Lack of Oxford Comma Could Cost Maine Company Millions in Overtime Dispute (nytimes.com)

Daniel VIctor, writing for The New York Times: A class-action lawsuit about overtime pay for truck drivers hinged entirely on a debate that has bitterly divided friends, families and foes: The dreaded -- or totally necessary -- Oxford comma, perhaps the most polarizing of punctuation marks. What ensued in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and in a 29-page court decision handed down on Monday, was an exercise in high-stakes grammar pedantry that could cost a dairy company in Portland, Me., an estimated $10 million. In 2014, three truck drivers sued Oakhurst Dairy, seeking more than four years' worth of overtime pay that they had been denied (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternate link from a syndicated partner). Maine law requires workers to be paid 1.5 times their normal rate for each hour worked after 40 hours, but it carves out some exemptions. [...] The debate over commas is often a pretty inconsequential one, but it was anything but for the truck drivers. Note the lack of Oxford comma -- also known as the serial comma -- in the following state law, which says overtime rules do not apply to: "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. Oakhurst Dairy is arguing that "packing for shipment" and "distribution" are two different items in the list. But that's not how the truck drivers are seeing it. They argue that "packing for shipment or distribution" is one item.

Comments

Be Consistent

[in10se]

(1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods.

While the second half of the statement uses semicolons instead of commas, they clearly use the oxford comma version of grammar rules. Therefore you must assume the first half of the sentence is also using the same rules, so the truckers are right.

Re:missing the point?

[Nidi62]

Looking past the arguments about commas, does anyone one know *why* there is no overtime pay for these specific jobs? How old is the law in question?

I believe the argument is that a lot of the jobs involved with those particular restrictions revolve around seasonal work (fishing season, harvest season, etc). So the jobs entail maybe a month or 2 of heavy hours followed by 10 months of no work at all. Harvest/fishing season work by it's very nature is a very time intensive work when there is work, but most of time there is no work.

Re:Why the heck do all those blue collar jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the same thing.

On the surface, I understand why. You can't just leave some milk or fish out in the warehouse just because your shift is done. It has to be moved into a refrigerated area. However, this is not a problem for the hourly worker to resolve. Somewhere the process is broken. Either they are asking too much of the workers or just plain old failing to plan adequately for demand. Either way, they should pay the overtime. Maybe if they had to pay overtime, the added costs would force them to revise the processes involved so that OT is not required.

I like the old saying, "Lack of planning on your part does not create an emergency on my part." So the workers are due the OT pay or the planners need to eliminate the OT requirement.

Oh, you should always use the Oxford comma. ;-)

Re:clearly the truckers are right

[bilbodh]

Skip the comma altogether and use a numbered list. Eliminates the ambiguity entirely then.