you make a decent point, but overstate your case. we can respect the precedent-respecting/-setting nature of supreme court decisions, while also holding the sup

you make a decent point, but overstate your case. we can respect the precedent-respecting/-setting nature of supreme court decisions, while also holding the supreme court to task for largely ignoring workers interests. even reading the first few paragraphs, there seemed to be numerous lines of argument the court ignored in this regard. what other complications should we be considering with respect to this otherwise worker-unfriendly decision? frankly, i'd support the (radical) idea that we should pay non-exempt workers at the start of their departure for work all the way to their arrival at their after-work destination. this has the nice side effect of pulling corporations into the fight against excessive, wasted commute times, sprawl and the housing crisis, and spewing excess toxins into our lungs and the environment.