Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Lack of Oxford Comma Costs Maine Company Millions in Overtime Dispute

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lack of Oxford Comma Costs Maine Company Millions in Overtime Dispute

    [Lack of Oxford Comma Costs Maine Company Millions in Overtime Dispute by Daniel Victor | MSN] “A class-action lawsuit about overtime pay for truck drivers hinged entirely on a debate that has bitterly divided friends, families and foes: The dreaded — or totally necessary — Oxford comma, perhaps the most polarizing of punctuation marks.

    What ensued in The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and in a 29-page court decision handed down on Monday, was an exercise in high-stakes grammar pedantry that could cost a dairy company in Portland, Me., an estimated $10 million.

    In 2014, three truck drivers sued Oakhurst Dairy, seeking more than four years’ worth of overtime pay that they had been denied. Maine law requires workers to be paid 1.5 times their normal rate for each hour worked after 40 hours, but it carves out some exemptions.

    A quick punctuation lesson before we proceed: In a list of three or more items — like “beans, potatoes and rice” — some people would put a comma after potatoes, and some would leave it out. A lot of people feel very, very strongly about it.

    The debate over commas is often a pretty inconsequential one, but it was anything but for the truck drivers. Note the lack of Oxford comma — also known as the serial comma — in the following state law, which says overtime rules do not apply to:

    The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:

    (1) Agricultural produce;

    (2) Meat and fish products; and

    (3) Perishable foods.

    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?...” Full text: Lack of Oxford Comma Costs Maine Company Millions in Overtime Dispute Gen. 11:1–9
    "Being a square keeps you from going around in circles." ~ J. Vernon McGee
    Ro 3:23, 5:8, 6:23, 10:9, 10:13

  • #2
    Originally posted by serpentdove View Post
    Does the law intend
    AH - that's the question!!! "The LAW" intends NOTHING other that what people "Skilled in the art", can persuade OTHER People "skilled in the art", that it "Intends".

    This is OBVIOUSLY the sort of thing the Lawyers PRAY FOR!!!!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Bob Carabbio View Post

      AH - that's the question!!! "The LAW" intends NOTHING other that what people "Skilled in the art", can persuade OTHER People "skilled in the art", that it "Intends".
      Laws come from God not man (1 Ti 1:8-10, Ac 5:29).


      "Being a square keeps you from going around in circles." ~ J. Vernon McGee
      Ro 3:23, 5:8, 6:23, 10:9, 10:13

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by serpentdove View Post
        Laws come from God not man (1 Ti 1:8-10, Ac 5:29).

        I'm pretty sure the authors of the bible were not talking about the vagaries of overtime law.
        "Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle with you"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by serpentdove View Post
          [Lack of Oxford Comma Costs Maine Company Millions in Overtime Dispute by Daniel Victor | MSN] “A class-action lawsuit about overtime pay for truck drivers hinged entirely on a debate that has bitterly divided friends, families and foes: The dreaded — or totally necessary — Oxford comma, perhaps the most polarizing of punctuation marks.

          What ensued in The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and in a 29-page court decision handed down on Monday, was an exercise in high-stakes grammar pedantry that could cost a dairy company in Portland, Me., an estimated $10 million.

          In 2014, three truck drivers sued Oakhurst Dairy, seeking more than four years’ worth of overtime pay that they had been denied. Maine law requires workers to be paid 1.5 times their normal rate for each hour worked after 40 hours, but it carves out some exemptions.

          A quick punctuation lesson before we proceed: In a list of three or more items — like “beans, potatoes and rice” — some people would put a comma after potatoes, and some would leave it out. A lot of people feel very, very strongly about it.

          The debate over commas is often a pretty inconsequential one, but it was anything but for the truck drivers. Note the lack of Oxford comma — also known as the serial comma — in the following state law, which says overtime rules do not apply to:

          The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:

          (1) Agricultural produce;

          (2) Meat and fish products; and

          (3) Perishable foods.

          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?...” Full text: Lack of Oxford Comma Costs Maine Company Millions in Overtime Dispute Gen. 11:1–9
          The oxford (serial) comma clarifies. Thus, it is required in Standard Formal English. Mandated by the US in all legal documents.

          Comment


          • #6
            The employees and the employer agreed to wages, and it's unjust for the court to use a technicality, a vague technicality no less, to force an employer retroactively pay more than the agreed wages. If the company had understood the law previously as the court would rule, the terms of the employee contracts would have been different in the first place.

            The court's ruling shouldn't be retroactive, or at least not retroactive beyond the time of a single contract period.

            The final injustice is the lawyers who'll make millions off of this ruling for what should have been no more than a few weeks of work.

