Having looked again more closely, I have to agree with you @micra. However, @DevC hasn't responded yet! Although, he's probably busy arguing with a greengrocer.
@micra : the key part is the last few words of the list of workers who do not qualify for overtime payments:
"...storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:"
Were there a comma after "shipment", the statement would properly to be taken to include workers concerned with packing for shipment and, separately, those responsible for distribution of goods, which latter category would include the truck drivers whose case this was.
In the absence of said comma, it was successfully argued by the drivers' lawyers that it could be read to be talking about those responsible for packing of goods preparatory for shipment AND/OR distribution and not to include distribution workers, meaning that the drivers could be said to be not included in this list and thus entitled to claim overtime.
@micra said:
The ubiquitous Oxford comma as Oakwood Exile (or someone of similar ilk) described it a few years ago.
Might well have been me?
For those playing catch up, the popular misconception is that one does not place a comma after an 'and', however, in academic writing and, arguably more populist prose, the Oxford convention (as in the eponymous University), is that one may.
Without the comma that would not have made sense Dev. Or, on reflection, it might have suggested that you were completely wrong. Mrs Micra and I have just come in after celebrating our umpteenth anniversary and I'm slightly befuddled. Had a stab at @HCblue'a explanation above but found it incomprehensible. That sounds terribly ungracious and I'll have another go in the morning. Or is life too short?
Prolixity has always been a bit of a fault. Let me pre-empt you by having the first second effort:
First, let's republish the passage from the relevant legislation about which workers in Maine are not eligible for overtime payments. It is, apparently, those concerned with
"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."
1, 2 and 3 list the areas of working life in the state within which certain defined functions are precluded from overtime pay. Those functions are listed in the first part of the passage. The question for the court was whether that list included delivery drivers for a dairy, since a dairy seems to fit comfortably within the perishable foods category.
At first reading, it seemed that they were, since they are responsible for the distribution of the goods and thus covered by the "and distribution of" bit. However, the lack of a comma after "shipment" created the suggestion that the workers covered by that part of the list were those responsible for the "packing for shipment or distribution " of goods in the fields described. In other words, workers who pack the stuff before it is shipped OR delivered, not the guys who then go on to ship or deliver it.
As I understand it, the judge did not necessarily find that this was the proper reading of the legislation but he did agree that the lack of a comma created an ambiguity that state legal precedent meant should be resolved in favour of the drivers.
No less prolix, but a different flavour of wordy. Hope it makes more sense or makes the first one seem simpler by comparison and thus more easily comprehensible.
Welcome @HCblue ! Your explanation is very clear but, yes, a bit prolix. How about:
There is a list of things which can't qualify for overtime. The lack of an Oxford comma meant that the Court could not support the view that the list included both the activity of "packing for shipment" and the separate activity of "distribution". Instead, they found that it was capable of meaning "packing (whether for shipment or distribution)". Distribution itself, as opposed to packing as a preparatory activity before distribution, was therefore an activity capable of qualifying for overtime.
I'm quite fond of the Oxford comma myself, particularly in this sort of list. I've even been known to slip in the odd Oxford semi-colon.
@OakwoodExile Thanks for your welcome, Oakwood. Your explanation is perfectly thorough and more concise than mine.
For what it's worth, without some kind of connective between the penultimate and ultimate categories on the list the section reads extremely awkwardly, and unnaturally, to me.
Not a brilliant example, but in "The following are prohibited in football: swearing, tripping, handling the ball or verbal abuse" would it ever be conceivable that anyone could think that reacting badly to unkind words was prohibited?
Comments
The ubiquitous Oxford comma as Oakwood Exile (or someone of similar ilk) described it a few years ago.
I've read and re-read the item several times and couldn't fathom how it could be exploited.
Having looked again more closely, I have to agree with you @micra. However, @DevC hasn't responded yet! Although, he's probably busy arguing with a greengrocer.
Or herding his cattle through Customs.
