[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.