3 ms·
The article asks: > Does the law intend to exempt the distribution of the three categories that follow, or does it mean to exempt packing for the shipping or d
by PuffinBlue 10y ago
The article asks:
> Does the law intend to exempt the distribution of the three categories that follow, or does it mean to exempt packing for the shipping or distribution of them?
I'd say it does both. It exempts workers who package for shipment AND workers who distribute.
Discuss... :-)
- abritinthebay 10y agoCould be! But the fact it is ambiguous means that it's bad law and effectively that's what the decision was: it's a reasonable interpretation based on the language used so they win.
- briandear 10y agoAre shipment and distribution fundamentally different? Seem like synonyms to me and thus the lack of comma ought not matter because: "package for shipment -- or distribution." I guess my question is how packing would be materially different for shipment or distribution. Since it seems analogous, a reasonably intelligent person could assume that the sentence could read, "packing for shipment or shipment" that implies that shipment is a separate activity while packing for shipment is another activity. -- since shipping is really a subset of distribution actions. My question is why they sued -- clarity should have been sought before engaging in the work. It wasn't like these guys were unaware of the law. They chose to read it in the most advantageous way rather than obtaining clarity before working.
- donarb 10y agoWhat person goes and reads all applicable laws before taking a job? You've got federal/state/local laws to sift through. And who's to say that a company can't hire lawyers to comb through old laws looking for loopholes to screw over workers?
- InitialLastName 10y agopackaging for shipment is a different thing than distribution. Packaging for shipment might be the same thing as packaging for distribution.