3 ms·

1 - thanks, fixed. 2 - the lower court appears to have used the back half of the sentence as describing the components of the first half. Given the supremes’

by jws 6y ago

1 - thanks, fixed. 2 - the lower court appears to have used the back half of the sentence as describing the components of the first half. Given the supremes’ reading, the back half doesn’t need to even be there, though I guess if you can conceive of someone working for a company but not subject to the control of the company it would cover some ground. Heaven knows I’ve had employees like that.

mehrdadn 6y ago
2 - But if the circuit court used the back of the sentence to read the first half, time going through security screening would've seemed like a pretty obvious example of time that the employee "is suffered", right? My understanding was that's not what happened though. See page 7 for the summary of the district court's reasoning.
- Thorrez 6y ago
  Are you saying "is suffered" stands alone? What does that mean? I read it as "is suffered to work", meaning the employee is allowed to work, which in this case it sounds like it might not apply.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    Yes. I understand to "be suffered" here means "to be made to go through something unpleasant/undesired/etc."... which is what a security check is. The point I take being that if you make employees "suffer", you can't use their inability to perform work during that time as an excuse not to pay them. (Note the word in between is "or", not "to".)
    - Thorrez 6y ago
      That's not my understanding of "be suffered". "He suffers a loss" means a man is suffering a loss. The loss is hurting him. "A loss is suffered" means someone/something is suffering a loss. The loss his hurting someone/something. "The employee is suffered" means someone/something is suffering the employee. The employee is hurting someone/something. Your definition would match "the employee suffers", but that's the opposite of "the employee is suffered".
      - mehrdadn 6y ago
        > "The employee is suffered" means someone/something is suffering the employee. The employee is hurting someone/something. Huh, interesting. How does this make sense in context though? The text says "all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work" must be compensated, so you're saying the law says that an employee must get paid for all the time he spends doing either of {hurting someone/something, being permitted to work}? Why would there be a law to mandate paying employees that hurt people...?
        zaarn 6y ago
        Atleast where I love, when you're not permitted to work you can sue the employer, since you have a right and obligation to fullfill your side of the contract just as the employer has a right and obligation to fullfill theirs. Not being able to work would be a contractual violation suffered by the employee.
        mehrdadn 6y ago
        This makes sense, but I don't understand how this relates to my comment unfortunately. If anything it would suggest my prior interpretation of "is suffered" was correct? At least I don't see how this translates into an employee hurting someone else.
        Thorrez 6y ago
        I think they're using an alternate definition of "suffer". > 4 : to allow especially by reason of indifference >> the eagle suffers little birds to sing > — William Shakespeare https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suffer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suffer So "is suffered" would actually just be a synonym for "is permitted" in this case. So essentially "is suffered" could be removed with no change in meaning, since "is permitted" is already in the law. As for why lawmakers decided to insert what appears to be a useless and confusing synonym, I'm not sure.
        mehrdadn 6y ago

by jws 6y ago

mehrdadn 6y ago

2 - But if the circuit court used the back of the sentence to read the first half, time going through security screening would've seemed like a pretty obvious example of time that the employee "is suffered", right? My understanding was that's not what happened though. See page 7 for the summary of the district court's reasoning.

Thorrez 6y ago
Are you saying "is suffered" stands alone? What does that mean? I read it as "is suffered to work", meaning the employee is allowed to work, which in this case it sounds like it might not apply.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  Yes. I understand to "be suffered" here means "to be made to go through something unpleasant/undesired/etc."... which is what a security check is. The point I take being that if you make employees "suffer", you can't use their inability to perform work during that time as an excuse not to pay them. (Note the word in between is "or", not "to".)
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    That's not my understanding of "be suffered". "He suffers a loss" means a man is suffering a loss. The loss is hurting him. "A loss is suffered" means someone/something is suffering a loss. The loss his hurting someone/something. "The employee is suffered" means someone/something is suffering the employee. The employee is hurting someone/something. Your definition would match "the employee suffers", but that's the opposite of "the employee is suffered".
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      > "The employee is suffered" means someone/something is suffering the employee. The employee is hurting someone/something. Huh, interesting. How does this make sense in context though? The text says "all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work" must be compensated, so you're saying the law says that an employee must get paid for all the time he spends doing either of {hurting someone/something, being permitted to work}? Why would there be a law to mandate paying employees that hurt people...?
      - zaarn 6y ago
        Atleast where I love, when you're not permitted to work you can sue the employer, since you have a right and obligation to fullfill your side of the contract just as the employer has a right and obligation to fullfill theirs. Not being able to work would be a contractual violation suffered by the employee.
        mehrdadn 6y ago
        This makes sense, but I don't understand how this relates to my comment unfortunately. If anything it would suggest my prior interpretation of "is suffered" was correct? At least I don't see how this translates into an employee hurting someone else.
      - Thorrez 6y ago
        I think they're using an alternate definition of "suffer". > 4 : to allow especially by reason of indifference >> the eagle suffers little birds to sing > — William Shakespeare https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suffer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suffer So "is suffered" would actually just be a synonym for "is permitted" in this case. So essentially "is suffered" could be removed with no change in meaning, since "is permitted" is already in the law. As for why lawmakers decided to insert what appears to be a useless and confusing synonym, I'm not sure.
        mehrdadn 6y ago