you can provide some sort of concrete support for your position that board representation is excluded from the umbrella of "labor conditions", then I don't accept your still-unsupported assertion that the definition has to be that narrow.
There's nothing under-developed about my argument - heck, there's barely any argument to develop. I say that my (in)ability as a worker to influence my employer via a board representative is one condition under which I work; and in that respect, that influence is no different than any other condition under which I work, including: how much I get paid, how frequently I get reviews, processes for reporting and appealing HR violations, or any number of other things.
Thus far, your responses to my claim have been no more substantive than "nuh uh". If you want to point out laws or decisions that show I'm wrong (or, if the situation is still ambiguous, that suggest that future court decisions would not side with my opinion), then have at it. I'll read them. I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. But ridiculing my position while providing nothing to support yours not only does nothing to convince me, it also undermines whatever credibility I may have extended you.
Well, counselor, if I'm so obviously wrong then you ought to be able to make a better argument than some silly strawman like that.
Synonymous" is your word, not mine. I argue that "labor conditions" is a large umbrella and can cover a number of different aspects of the work environment of which "representation on a board" would be but one example. Therefore, "representation" would be a subset of, not equal to, "labor conditions".
That’s your meaning. Unfortunately, your mythical meaning doesn’t exist anywhere else. That’s the problem. “Representations on a board” isn’t anything like the recognized conditions of work environment, which for most people would be the first clue they aren’t discussing the same thing. Neither is representation on a board” a “subset” of the phrase “labor conditions” since the subset doesn’t match the meaning of “labor condition.”
Even the case you cited, U.S. v Darby, doesn’t treat “labor conditions” as anything close to your contrived meaning. In U.S. v Darby, the reference to labor conditions is in the manner consistent with the meaning I’ve provided, as the Court and Congress was treating “wages” as a labor condition.
Simply, you aren’t entitled just to make up meanings to support your argument. However, in the sport of your undaunted but misguided effort to make up meanings for phrases, I’ll play along.
I, like you, now forever do declare, and say, that labor conditions doesn’t include representation on the board and neither is sitting on the board a subset of labor conditions.
The point I’m making is to emphasize the rational futility of making up meanings to phrases, like you’ve done, when the phrase has already acquired a meaning. You aren’t ever entitled to your own meaning.
You have confused labor conditions with condition of employment.
Perhaps not in this country, but AFAIK, such representation is much more common place in other countries like Germany.
Irrelevant. Their example doesn’t tell me about the legality of Bernie’s proposal, and neither is it treated as a labor condition. Rather, it’s treated as a condition of employment.
But even here in the US, do any of these sources explicitly exclude board representation from falling under the umbrella "labor conditions" or have they merely not yet explicitly included the term?
Exclusion exists based on the meaning of the phrase, just as exclusion of a circle exists from the meaning of a square. Just as the meaning of the phrase “freedom of speech” in the U.S. Constitution excludes libel, slander, true threats, intimidation, incitement. So, yes, your special and unique meaning that you’ve conjured up is excluded by the meaning of the phrase.
Unless you can provide some sort of concrete support for your position that board representation is excluded from the umbrella of "labor conditions", then I don't accept your still-unsupported assertion that the definition has to be that narrow.
You mean like the sources in my post that you made reference to?
Nice fallacy of burden shifting though. You have the burden of showing your meaning is that broad. You haven’t done it.
The fact is, I can find NO SOURCE in a Google search that has a meaning of labor conditions that would include sitting on the board of directors, and every source I’ve encountered has a meaning that doesn’t include your meaning.
Your meaning has no basis in the historical record. None. This because you’ve made up anmeaning. Bravo for creativity.
Oh yay, more jabs. Mr. LawyerMan runs around dumping on other people's opinions while making all sorts of unsupported assertions himself. Why should I believe that any of your opinions aren't being pulled out of your own... imagination?
Because I cited to sources. Those sources can be found by a simple Google search. A Google search provides NOTHING to support your meaning. Nothing. A Google search does provide a plethora of sources defining labor conditions, the meaning is identical or similar to the other sources, which is to say the sources share the same or similar meaning, and NO source has anything close to your meaning.
I've already withdrawn the claim about hiring as commerce because I don't want to argue it.
A prudent decision as I suspect you’d have to, once again, make up a meaning of the word “commerce.”
My prior comment about your modus operandi of argument is correct and accurate, you begin with an outcome, of where you want to go, and make up meanings of words and phrases to get you there. It’s a terribly irrational way to argue.
Thus far, your responses to my claim have been no more substantive than "nuh uh"
Not paying attention now? I cited to the business dictionary, collective bargaining agreements, and more. Even U.S. v Darby is treating the phrase in a manner that agrees with the meaning I’ve given here.
I say that my (in)ability as a worker to influence my employer via a board representative is one condition under which I work
I’ve yet to find any source treating that as a “labor condition.” All you’ve done is merely regurgitated your own special meaning above. Not every condition in existence at a business “under which you work” constitutes as a labor condition. Based on your logic, there’s NOTHING about a business that can’t be a labor condition, which is just nonesense.
The fact the company stock is private is a condition “under which you labor.” The fact the company stock is public is a condition “under which you labor.” The number of shares of stock for possession/sale/trading, is a condition “under which you labor.” The fact the business you work act is located in a specific city is a condition “under which you labor.” What to make and produce, and how much to make, are conditions under “which you labor.” Yet, those aren’t “labor conditions.”
Your reasoning can pervert the phrase labor conditions to mean essentially the laborers should have a say in everyone of those examples I cited above, thereby justifying the government taking away private property, businesses/factories, from the person/people who own/possess the private property, and convert it to a collective co-op.
