[jacketree]

I'll take a stab, fresh from a major CEQA document, in which commas matter.  Clipped from the NPR article:

....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."

Basically an equation. Breaking it down into component parts gives the following statements (yea for control c and control v!):

The canning for shipment or distribution of agricultural produce is not subject to overtime protections.
The canning for shipment or distribution of meat and fish products is not subject to overtime protections.
The canning for shipment or distribution of perishable foods is not subject to overtime protections.
The processing for shipment or distribution of agricultural produce is not subject to overtime protections.
The processing for shipment or distribution of meat and fish products is not subject to overtime protections.
.
.
.
.


OK, we get the point.

The distribution of the listed food stuffs, as an activity unto itself, is not the subject of this state law. I can see how this is interpreted as vague, but nothing in the Maine State Law suggests drivers should get overtime protection; nor is there anything referenced that suggests they should not. A comma between "shipment" and "or distribution" would pull distribution out as a subject and then the following would be true:

The distribution of agricultural produce is not subject to overtime protections.
The distribution of meat and fish products is not subject to overtime protections.
The distribution of perishable foods is not subject to overtime protections.

Why can't lawyers just say what they mean in plain language?  We wouldn't need so many lawyers.  Oh....answered my own question.  :P

[jacketree]

I'll take a stab, fresh from a major CEQA document, in which commas matter.  Clipped from the NPR article:

....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."

Basically an equation. Breaking it down into component parts gives the following statements (yea for control c and control v!):

The canning for shipment or distribution of agricultural produce is not subject to overtime protections.
The canning for shipment or distribution of meat and fish products is not subject to overtime protections.
The canning for shipment or distribution of perishable foods is not subject to overtime protections.
The processing for shipment or distribution of agricultural produce is not subject to overtime protections.
The processing for shipment or distribution of meat and fish products is not subject to overtime protections.
.
.
.
.


OK, we get the point.

The distribution of the listed food stuffs, as an activity unto itself, is not the subject of this state law. I can see how this is interpreted as vague, but nothing in the Maine State Law suggests drivers should get overtime protection; nor is there anything referenced that suggests they should not. A comma between "shipment" and "or distribution" would pull distribution out as a subject and then the following would be true:

The distribution of agricultural produce is not subject to overtime protections.
The distribution of meat and fish products is not subject to overtime protections.
The distribution of perishable foods is not subject to overtime protections.

Why can't lawyers just say what they mean in plain language?  We wouldn't need so many lawyers.  Oh....answered my own question.  :P

[2006alum]

Why can't lawyers just say what they mean in plain language?  We wouldn't need so many lawyers.  Oh....answered my own question.  :P

Shouldn't we be blaming the lawmakers instead of the lawyers? The state legislature passed this law, and there's no requirement that state lawmakers possess a JD. There are plenty of reasons to think that lawyers will try to find ambiguity in poorly drafted legislation, but no reason to think lawyers, in the first place, did the drafting...

[2006alum]

Why can't lawyers just say what they mean in plain language?  We wouldn't need so many lawyers.  Oh....answered my own question.  :P

Shouldn't we be blaming the lawmakers instead of the lawyers? The state legislature passed this law, and there's no requirement that state lawmakers possess a JD. There are plenty of reasons to think that lawyers will try to find ambiguity in poorly drafted legislation, but no reason to think lawyers, in the first place, did the drafting...

[oldalum]

Why can't lawyers just say what they mean in plain language?  We wouldn't need so many lawyers.  Oh....answered my own question.  :P

When I took the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (legal ethics, required for entry into the bar), someone told me a foolproof method for determining the correct answer to almost every question, a method that did not require knowing anything about legal ethics: the correct answer is the one that maximizes the income of the legal professional as a whole. And it worked!

(example: Is it ethical to contact your opposing counsel's client directly? No, you must send all communications through opposing counsel--which, btw, maximizes the net income of the legal profession as a whole.) 

[oldalum]

Why can't lawyers just say what they mean in plain language?  We wouldn't need so many lawyers.  Oh....answered my own question.  :P

When I took the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (legal ethics, required for entry into the bar), someone told me a foolproof method for determining the correct answer to almost every question, a method that did not require knowing anything about legal ethics: the correct answer is the one that maximizes the income of the legal professional as a whole. And it worked!