@micra : the key part is the last few words of the list of workers who do not qualify for overtime payments:
"...storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:"
Were there a comma after "shipment", the statement would properly to be taken to include workers concerned with packing for shipment and, separately, those responsible for distribution of goods, which latter category would include the truck drivers whose case this was.
In the absence of said comma, it was successfully argued by the drivers' lawyers that it could be read to be talking about those responsible for packing of goods preparatory for shipment AND/OR distribution and not to include distribution workers, meaning that the drivers could be said to be not included in this list and thus entitled to claim overtime.
Make sense?
Might well have been me?
For those playing catch up, the popular misconception is that one does not place a comma after an 'and', however, in academic writing and, arguably more populist prose, the Oxford convention (as in the eponymous University), is that one may.
It's grammatical correctness gone mad!
As Vampire Weekend put it most eloquently: "who gives a fuck about an Oxford Comma..."
I think there is a bit of a question mark hanging over this thread. Might be heading towards a full stop, I fear:
Shit, wrong again!
Without the comma that would not have made sense Dev. Or, on reflection, it might have suggested that you were completely wrong. Mrs Micra and I have just come in after celebrating our umpteenth anniversary and I'm slightly befuddled. Had a stab at @HCblue'a explanation above but found it incomprehensible. That sounds terribly ungracious and I'll have another go in the morning. Or is life too short?
Prolixity has always been a bit of a fault. Let me pre-empt you by having the first second effort:
First, let's republish the passage from the relevant legislation about which workers in Maine are not eligible for overtime payments. It is, apparently, those concerned with
"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."
1, 2 and 3 list the areas of working life in the state within which certain defined functions are precluded from overtime pay. Those functions are listed in the first part of the passage. The question for the court was whether that list included delivery drivers for a dairy, since a dairy seems to fit comfortably within the perishable foods category.
At first reading, it seemed that they were, since they are responsible for the distribution of the goods and thus covered by the "and distribution of" bit. However, the lack of a comma after "shipment" created the suggestion that the workers covered by that part of the list were those responsible for the "packing for shipment or distribution " of goods in the fields described. In other words, workers who pack the stuff before it is shipped OR delivered, not the guys who then go on to ship or deliver it.
As I understand it, the judge did not necessarily find that this was the proper reading of the legislation but he did agree that the lack of a comma created an ambiguity that state legal precedent meant should be resolved in favour of the drivers.
No less prolix, but a different flavour of wordy. Hope it makes more sense or makes the first one seem simpler by comparison and thus more easily comprehensible.
"and distribution of" should, of course, have been "or distribution of" in paragraph 5. Sorry!
Not sure I get your beef, Micra
Happy anniversary by the way but maybe time to moove on?
Just couldn't be arsed, I'm afraid. Even more important matters to attend to! Mooers the pity.
Do like the cut of @HCblue'a jib though. Very welcome new poster.
Whoops! Almost overlooked your kind wishes Dev. It was a good day. We do battle this afternoon when Mrs Micra's Paddies take on the Invincibles.
Welcome @HCblue ! Your explanation is very clear but, yes, a bit prolix. How about:
There is a list of things which can't qualify for overtime. The lack of an Oxford comma meant that the Court could not support the view that the list included both the activity of "packing for shipment" and the separate activity of "distribution". Instead, they found that it was capable of meaning "packing (whether for shipment or distribution)". Distribution itself, as opposed to packing as a preparatory activity before distribution, was therefore an activity capable of qualifying for overtime.
I'm quite fond of the Oxford comma myself, particularly in this sort of list. I've even been known to slip in the odd Oxford semi-colon.
@OakwoodExile Thanks for your welcome, Oakwood. Your explanation is perfectly thorough and more concise than mine.
For what it's worth, without some kind of connective between the penultimate and ultimate categories on the list the section reads extremely awkwardly, and unnaturally, to me.
Not a brilliant example, but in "The following are prohibited in football: swearing, tripping, handling the ball or verbal abuse" would it ever be conceivable that anyone could think that reacting badly to unkind words was prohibited?