            Our legal system is corrupt.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Aussieguy View Post

              I'm pretty sure the authors of the bible were not talking about the vagaries of overtime law.
              Then you need a little more bible study. Study hard enough, and you will find what you want! I suggest that you sit at the feet of serpentdove for a while.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bob Carabbio View Post

                AH - that's the question!!! "The LAW" intends NOTHING other that what people "Skilled in the art", can persuade OTHER People "skilled in the art", that it "Intends".

                This is OBVIOUSLY the sort of thing the Lawyers PRAY FOR!!!!!!
                Laws clearly have an intent when they are written. This kind of thing is a lawyer's wet dream.
                "Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle with you"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Geumji View Post
                  The employees and the employer agreed to wages, and it's unjust for the court to use a technicality, a vague technicality no less, to force an employer retroactively pay more than the agreed wages. If the company had understood the law previously as the court would rule, the terms of the employee contracts would have been different in the first place.

                  The court's ruling shouldn't be retroactive, or at least not retroactive beyond the time of a single contract period.

                  The final injustice is the lawyers who'll make millions off of this ruling for what should have been no more than a few weeks of work.

                  Our legal system is corrupt.
                  contacts need to be within the law. This is not a "technicality"
                  "Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle with you"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by serpentdove View Post
                    Laws come from God not man (1 Ti 1:8-10, Ac 5:29).
                    Mar 7:
                    9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
                    10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
                    11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
                    12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

                    13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

                    In Human Society, The "Law" means what the Lawyers SAY IT MEANS - even when God's Laws are involved.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Aussieguy View Post

                      contacts need to be within the law. This is not a "technicality"
                      Why do you defend corruption? (That's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer.)

                      The law is is a technicality. But, you're attempting to quibble on an irreverent point (that's an embarrassing failure, to say something both wrong and irrelevant). I didn't dispute the judge's interpretation of this completely vague law). My comments concern restitution, damages. And, even if there's a law dictating how to calculate damages, then the law is corrupt and my point still stands.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bob Carabbio View Post
                        Mar 7:
                        9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
                        10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
                        11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
                        12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

                        13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

                        In Human Society, The "Law" means what the Lawyers SAY IT MEANS - even when God's Laws are involved.
                        You think you're getting by with sin. You're not (1 Pe 4:5).


                        For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
                        But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free [Mark 7:10–11].


                        Now He is giving them an example of what they were doing. Moses had said in the Law that they were to honor their father and their mother. But their tradition permitted them to escape the responsibility to their parents. If a man did not want to help his father and mother when they became old and needy, he would dedicate his possessions to the priest in the temple and it was called Corban which means “a gift.” At the man’s death, his estate went to the temple and he was relieved of his responsibility to his parents." "McGee, J. V. (1997). Thru the Bible commentary (electronic ed., Vol. 4, p. 191). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

                        Last edited by serpentdove; 06-03-17, 04:13 PM.
                        "Being a square keeps you from going around in circles." ~ J. Vernon McGee
                        Ro 3:23, 5:8, 6:23, 10:9, 10:13

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Bob Carabbio View Post

                          "The LAW" intends NOTHING other that what people "Skilled in the art", can persuade OTHER People "skilled in the art"...
                          Pilate found no fault in Jesus (Jn 19:4). They murdered him anyway. They hated him. They'll hate his followers, too (Jn 15:20).

                          "Being a square keeps you from going around in circles." ~ J. Vernon McGee
                          Ro 3:23, 5:8, 6:23, 10:9, 10:13

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Geumji View Post

                            Why do you defend corruption? (That's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer.)

                            The law is is a technicality. But, you're attempting to quibble on an irreverent point (that's an embarrassing failure, to say something both wrong and irrelevant). I didn't dispute the judge's interpretation of this completely vague law). My comments concern restitution, damages. And, even if there's a law dictating how to calculate damages, then the law is corrupt and my point still stands.
                            I don't defend corruption. There is a lot of corruption within the legal industry, but I'm not convinced this is corrupt. If the ruling was in favor of the corporation, you'd be defending it. I thought conservatives value the rule of law. That's a ruse. Most of you are corporate shills.
                            "Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle with you"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Aussieguy View Post

                              I don't defend corruption. There is a lot of corruption within the legal industry, but I'm not convinced this is corrupt. If the ruling was in favor of the corporation, you'd be defending it. I thought conservatives value the rule of law. That's a ruse. Most of you are corporate shills.
                              I'm sorry, this is probably over your head. I'm defending what the company and the employees both repeatedly agreed to.

                              Then someone found an ambiguously worded law and used it, with a favorable court ruling, to force money out of the company that neither the company nor employees agreed do. I've seen no law requiring the court to award back pay to previous years; and if there is, the law itself is corrupt. I have no love of companies, big or small. I'm just not an idiot or biased.

                              There are no damages to justify the court's award.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X