[BigEasyCard]

Details from NPR here:  http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...ourt-cases

[BigEasyCard]

Details from NPR here:  http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...ourt-cases

[CompSci87]

  8)

[CompSci87]

  8)

[martyup]

Ridiculous interpretation of this law, considering that the subject was working with perishable foods.  If the work was with perishable foods, it was exempt from overtime.  Another example of judicial overreach.

[martyup]

Ridiculous interpretation of this law, considering that the subject was working with perishable foods.  If the work was with perishable foods, it was exempt from overtime.  Another example of judicial overreach.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

This was a case made for this board.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

This was a case made for this board.

[2006alum]

Ridiculous interpretation of this law, considering that the subject was working with perishable foods.  If the work was with perishable foods, it was exempt from overtime.  Another example of judicial overreach.

Can you explain why the rules of grammar change depending on the subject matter of the sentence? Why does it matter that it was perishable foods as opposed to something else?

[2006alum]

Ridiculous interpretation of this law, considering that the subject was working with perishable foods.  If the work was with perishable foods, it was exempt from overtime.  Another example of judicial overreach.

Can you explain why the rules of grammar change depending on the subject matter of the sentence? Why does it matter that it was perishable foods as opposed to something else?

[BostonCard]

I believe the point was that a plain reading of the statute was that anyone who works with perishable foods is exempt from the overtime rules.

This seems to be a case of missing the forest for the trees.

BC

[BostonCard]

I believe the point was that a plain reading of the statute was that anyone who works with perishable foods is exempt from the overtime rules.

This seems to be a case of missing the forest for the trees.

BC

[martyup]

I believe the point was that a plain reading of the statute was that anyone who works with perishable foods is exempt from the overtime rules.

This seems to be a case of missing the forest for the trees.

BC

Exactly.  🤓

[martyup]

I believe the point was that a plain reading of the statute was that anyone who works with perishable foods is exempt from the overtime rules.

This seems to be a case of missing the forest for the trees.

BC

Exactly.  🤓

[2006alum]

Funny, my understanding is that judicial overreach occurs when a judge avoids the plain text of the statute and instead decrees for himself what he thinks the statute is "really about." having read this case closely, distribution does seem sufficiently different from preparation that the last word in the list doesn't seem like the others. I can see arguments in the other direction, but I don't see this as a particularly clear case of judicial overreach. But what do I know?

[2006alum]

Funny, my understanding is that judicial overreach occurs when a judge avoids the plain text of the statute and instead decrees for himself what he thinks the statute is "really about." having read this case closely, distribution does seem sufficiently different from preparation that the last word in the list doesn't seem like the others. I can see arguments in the other direction, but I don't see this as a particularly clear case of judicial overreach. But what do I know?

[Mick]

Funny, my understanding is that judicial overreach occurs when a judge avoids the plain text of the statute and instead decrees for himself what he thinks the statute is "really about." having read this case closely, distribution does seem sufficiently different from preparation that the last word in the list doesn't seem like the others. I can see arguments in the other direction, but I don't see this as a particularly clear case of judicial overreach. But what do I know?

Reminds me of playing golf with guys who like to play fast and loose with the rules.  My dad was a stickler, and we were playing with two fellas who pretended they played by the rules, but really didn't.  I joked that they played by "a modified form of winter rules," and Dad says, (homonym joke to follow) "No, they play by summer rules.  Summer (some are) rules, and some aren't."

[Mick]

Funny, my understanding is that judicial overreach occurs when a judge avoids the plain text of the statute and instead decrees for himself what he thinks the statute is "really about." having read this case closely, distribution does seem sufficiently different from preparation that the last word in the list doesn't seem like the others. I can see arguments in the other direction, but I don't see this as a particularly clear case of judicial overreach. But what do I know?

Reminds me of playing golf with guys who like to play fast and loose with the rules.  My dad was a stickler, and we were playing with two fellas who pretended they played by the rules, but really didn't.  I joked that they played by "a modified form of winter rules," and Dad says, (homonym joke to follow) "No, they play by summer rules.  Summer (some are) rules, and some aren't."