(example: Is it ethical to contact your opposing counsel's client directly? No, you must send all communications through opposing counsel--which, btw, maximizes the net income of the legal profession as a whole.) 

[CTcard]

I must be trying to avoid productive work, as this thing got me thinking (too much about not-useful things).

If you care, the actual statute is subsection 3 at this link.
http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26...ec664.html

The overtime provision of this section does not apply to:
A. Automobile mechanics, automobile parts clerks, automobile service writers and automobile salespersons as defined in section 663. 
...
F. 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.

Given that there is only a single conjunction, isn't the grammatical meaning of this phrase well defined?


If "or distribution" was meant to describe another kind of packing then this would be a list without any conjunction to separate the last item of the list. For the most part we don't write that way.
Usually I would not write,

This morning I ate an apple, a pear, a biscuit.

but rather,

This morning I ate an apple, a pear, and a biscuit.

Plus you can tell from example A above that they weren't choosing to simply drop conjunctions before the final item as a kind of shorthand.

I thought that the possible source of confusion in not using the Oxford comma was when multiple conjunctions appear, typically because one of the items in the list itself has a conjunction; like "bacon and eggs" as a single breakfast choice, or what could have been "packing for shipment or distribution" if there were another item in the list separated with a conjunction.

Similarly, if jacketree's version of the meaning were correct, wouldn't there need to be an "and" before the word packing?


Of course if all of us can spend this much time arguing about the meaning, there is clearly ambiguity in effect even if not within the strict rules of grammar.

[CTcard]

I must be trying to avoid productive work, as this thing got me thinking (too much about not-useful things).

If you care, the actual statute is subsection 3 at this link.
http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26...ec664.html

The overtime provision of this section does not apply to:
A. Automobile mechanics, automobile parts clerks, automobile service writers and automobile salespersons as defined in section 663. 
...
F. 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.

Given that there is only a single conjunction, isn't the grammatical meaning of this phrase well defined?


If "or distribution" was meant to describe another kind of packing then this would be a list without any conjunction to separate the last item of the list. For the most part we don't write that way.
Usually I would not write,

This morning I ate an apple, a pear, a biscuit.

but rather,

This morning I ate an apple, a pear, and a biscuit.

Plus you can tell from example A above that they weren't choosing to simply drop conjunctions before the final item as a kind of shorthand.

I thought that the possible source of confusion in not using the Oxford comma was when multiple conjunctions appear, typically because one of the items in the list itself has a conjunction; like "bacon and eggs" as a single breakfast choice, or what could have been "packing for shipment or distribution" if there were another item in the list separated with a conjunction.

Similarly, if jacketree's version of the meaning were correct, wouldn't there need to be an "and" before the word packing?


Of course if all of us can spend this much time arguing about the meaning, there is clearly ambiguity in effect even if not within the strict rules of grammar.

[BostonCard]

So, here is a question.  If the statute had been written as:

"The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distributing of:
(1) Agricultural produce;
(2) Meat and fish products; and
(3) Perishable foods."

would an Oxford comma have been needed?

Also, what gives with "marketing"?  Who cares about overtime for people responsible for marketing agricultural produce.

BC

[BostonCard]

So, here is a question.  If the statute had been written as:

"The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distributing of:
(1) Agricultural produce;
(2) Meat and fish products; and
(3) Perishable foods."

would an Oxford comma have been needed?

Also, what gives with "marketing"?  Who cares about overtime for people responsible for marketing agricultural produce.

BC

[jacketree]

Shouldn't we be blaming the lawmakers instead of the lawyers? The state legislature passed this law, and there's no requirement that state lawmakers possess a JD. There are plenty of reasons to think that lawyers will try to find ambiguity in poorly drafted legislation, but no reason to think lawyers, in the first place, did the drafting...

I'd bet a box of donuts that many if not most of the lawmakers were once lawyers, and regardless of the predominant backgrounds of Maine's legislators; lawyers did, in the first place, do the drafting; or at least the editing.

Rule 6:  Lawyers should be blamed for everything. Even if they aren't at fault.

(There is no Rule Number 6!!)

[jacketree]

Shouldn't we be blaming the lawmakers instead of the lawyers? The state legislature passed this law, and there's no requirement that state lawmakers possess a JD. There are plenty of reasons to think that lawyers will try to find ambiguity in poorly drafted legislation, but no reason to think lawyers, in the first place, did the drafting...

