Jump to content

Portal talk:Current events/2016 June 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Court ruling

[edit]

I moved the following entry to here, because any effect of it is incomprehensible. What can be understood is that the supreme court reversed an interpretation, but it is unclear whether this original interpretation supported or opposed the exemption from overtime pay rules, and thus the stance of this ruling is also unclear. If the only conclusion is that further consideration is needed, I don't see any notable news at all. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Business and economy

Three points. First, the appellate court's ruling went against the auto dealerships, in favor of the employees seeking overtime pay. I thought the above wording made that clear. Feel free to tamper with it. Second, the Supreme Court in remanding to that appellate was clear that the appellate court's reasoning was inadequate, and bounced the matter back for further consideration. Third, that is notable BECAUSE it is indecisive. It shows that a court that has been short-handed for months now has had to come up with issue-avoiding opinions in order to avoid ideological 4-4 splits. This was a 2 - 4 - 2 split that would likely have been 4-4 had the bloc in the middle not agreed to mealy-mouthed indecisiveness. One result of the long empty seat is that auto dealerships still have no firm guidance in the question. I'll link you to a more detailed discussion at ScotusBlog. --Christofurio (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/opinion-analysis-justices-rebuffs-department-of-labors-sloppy-explanation-of-regulation-exempting-service-advisors-from-overtime-rules/

Very well. Thanks for the explanation. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]