[Card Fan in OR]

I am with 2006alum on this. "Judicial overreach" to me would be intending to discern what the authors "really meant," and then ruling that way. I agree with the decision, at least--as the judge referenced-- based on the degree of ambiguity or uncertainty. If you really want something to be part of a statute, write it clearly and concisely. A second sentence or two could have made the intent perfectly clear.

[Card Fan in OR]

I am with 2006alum on this. "Judicial overreach" to me would be intending to discern what the authors "really meant," and then ruling that way. I agree with the decision, at least--as the judge referenced-- based on the degree of ambiguity or uncertainty. If you really want something to be part of a statute, write it clearly and concisely. A second sentence or two could have made the intent perfectly clear.

[martyup]

Perhaps "overreach" was the wrong word.  But the intent of the statute is clear.  The first rule on resolving ambiguity is to see if the intent of the language can be clearly ascertained.  This court seems to have looked for and found, arguably, an ambiguity and used that to justify a ruling that favored the party they favored.  Perhaps a better word is judicial activism.

[martyup]

Perhaps "overreach" was the wrong word.  But the intent of the statute is clear.  The first rule on resolving ambiguity is to see if the intent of the language can be clearly ascertained.  This court seems to have looked for and found, arguably, an ambiguity and used that to justify a ruling that favored the party they favored.  Perhaps a better word is judicial activism.

[2006alum]

Perhaps "overreach" was the wrong word.  But the intent of the statute is clear.  The first rule on resolving ambiguity is to see if the intent of the language can be clearly ascertained.

I guess I don't think the statute was all that clear. Here's the relevant text:
The following activities are not subject to overtime protections:
"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."

All but distribution are proprietary activities. So if you distribute non-perishable foods, you are subject to overtime laws, but as soon as you add a single perishable product, now all of your trucking is no longer subject to overtime? If you interpret as Barron did, you separate those involved in production of the good from those who merely distribute it. Seems reasonable. Not the only possible interpretation, but the competing one has problems too - one of which, coming full circle, is grammar. And if the default is that overtime applies unless there's a clear exception, then perhaps you should settle ambiguity in favor of overtime applying. Again, not an easy case, but not a case of overreach IMHO.

[2006alum]

Perhaps "overreach" was the wrong word.  But the intent of the statute is clear.  The first rule on resolving ambiguity is to see if the intent of the language can be clearly ascertained.

I guess I don't think the statute was all that clear. Here's the relevant text:
The following activities are not subject to overtime protections:
"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."

All but distribution are proprietary activities. So if you distribute non-perishable foods, you are subject to overtime laws, but as soon as you add a single perishable product, now all of your trucking is no longer subject to overtime? If you interpret as Barron did, you separate those involved in production of the good from those who merely distribute it. Seems reasonable. Not the only possible interpretation, but the competing one has problems too - one of which, coming full circle, is grammar. And if the default is that overtime applies unless there's a clear exception, then perhaps you should settle ambiguity in favor of overtime applying. Again, not an easy case, but not a case of overreach IMHO.

[CornFed]

This would not be the best case to use as an example of overreach or activism on the part of the judiciary.  There is usually a record of legislative history and intent that can be referenced that would sometimes clear up an issue like this. 

I think it is a fabulous example of why grammar can be so important and why the grammar police play such a pivotal and under-appreciated role in the smooth functioning of our society.  As we have become increasingly prone to ridiculing or dismissing the grammar police, more and more incidents of this nature are taking place.  This puts us on a collision course with disaster.

[CornFed]

This would not be the best case to use as an example of overreach or activism on the part of the judiciary.  There is usually a record of legislative history and intent that can be referenced that would sometimes clear up an issue like this. 

I think it is a fabulous example of why grammar can be so important and why the grammar police play such a pivotal and under-appreciated role in the smooth functioning of our society.  As we have become increasingly prone to ridiculing or dismissing the grammar police, more and more incidents of this nature are taking place.  This puts us on a collision course with disaster.

[BostonCard]

On the other hand, this sort of excessive legalize is exactly how we got the statute we did.  Let's say they want to exempt people who work with perishable goods from overtime rules (I don't actually know what they intended, but that seems a reasonable guess).  If they left it like that without enumerating, a lawyer could argue the statute was unreasonably vague.  So, the legislature is forced to come up with an enumerated  list.  But of course if you do that, inevitably something would come outside the list that's not covered by the letter of the law.