I'd bet a box of donuts that many if not most of the lawmakers were once lawyers, and regardless of the predominant backgrounds of Maine's legislators; lawyers did, in the first place, do the drafting; or at least the editing.

Rule 6:  Lawyers should be blamed for everything. Even if they aren't at fault.

(There is no Rule Number 6!!)

[M T]

The overtime provision of this section does not apply to:
A. Automobile mechanics, automobile parts clerks, automobile service writers and automobile salespersons as defined in section 663. 
...
F. 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.

Given that there is only a single conjunction, isn't the grammatical meaning of this phrase well defined?

If "or distribution" was meant to describe another kind of packing then this would be a list without any conjunction to separate the last item of the list.

While I generally agree with CTCard's logic, why in the world does clause A use "and", while clause F use "or" ???  To me, that undercuts CTCard's argument and makes the ruling of ambiguity more palatable.  ("...does not apply to ... A, B and C  ... D, E, or F")

[M T]

The overtime provision of this section does not apply to:
A. Automobile mechanics, automobile parts clerks, automobile service writers and automobile salespersons as defined in section 663. 
...
F. 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.

Given that there is only a single conjunction, isn't the grammatical meaning of this phrase well defined?

If "or distribution" was meant to describe another kind of packing then this would be a list without any conjunction to separate the last item of the list.

While I generally agree with CTCard's logic, why in the world does clause A use "and", while clause F use "or" ???  To me, that undercuts CTCard's argument and makes the ruling of ambiguity more palatable.  ("...does not apply to ... A, B and C  ... D, E, or F")

[BostonCard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=16690.msg190287#msg190287 date=1490047550]

The overtime provision of this section does not apply to:
A. Automobile mechanics, automobile parts clerks, automobile service writers and automobile salespersons as defined in section 663. 
...
F. 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.

Given that there is only a single conjunction, isn't the grammatical meaning of this phrase well defined?

If "or distribution" was meant to describe another kind of packing then this would be a list without any conjunction to separate the last item of the list.

While I generally agree with CTCard's logic, why in the world does clause A use "and", while clause F use "or" ???  To me, that undercuts CTCard's argument and makes the ruling of ambiguity more palatable.  ("...does not apply to ... A, B and C  ... D, E, or F")
[/quote]

Because in clause A, the overtime provision should not apply to all of the automobile related workers.  In clause F, there is an "and", which refers to agricultural produce, meant and fish products and perishable products.  Had the "or" been an "and" it could be read to mean only people who perform all of the above tasks (canning, processing, preserving, etc.) should have the overtime provision not apply.

The whole thing is a grammatical disaster, and the lack of an Oxford comma is but one of the problems.  There is complete lack of parallelism in the clauses, since sub-clause A refers to occupations, whereas subclause F refers to activities.  Plus, while "canning", "processing" etc. are all gerunds, "shipment" and "distribution" are both regular nouns.  Also, what is the difference between "packing for shipment" and "packing for distribution"; it would make no sense to include both of them, unless you actually meant "packing for shipment" and "distribution" to be different activities.

Again, I go back to the forrest view of the clause.  It is clear that A) is meant to cover overtime for people who work in various aspects of automobile dealerships, while part F) is meant to cover overtime for people who work with perishable goods.  For example, I agree with this take from the New Yorker...

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture...rial-comma

Lest we lose perspective, this law on the books of the State of Maine applies to people who work with perishable foods, and the point is that pokey employees should not be rewarded for taking their sweet time getting the goods to market.

Then again, in the opinion, the US appeals judge David Barron noted the following:

since Maine’s overtime laws are meant to have “remedial purpose,” that is, to help the state’s workers, they should be read liberally.

https://qz.com/932004/the-oxford-comma-a...k-drivers/

Fair enough

[BostonCard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=16690.msg190287#msg190287 date=1490047550]

The overtime provision of this section does not apply to:
A. Automobile mechanics, automobile parts clerks, automobile service writers and automobile salespersons as defined in section 663. 
...
F. 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.

Given that there is only a single conjunction, isn't the grammatical meaning of this phrase well defined?

If "or distribution" was meant to describe another kind of packing then this would be a list without any conjunction to separate the last item of the list.

