Drilling for dollars, retroactively, in wage-hour law

Complying with wage and hour law these days is no easy matter, whether you’re Sen. Bernie Sanders or running a California offshore oil platform. I explain why in my new Cato post on Parker Drilling v. Newton, decided by the Supreme Court last month. More on Sen. Sanders’s travails here and here, from my Cato colleague Ryan Bourne.

One Comment

  • I find myself in disagreement with Walter, where he writes in conclusion:

    “Even if you’re a class action lawyer, it’s hard to see all these uncertainties as optimal.”

    Uncertainty is where these people live and make money. Class action suit, as this site is fond of documenting, is about massive compensation for the lawyers, little or none for members of the class. The end result of a negotiated legal settlement, in which members of the class may notionally pick up $10 each, while the lawyers collection tens of millions of dollars, is, I submit, a highly desirable result for class action lawyers, and the more uncertainty in the law, the greater the “need” for class-action lawyers to collect plaintiffs to file these suits.

    Once again, Shaw’s quotation that “all professions are conspiracies against the laity” applies. The more mysterious (i.e., uncertain) the law is, the more unscrupulous lawyers can squeeze out of the individuals and companies trying to reach a meeting of the minds in terms of compensation.

    Walter has made a fundamental error in applying his own standards to others.