To be honest, I don't see why you would exempt a particular category of worker from overtime pay, other than the fact that the businesses are likely to pay a lot of overtime so that the perishable food is delivered on time.  It, you know, coat of doing business.  My opinions aside, though, it seems pretty reasonable to infer that the legislature didn't want people working with perishables to be covered by the rule, and the list is legalise, which is why I would have made a crappy lawyer.

BC

[BostonCard]

On the other hand, this sort of excessive legalize is exactly how we got the statute we did.  Let's say they want to exempt people who work with perishable goods from overtime rules (I don't actually know what they intended, but that seems a reasonable guess).  If they left it like that without enumerating, a lawyer could argue the statute was unreasonably vague.  So, the legislature is forced to come up with an enumerated  list.  But of course if you do that, inevitably something would come outside the list that's not covered by the letter of the law.

To be honest, I don't see why you would exempt a particular category of worker from overtime pay, other than the fact that the businesses are likely to pay a lot of overtime so that the perishable food is delivered on time.  It, you know, coat of doing business.  My opinions aside, though, it seems pretty reasonable to infer that the legislature didn't want people working with perishables to be covered by the rule, and the list is legalise, which is why I would have made a crappy lawyer.

BC

[martyup]

So when your fresh salmon smells funky, blame the lawyers.  8)

[martyup]

So when your fresh salmon smells funky, blame the lawyers.  8)

[martyup]

I had ancestors that worked on Cannery Row in Monterrey.  When the sardines were running and the fishing boats were queued up to offload, they worked day and night to get it all processed.  Overtime laws would have killed that industry quicker than over fishing.

[martyup]

I had ancestors that worked on Cannery Row in Monterrey.  When the sardines were running and the fishing boats were queued up to offload, they worked day and night to get it all processed.  Overtime laws would have killed that industry quicker than over fishing.

[pefloresjr]

I have relatives (they're still alive so not ancestor status yet) who worked in the canneries too and overtime wouldn't have been a problem.  There were always plenty of workers lined up hoping for work but the canneries didn't want to run three shifts per day.  If they had to pay overtime, they would have hired more workers and still been able to process 24 hours a day. 

Even with overtime rules now and some limits on over fishing of forage fish, the industry it still causing forage fish populations to collapse far beyond their normal cycles.  As a result, the sardine fishery is again shut down.  Seal lions and pelicans are starving.  Paying workers overtime has nothing to do with it. 

http://e360.yale.edu/features/a_little_f...west_coast

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

I have relatives (they're still alive so not ancestor status yet) who worked in the canneries too and overtime wouldn't have been a problem.  There were always plenty of workers lined up hoping for work but the canneries didn't want to run three shifts per day.  If they had to pay overtime, they would have hired more workers and still been able to process 24 hours a day. 

Even with overtime rules now and some limits on over fishing of forage fish, the industry it still causing forage fish populations to collapse far beyond their normal cycles.  As a result, the sardine fishery is again shut down.  Seal lions and pelicans are starving.  Paying workers overtime has nothing to do with it. 

http://e360.yale.edu/features/a_little_f...west_coast

Cheers,
Pete F.

[M T]

Even with overtime rules now and some limits on over fishing of forage fish, the industry it still causing forage fish populations to collapse far beyond their normal cycles.  As a result, the sardine fishery is again shut down.  Seal lions and pelicans are starving.  Paying workers overtime has nothing to do with it. 

I don't know where "starving" comes from.  Governmental agencies indicate that their populations are at "carrying capacity" and "large".

(Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife)

The U.S. population of California sea lions is currently estimated at up to 300,000 animals, all on the Pacific coast. From an estimated population of about 10,000 animals in the 1950s, U.S. California sea lion numbers have grown rapidly since the 1970s and the species is now at “carrying capacity”—near the highest level the environment can sustain—according to wildlife biologists.

(US Fish & Wildlife Service, 2006)

The [California] brown pelican is well-distributed throughout its known historical range.  Even the most conservative, available estimates indicate that its global population size is large, consisting of hundreds of thousands of individuals.  Local or regional populations may fluctuate in response to such factors as severe storms and to variable weather patterns such as El Niño that affect food supply.