While I generally agree with CTCard's logic, why in the world does clause A use "and", while clause F use "or" ???  To me, that undercuts CTCard's argument and makes the ruling of ambiguity more palatable.  ("...does not apply to ... A, B and C  ... D, E, or F")
[/quote]

Because in clause A, the overtime provision should not apply to all of the automobile related workers.  In clause F, there is an "and", which refers to agricultural produce, meant and fish products and perishable products.  Had the "or" been an "and" it could be read to mean only people who perform all of the above tasks (canning, processing, preserving, etc.) should have the overtime provision not apply.

The whole thing is a grammatical disaster, and the lack of an Oxford comma is but one of the problems.  There is complete lack of parallelism in the clauses, since sub-clause A refers to occupations, whereas subclause F refers to activities.  Plus, while "canning", "processing" etc. are all gerunds, "shipment" and "distribution" are both regular nouns.  Also, what is the difference between "packing for shipment" and "packing for distribution"; it would make no sense to include both of them, unless you actually meant "packing for shipment" and "distribution" to be different activities.

Again, I go back to the forrest view of the clause.  It is clear that A) is meant to cover overtime for people who work in various aspects of automobile dealerships, while part F) is meant to cover overtime for people who work with perishable goods.  For example, I agree with this take from the New Yorker...

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture...rial-comma

Lest we lose perspective, this law on the books of the State of Maine applies to people who work with perishable foods, and the point is that pokey employees should not be rewarded for taking their sweet time getting the goods to market.

Then again, in the opinion, the US appeals judge David Barron noted the following:

since Maine’s overtime laws are meant to have “remedial purpose,” that is, to help the state’s workers, they should be read liberally.

https://qz.com/932004/the-oxford-comma-a...k-drivers/

Fair enough

[martyup]

Why does the Maine government need to mess with the free market?  What's wrong with, "Hey, if you want to drive our fish to market you may be asked to work some long hours when we get busy and we don't pay an overtime rate."  The answer could be, "Sure, I understand," or "No thanks, I'm going to work for the other guy that does pay overtime."

The problem in many of these cases is that the workers are fine with their compensation until they get canned (pun intended).  Then they lawyer up and seek overtime pay going back 10 years.

[martyup]

Why does the Maine government need to mess with the free market?  What's wrong with, "Hey, if you want to drive our fish to market you may be asked to work some long hours when we get busy and we don't pay an overtime rate."  The answer could be, "Sure, I understand," or "No thanks, I'm going to work for the other guy that does pay overtime."

The problem in many of these cases is that the workers are fine with their compensation until they get canned (pun intended).  Then they lawyer up and seek overtime pay going back 10 years.

[pefloresjr]

Why does the Maine government need to mess with the free market?  What's wrong with, "Hey, if you want to drive our fish to market you may be asked to work some long hours when we get busy and we don't pay an overtime rate."  The answer could be, "Sure, I understand," or "No thanks, I'm going to work for the other guy that does pay overtime."

The problem in many of these cases is that the workers are fine with their compensation until they get canned (pun intended).  Then they lawyer up and seek overtime pay going back 10 years.

Seriously?  The Fair Labor Standards Act was passed nearly 80 years ago in 1938 to help eliminate manufacturing and industrial sweatshops where poverty wage employees had to work 10-16 hours per day just to try to survive.  Do we really want to turn back the clock to those times by relying on the free market to set things right?  Those workers in the 30s, just like workers today, weren't really fine with the way things were, they had no choice if they wanted to have a job at all.  I absolutely agree that labor protections can sometimes be abused and the law needs to account for that, but overtime pay, sick leave, paid vacation that can't be taken away when you leave a job, and parental leave that allows workers to keep their jobs when they have children are good improvements that are central to the well being of all of our citizens, even lowly wage earners.  I say this as a person who worked for many years on the employer side in labor law. 

The overtime exemptions in Maine are, like those in many states, based on historical labor practices in industries that often operate on pretty small profit margins and rely on low wage workers.  They're not really intended to prevent workers from being lazy and slowing down to get overtime pay.  Employers are still allowed to have and enforce performance standards.  I think it isn't likely that the Maine law is truly about the perishable nature of the food because marketing is included and other exemptions, such as those for auto mechanics and car salespeople, are clearly based on historical practice or on industry influence with the legislature.

