, and would unlikely to be correct as HN readers tend to not be aware of labor law. Plus, shawnee_ was clearly expressing an opinion and not trying to make provable statements that can be backed up by the specifics you wanted. Following up as you did is hard to distinguish from sealioning.