[M T]

Even with overtime rules now and some limits on over fishing of forage fish, the industry it still causing forage fish populations to collapse far beyond their normal cycles.  As a result, the sardine fishery is again shut down.  Seal lions and pelicans are starving.  Paying workers overtime has nothing to do with it. 

I don't know where "starving" comes from.  Governmental agencies indicate that their populations are at "carrying capacity" and "large".

(Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife)

The U.S. population of California sea lions is currently estimated at up to 300,000 animals, all on the Pacific coast. From an estimated population of about 10,000 animals in the 1950s, U.S. California sea lion numbers have grown rapidly since the 1970s and the species is now at “carrying capacity”—near the highest level the environment can sustain—according to wildlife biologists.

(US Fish & Wildlife Service, 2006)

The [California] brown pelican is well-distributed throughout its known historical range.  Even the most conservative, available estimates indicate that its global population size is large, consisting of hundreds of thousands of individuals.  Local or regional populations may fluctuate in response to such factors as severe storms and to variable weather patterns such as El Niño that affect food supply.

[pefloresjr]

[quote author=pefloresjr link=topic=16690.msg190162#msg190162 date=1489863091]
Even with overtime rules now and some limits on over fishing of forage fish, the industry it still causing forage fish populations to collapse far beyond their normal cycles.  As a result, the sardine fishery is again shut down.  Seal lions and pelicans are starving.  Paying workers overtime has nothing to do with it. 

I don't know where "starving" comes from.  Governmental agencies indicate that their populations are at "carrying capacity" and "large".

(Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife)

The U.S. population of California sea lions is currently estimated at up to 300,000 animals, all on the Pacific coast. From an estimated population of about 10,000 animals in the 1950s, U.S. California sea lion numbers have grown rapidly since the 1970s and the species is now at “carrying capacity”—near the highest level the environment can sustain—according to wildlife biologists.

(US Fish & Wildlife Service, 2006)

The [California] brown pelican is well-distributed throughout its known historical range.  Even the most conservative, available estimates indicate that its global population size is large, consisting of hundreds of thousands of individuals.  Local or regional populations may fluctuate in response to such factors as severe storms and to variable weather patterns such as El Niño that affect food supply.

[/quote]

Those all speak about the long-term increased numbers, which are largely due to conservation efforts.  However they don't analyze the shorter term decreases in sardines and anchovies nor do they explain the recent 3-4 years of Unusual Mortality Events as they are known in wildlife study. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries (Part of the Commerce Dept.):

"The study by NOAA Fisheries scientists is the first to analyze changes in fish populations sea lions prey on for clues as to what is causing the record strandings. Scientists examined changes in the abundance of four of the main sea lion prey species: sardine, anchovy, rockfish and market squid over the 2004-2014 time period. They found found that high-calorie sardines and anchovies, both rich in fat that is vital to the growth of young sea lions, have declined since the mid-2000s in the areas around the Channel Islands where the females forage. That has forced the female sea lions to prey instead on market squid and rockfish, which contain far less fat and fewer calories."

“When you have hundreds of thousands of animals to feed and you have a fluctuating prey base that has trended downward, you are going to have starving animals,” said Sam McClatchie of NOAA Fisheries’ Southwest Fisheries Science Center in La Jolla, Calif., and lead author of the new research. “Sardines and anchovies have both trended downward, and that compounds the problem for the sea lions.”

https://swfsc.noaa.gov/news.aspx?ParentM...9&id=21588

That study only covered through 2014.  2015 and 2016 saw even greater decreases in anchovies (down to 10% of average) causing the fishery to be shut down to try to save it.  The Marine Mammal Center has reported substantial increases in the number of starving animals needing treatment.

http://www.marinemammalcenter.org/about-...gling.html

I don't have time to look for the articles, but I read that Brown Pelicans rely on the same food sources and are having recent issues with successful breeding also based on a lack of food.

That is where I saw the reference to starving animals. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

[quote author=pefloresjr link=topic=16690.msg190162#msg190162 date=1489863091]
Even with overtime rules now and some limits on over fishing of forage fish, the industry it still causing forage fish populations to collapse far beyond their normal cycles.  As a result, the sardine fishery is again shut down.  Seal lions and pelicans are starving.  Paying workers overtime has nothing to do with it. 