I guess I just don't see the appeal of going back to labor practices from a hundred years ago even if current labor protections can sometimes be abused. 

Also, to wrap back around completely, I am always in support of the Oxford comma.  A little extra clarity never hurt anyone. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

Why does the Maine government need to mess with the free market?  What's wrong with, "Hey, if you want to drive our fish to market you may be asked to work some long hours when we get busy and we don't pay an overtime rate."  The answer could be, "Sure, I understand," or "No thanks, I'm going to work for the other guy that does pay overtime."

The problem in many of these cases is that the workers are fine with their compensation until they get canned (pun intended).  Then they lawyer up and seek overtime pay going back 10 years.

Seriously?  The Fair Labor Standards Act was passed nearly 80 years ago in 1938 to help eliminate manufacturing and industrial sweatshops where poverty wage employees had to work 10-16 hours per day just to try to survive.  Do we really want to turn back the clock to those times by relying on the free market to set things right?  Those workers in the 30s, just like workers today, weren't really fine with the way things were, they had no choice if they wanted to have a job at all.  I absolutely agree that labor protections can sometimes be abused and the law needs to account for that, but overtime pay, sick leave, paid vacation that can't be taken away when you leave a job, and parental leave that allows workers to keep their jobs when they have children are good improvements that are central to the well being of all of our citizens, even lowly wage earners.  I say this as a person who worked for many years on the employer side in labor law. 

The overtime exemptions in Maine are, like those in many states, based on historical labor practices in industries that often operate on pretty small profit margins and rely on low wage workers.  They're not really intended to prevent workers from being lazy and slowing down to get overtime pay.  Employers are still allowed to have and enforce performance standards.  I think it isn't likely that the Maine law is truly about the perishable nature of the food because marketing is included and other exemptions, such as those for auto mechanics and car salespeople, are clearly based on historical practice or on industry influence with the legislature.

I guess I just don't see the appeal of going back to labor practices from a hundred years ago even if current labor protections can sometimes be abused. 

Also, to wrap back around completely, I am always in support of the Oxford comma.  A little extra clarity never hurt anyone. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[CornFed]

I think your point is fair Pete F. but I didn't take Martyup's post to be expressing a longing to return to the Great Depression.  The period on which you chose to focus (1930) would not be construed as one which best exemplified free market principles.  Between the distortions in international trade, monetary incompetence and heavy handed centralized government manipulations, I do not think that those sweat shops you mentioned were reflections of a free market.

With regard to BC's inquiry:

"Also, what gives with "marketing"?  Who cares about overtime for people responsible for marketing agricultural produce?"

I think the answer would be "people responsible for marketing agricultural produce".

[CornFed]

I think your point is fair Pete F. but I didn't take Martyup's post to be expressing a longing to return to the Great Depression.  The period on which you chose to focus (1930) would not be construed as one which best exemplified free market principles.  Between the distortions in international trade, monetary incompetence and heavy handed centralized government manipulations, I do not think that those sweat shops you mentioned were reflections of a free market.

With regard to BC's inquiry:

"Also, what gives with "marketing"?  Who cares about overtime for people responsible for marketing agricultural produce?"

I think the answer would be "people responsible for marketing agricultural produce".

[BostonCard]

At the risk of drifting this thread into verboten territory, I would note that the sweatshops mentioned by pefloresjr were not exclusive to the 1930's, and sweatshops date back to a century before the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Fair Labor Standards Act was a response to the abuses mentioned, and given the conditions present at the time, a welcome one.

That being said, I suspect that removing overtime rules now would not return us to that era.  Workers are substantially more productive now than they were then, so there should be a concomitant increase in the value of that labor.  The labor market is pretty tight at the moment, so it would be hard for an employer to cut wages unilaterally.  The rising skill level needed to perform even fairly routine jobs means that workers aren't as interchangeable as they used to be, and thus there are costs to an employer with high employee turnover.  And the presence of social media campaigns, a 24/7 media, etc. means that a truly abusive employer probably couldn't get away with it for long.

As to my inquiry, it is worth noting that marketing was on the list of excluded activities from overtime.  So the question still stands in a modified form; who cares about restricting overtime for people marketing agricultural produce (and I guss the answer is, their employers).  But my point is that while you don't want people working with perishable foods to be pokey getting them processed or delivered, I'm not sure what the state's interest in restricting overtime to those engaged in marketing would be.

