Everyone interested in the Great 226.7 Debate should read this post at the Wage Law blog. I particularly like the compilation of various predictions.

Just to expand on what I wrote below, I spend more time reseraching for this blog on legislative issues, talking to people in Sacramento, and developing stories on bills than I do on reading cases. Having done that, I’ve come to chuckle every time I hear a judge trying to divine profound meaning from a single word choice. There simply is not that much care put into one word, and, to be sure, each bill is the work of a number of legislators, staffers, and clerks. Absent an express statement of intent that is in some bills, I think many situations are open to more than one rational interpretation.

There are others out there that are far more qualified to guess, but I would like to think that my prediction was based on what I read about the oral arguments, and the political and legal pedigrees of the various justices.

Maybe I’ve grown a pair of employer shaded glasses over the years, but it’s not that I don’t see the plausability of the other side’s position. If you want to be really cynical about it, don’t strong pro-worker laws give people like me work?

Tags: wage/hour

Comments RSS