Big win for the Unions, and for our collective rights to organise here.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    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.

    • BarqsHasBite
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        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.

        • BarqsHasBite
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Yeah, but the judicial ruling did something. Its one of the reasons why you would want them to do that. Some people have that viewpoint towards the law, therefore it is a reason to repeal it. Like I’ve said three times now, the other reason is the more legally important one.

            This is not basic logic, you are being hyper-literal.

            • BarqsHasBite
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Wants are not reasons behind the decision. You can have wants A through Z. It is decided because of Z, then Z is the reason. A through Y are not the reason behind the decision.

              This is basic logic.

              I’ll leave you to your feelings.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                Y is a reason to make that decision. One is more applicable legally. They are both reasons behind the decision.

                I’ll leave you to your feelings.

                • @kenbw2
                  link
                  English
                  21 year ago

                  I think this is easily solved. I think both of you are right/wrong in your logic.

                  Judge A has an undisclosed reason X for a decision

                  Union Head B presents reason Y for a decision

                  X could equal Y. But we have no evidence either way. So X and Y could be entirely different or they could be the same