BC

[BostonCard]

At the risk of drifting this thread into verboten territory, I would note that the sweatshops mentioned by pefloresjr were not exclusive to the 1930's, and sweatshops date back to a century before the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Fair Labor Standards Act was a response to the abuses mentioned, and given the conditions present at the time, a welcome one.

That being said, I suspect that removing overtime rules now would not return us to that era.  Workers are substantially more productive now than they were then, so there should be a concomitant increase in the value of that labor.  The labor market is pretty tight at the moment, so it would be hard for an employer to cut wages unilaterally.  The rising skill level needed to perform even fairly routine jobs means that workers aren't as interchangeable as they used to be, and thus there are costs to an employer with high employee turnover.  And the presence of social media campaigns, a 24/7 media, etc. means that a truly abusive employer probably couldn't get away with it for long.

As to my inquiry, it is worth noting that marketing was on the list of excluded activities from overtime.  So the question still stands in a modified form; who cares about restricting overtime for people marketing agricultural produce (and I guss the answer is, their employers).  But my point is that while you don't want people working with perishable foods to be pokey getting them processed or delivered, I'm not sure what the state's interest in restricting overtime to those engaged in marketing would be.

BC

[2006alum]

As to my inquiry, it is worth noting that marketing was on the list of excluded activities from overtime.  So the question still stands in a modified form; who cares about restricting overtime for people marketing agricultural produce (and I guss the answer is, their employers).  But my point is that while you don't want people working with perishable foods to be pokey getting them processed or delivered, I'm not sure what the state's interest in restricting overtime to those engaged in marketing would be.

BC

My guess is that this is yet another example of industry capture - the food production lobby wanted a law to exempt all of their workforce from overtime laws, and so they used the urgency of perishable foods to justify a substantial exemption from overtime laws. And unfortunately for them, their lobbyists-who probably provided the draft bill - don't understand how the Oxford comma works.

That being said, I suspect that removing overtime rules now would not return us to that era.  Workers are substantially more productive now than they were then, so there should be a concomitant increase in the value of that labor.  The labor market is pretty tight at the moment, so it would be hard for an employer to cut wages unilaterally.  The rising skill level needed to perform even fairly routine jobs means that workers aren't as interchangeable as they used to be, and thus there are costs to an employer with high employee turnover.  And the presence of social media campaigns, a 24/7 media, etc. means that a truly abusive employer probably couldn't get away with it for long.

There are tons and tons of lawsuits alleging pretty abusive labor practices even now, with the FLSA. In under-regulated areas like agriculture and food production, abuses of workers (often undocumented) are extensive.

[2006alum]

As to my inquiry, it is worth noting that marketing was on the list of excluded activities from overtime.  So the question still stands in a modified form; who cares about restricting overtime for people marketing agricultural produce (and I guss the answer is, their employers).  But my point is that while you don't want people working with perishable foods to be pokey getting them processed or delivered, I'm not sure what the state's interest in restricting overtime to those engaged in marketing would be.

BC

My guess is that this is yet another example of industry capture - the food production lobby wanted a law to exempt all of their workforce from overtime laws, and so they used the urgency of perishable foods to justify a substantial exemption from overtime laws. And unfortunately for them, their lobbyists-who probably provided the draft bill - don't understand how the Oxford comma works.

That being said, I suspect that removing overtime rules now would not return us to that era.  Workers are substantially more productive now than they were then, so there should be a concomitant increase in the value of that labor.  The labor market is pretty tight at the moment, so it would be hard for an employer to cut wages unilaterally.  The rising skill level needed to perform even fairly routine jobs means that workers aren't as interchangeable as they used to be, and thus there are costs to an employer with high employee turnover.  And the presence of social media campaigns, a 24/7 media, etc. means that a truly abusive employer probably couldn't get away with it for long.

There are tons and tons of lawsuits alleging pretty abusive labor practices even now, with the FLSA. In under-regulated areas like agriculture and food production, abuses of workers (often undocumented) are extensive.

[CTcard]

As to my inquiry, it is worth noting that marketing was on the list of excluded activities from overtime.  So the question still stands in a modified form; who cares about restricting overtime for people marketing agricultural produce (and I guss the answer is, their employers). 

