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

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    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.

    • amanneedsamaid
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 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