I don't know where "starving" comes from.  Governmental agencies indicate that their populations are at "carrying capacity" and "large".

(Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife)

The U.S. population of California sea lions is currently estimated at up to 300,000 animals, all on the Pacific coast. From an estimated population of about 10,000 animals in the 1950s, U.S. California sea lion numbers have grown rapidly since the 1970s and the species is now at “carrying capacity”—near the highest level the environment can sustain—according to wildlife biologists.

(US Fish & Wildlife Service, 2006)

The [California] brown pelican is well-distributed throughout its known historical range.  Even the most conservative, available estimates indicate that its global population size is large, consisting of hundreds of thousands of individuals.  Local or regional populations may fluctuate in response to such factors as severe storms and to variable weather patterns such as El Niño that affect food supply.

[/quote]

Those all speak about the long-term increased numbers, which are largely due to conservation efforts.  However they don't analyze the shorter term decreases in sardines and anchovies nor do they explain the recent 3-4 years of Unusual Mortality Events as they are known in wildlife study. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries (Part of the Commerce Dept.):

"The study by NOAA Fisheries scientists is the first to analyze changes in fish populations sea lions prey on for clues as to what is causing the record strandings. Scientists examined changes in the abundance of four of the main sea lion prey species: sardine, anchovy, rockfish and market squid over the 2004-2014 time period. They found found that high-calorie sardines and anchovies, both rich in fat that is vital to the growth of young sea lions, have declined since the mid-2000s in the areas around the Channel Islands where the females forage. That has forced the female sea lions to prey instead on market squid and rockfish, which contain far less fat and fewer calories."

“When you have hundreds of thousands of animals to feed and you have a fluctuating prey base that has trended downward, you are going to have starving animals,” said Sam McClatchie of NOAA Fisheries’ Southwest Fisheries Science Center in La Jolla, Calif., and lead author of the new research. “Sardines and anchovies have both trended downward, and that compounds the problem for the sea lions.”

https://swfsc.noaa.gov/news.aspx?ParentM...9&id=21588

That study only covered through 2014.  2015 and 2016 saw even greater decreases in anchovies (down to 10% of average) causing the fishery to be shut down to try to save it.  The Marine Mammal Center has reported substantial increases in the number of starving animals needing treatment.

http://www.marinemammalcenter.org/about-...gling.html

I don't have time to look for the articles, but I read that Brown Pelicans rely on the same food sources and are having recent issues with successful breeding also based on a lack of food.

That is where I saw the reference to starving animals. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[Card Fan in OR]

OT.
Not that I know what it is any longer. I thought it was about the necessity of the Oxford comma. But since we seem to have now turned to fisheries and pelicans, let me put a plug in for a movie I really enjoyed: The Pelican Brief...taut legal thriller about, well, you know, assassination, oil, and endangered brown pelicans. Based on a John Grisham book, but most importantly, starring Denzel Washington. What else do you need to know? Hey, I don't even mind watching Jula Roberts, but with Denzel starring and in his prime, that's already at least four stars for me.

Really loved Crimson Tide, too. I mean, Denzel Wahington and Gene Hackman facing off for the entire movie...OK, now that I have publicly owned my low-brow movie tastes, let's resume the off-topic topic at hand--or go back to debating that troublesome comma.

[Card Fan in OR]

OT.
Not that I know what it is any longer. I thought it was about the necessity of the Oxford comma. But since we seem to have now turned to fisheries and pelicans, let me put a plug in for a movie I really enjoyed: The Pelican Brief...taut legal thriller about, well, you know, assassination, oil, and endangered brown pelicans. Based on a John Grisham book, but most importantly, starring Denzel Washington. What else do you need to know? Hey, I don't even mind watching Jula Roberts, but with Denzel starring and in his prime, that's already at least four stars for me.

Really loved Crimson Tide, too. I mean, Denzel Wahington and Gene Hackman facing off for the entire movie...OK, now that I have publicly owned my low-brow movie tastes, let's resume the off-topic topic at hand--or go back to debating that troublesome comma.