Well, marketing might not mean dreaming up advertising campaigns, it might be the whole process of bringing perishable goods to market. Of course that opens up the question of why the redundancy with the other activities mentioned, but as you noted this isn't exactly an elegant turn of phrase.

The period on which you chose to focus (1930) would not be construed as one which best exemplified free market principles. 

Which period would best exemplify the operation of free market principles?


Please note this isn't meant to be a political gotcha - just wondering if there is a good choice.

[CTcard]

As to my inquiry, it is worth noting that marketing was on the list of excluded activities from overtime.  So the question still stands in a modified form; who cares about restricting overtime for people marketing agricultural produce (and I guss the answer is, their employers). 

Well, marketing might not mean dreaming up advertising campaigns, it might be the whole process of bringing perishable goods to market. Of course that opens up the question of why the redundancy with the other activities mentioned, but as you noted this isn't exactly an elegant turn of phrase.

The period on which you chose to focus (1930) would not be construed as one which best exemplified free market principles. 

Which period would best exemplify the operation of free market principles?


Please note this isn't meant to be a political gotcha - just wondering if there is a good choice.

[CornFed]

At the risk of losing the remainder of my precious reputation points for expressing my enthusiasm for free markets, I would suggest that contemporary Singapore and Hong Kong are often brought up as excellent examples of societies dominated by laissez-faire principles.

[CornFed]

At the risk of losing the remainder of my precious reputation points for expressing my enthusiasm for free markets, I would suggest that contemporary Singapore and Hong Kong are often brought up as excellent examples of societies dominated by laissez-faire principles.

[2006alum]

At the risk of losing the remainder of my precious reputation points for expressing my enthusiasm for free markets, I would suggest that contemporary Singapore and Hong Kong are often brought up as excellent examples of societies dominated by laissez-faire principles.

HAH. I feel you on the reputation points losses. I guess people don't like either side of this debate, because I've been losing them too. Just voted you up to compensate. ;)

[2006alum]

At the risk of losing the remainder of my precious reputation points for expressing my enthusiasm for free markets, I would suggest that contemporary Singapore and Hong Kong are often brought up as excellent examples of societies dominated by laissez-faire principles.

HAH. I feel you on the reputation points losses. I guess people don't like either side of this debate, because I've been losing them too. Just voted you up to compensate. ;)

[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16690.msg190357#msg190357 date=1490123088]
At the risk of losing the remainder of my precious reputation points for expressing my enthusiasm for free markets, I would suggest that contemporary Singapore and Hong Kong are often brought up as excellent examples of societies dominated by laissez-faire principles.

HAH. I feel you on the reputation points losses. I guess people don't like either side of this debate, because I've been losing them too. Just voted you up to compensate. ;)
[/quote]


And I you, my friend.

PM me if you think it might be interesting to create a cabal to coordinate reputation ratings.  We could target certain individuals and extort them to "plus vote" us or suffer the consequences.  BWAH-ha-hah-ha-hah!

[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16690.msg190357#msg190357 date=1490123088]
At the risk of losing the remainder of my precious reputation points for expressing my enthusiasm for free markets, I would suggest that contemporary Singapore and Hong Kong are often brought up as excellent examples of societies dominated by laissez-faire principles.

HAH. I feel you on the reputation points losses. I guess people don't like either side of this debate, because I've been losing them too. Just voted you up to compensate. ;)
[/quote]


And I you, my friend.

PM me if you think it might be interesting to create a cabal to coordinate reputation ratings.  We could target certain individuals and extort them to "plus vote" us or suffer the consequences.  BWAH-ha-hah-ha-hah!

[fullmetal]

At the risk of losing the remainder of my precious reputation points for expressing my enthusiasm for free markets, I would suggest that contemporary Singapore and Hong Kong are often brought up as excellent examples of societies dominated by laissez-faire principles.

True to a certain extent...not everything in Singapore is laissez-faire, as their customs declarations form will remind you ;)

[fullmetal]

At the risk of losing the remainder of my precious reputation points for expressing my enthusiasm for free markets, I would suggest that contemporary Singapore and Hong Kong are often brought up as excellent examples of societies dominated by laissez-faire principles.

True to a certain extent...not everything in Singapore is laissez-faire, as their customs declarations form will remind you ;)