Correct, not the reasoning the judge used. The reasoning behind not allowing employers to break strikes with agency workers. (Outside of the fact they didn’t consult the unions when deciding before)
It’s not the reason for anything that was done. The Union can want it to be a reason, the can want to make that argument, but currently it’s not a factor for anything that was decided.
And you have things mixed up. The reason why they can’t use agency workers is because unions weren’t consulted before a new law was passed that allowed agency workers.
The previous law (which is not even being discussed, because we are discussing reasons for overturning the new law) that forbid using agency workers was based iirc on something about not undermining unions.
What the Union leader said has absolutely zero bearing on anything that was actually done.
Its another reason one would support the action of removing / opposing the law. Another reason (and the more legally important one as I accounted for before) would be the fact that the unions would not be consulted.
You are confusing reasons ideas in general and reasons relevant to this decision.
A general idea that’s out there in the world is not the reasoning behind this legal case.
There can be ideas A, B, C, and D out there in the world. If the judge says “I’m making this ruling because of D”, then D is the reason for that ruling and decision. A, B, and C are not reasons for that decision. They remain ideas, concepts, whatever. They are not reasons.
A reason to support something can also be a reason it is passed. The main reason this happened was what the judge said. Another reason this happened is because people believe there are inherent issues with hiring agency workers to break strikes. All ideas in general have an effect on legislation.
Not part of the judges reasoning means it was not a reason. This is how the law works. This isn’t hyper literal, this is basic logic.
Legislation is not the same as judicial rulings. Judicial rulings need to be based on specific reasons. If they were not used, they are not reasons behind that ruling.
So not part of the ruling.
Nope, just the reasoning behind it from the article.
That’s not the reasoning the judge used, so not the reasoning behind the ruling.
Correct, not the reasoning the judge used. The reasoning behind not allowing employers to break strikes with agency workers. (Outside of the fact they didn’t consult the unions when deciding before)
It’s not the reason for anything that was done. The Union can want it to be a reason, the can want to make that argument, but currently it’s not a factor for anything that was decided.
And you have things mixed up. The reason why they can’t use agency workers is because unions weren’t consulted before a new law was passed that allowed agency workers.
The previous law (which is not even being discussed, because we are discussing reasons for overturning the new law) that forbid using agency workers was based iirc on something about not undermining unions.
What the Union leader said has absolutely zero bearing on anything that was actually done.
Its another reason one would support the action of removing / opposing the law. Another reason (and the more legally important one as I accounted for before) would be the fact that the unions would not be consulted.
You are confusing
reasonsideas in general and reasons relevant to this decision.A general idea that’s out there in the world is not the reasoning behind this legal case.
There can be ideas A, B, C, and D out there in the world. If the judge says “I’m making this ruling because of D”, then D is the reason for that ruling and decision. A, B, and C are not reasons for that decision. They remain ideas, concepts, whatever. They are not reasons.
A reason to support something can also be a reason it is passed. The main reason this happened was what the judge said. Another reason this happened is because people believe there are inherent issues with hiring agency workers to break strikes. All ideas in general have an effect on legislation.
You are being hyper-literal.
Not part of the judges reasoning means it was not a reason. This is how the law works. This isn’t hyper literal, this is basic logic.
Legislation is not the same as judicial rulings. Judicial rulings need to be based on specific reasons. If they were not used, they are not reasons behind that ruling.
At this point I think you’re being intentionally obtuse.
Wow, I think the same thing about you!