[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