Arguments Sample Clauses

Arguments. Each advocate will be allowed approximately ten (10) minutes to present argument(s) supporting their position. In hearing disciplinary grievances, the Hospital will present first. In all other grievances, the Union will present first. There can be only one (1) spokesperson for each party, in each case.
Arguments for NudgingNudge advocates make a number of arguments in favor of nudging. Choice Architectures are InescapableSunstein [17] explains that there is no such thing as a neutral choice archi- tecture. Whatever the environment and context of the nudge is, he says, it will influence the nudgee, and Acquisti et al. [83] make the same argument. For example, every form of a password creation interface is a choice architecture, be it designed deliberately or not. The text field is positioned in a certain way and is a certain size, color might be used in a particular way and password creation is often accompanied by some form of textual instruction or information, all of which might influence the user’s chosen password. Greenfield argues that the whole concept of humans having preferences that are unaffected by existing framing is na¨ıve [86]. In a similar way, Brooks [87] also states that nudges are inevitable. From his perspective, the question is not whether to nudge, but how to do it in an ethical way. He argues for better mechanisms for obtaining informed consent and for nudge transparency. 2It should be noted that some of these interventions were not labelled as “nudges” but they do bear all the hallmarks of nudges so we included them.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Nudging eases ChoicePeople have great difficulty in choosing if there are many options to choose from, and many dimensions of difference between the options [88]. In this case, a facilitating nudge may well be very helpful [89, 90] rather than being considered an assault on personal autonomy. For example, choosing between, and evaluat- ing, the privacy implications of Smartphone apps is not a trivial task. Nudges that ease choice, perhaps by consolidating privacy implications and labeling them with happy or sad smileys might well be considered beneficial. Autonomy Objections are SpeciousThe sticking point that most nudge researchers cannot agree on is the matter of autonomy. Sunstein [17] denies that nudges unacceptably infringe autonomy for two reasons. Firstly because, according to their definition, nudgees are free to ignore the influence of the nudge and secondly because all the original choices are retained and available to the nudgee.Other researchers acknowledge that autonomy might well be infringed, but argue that it is justified because nudges are intended “for good” [91]. Indeed, Moher and El Emam [92] argue that nudges can help people to resist emotional pulls and make the choice they would have mad...
Arguments. The parties shall be permitted to submit oral or written arguments to substantiate their cause. Written arguments shall be submitted within the time stipulated by arbitrators.
Arguments. Please note: The arguments contained in this analysis originate from sources outside the Senate Fiscal Agency. The Senate Fiscal Agency neither supports nor opposes legislation.)
Arguments. Arguments will be presented first by the student filing the Report of Student Grievance. The student shall be afforded an opportunity to make or waive an opening statement. After the opening statements, the student filing the Report of Student Grievance shall have the first opportunity to present witnesses and other relevant evidence. Then the other person shall have the opportunity to present witnesses and other relevant evidence.
Arguments. The Union begins its argument with the proposition that Mr. Johal is clearly able to return to work now, and has been so since the grievance was filed. The barrier is not his present ability, but the suggestion that he is at greater risk than other employees that he will suffer reinjury in the future. The Union suggests arbitrators have shown reluctance to allow a future risk of reinjury to block an employee's return to work once they have the current ability to do their job. The only limitation is where the employee represents a risk to himself or others. The Union asks that Mr. Johal be placed back in the mould repair job. Short of that, it suggests a trial period during which time the Employer's concern over a possibility of a recurrence can be 2000 CanLII 29230 (AB GAA) assessed. The Union urges us to accept that Mr. Johal will be candid about any recurrence of his pain. In fact, it says, his having reported pain promptly during his modified duties are part of the reason Dr. Karpluk believes he shouldn't go back now. The Union also suggests that, if a trial period is used, any award of loss pay since 1998 can await the "proof of the pudding" i.e. the results of the test period. The Union refers us to the following extract from: Re International Nickle Co. of Canada Ltd. and United Steelw orkers (1974) 7 LAC. (2d) 196 (Rayner) at p. 198.
Arguments. It has been said that if someone (family or outsider) contests (argues) against your estate for money, 70% will win.– Alan Lakein
Arguments. The Debtor contends that, despite having been notified of the Debtor’s discharge, ESL’s correspondence was an attempt to collect a discharged debt in “patent violation” of 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2) (ECF No. 29 ¶ 16 ). At oral argument, the Debtor conceded that the offensive ESL notice preciselytracked the statutory language mandated by RPAPL § 1304 (ECF No. 38 at 3). The Debtor also conceded that ESL was required to comply with RPAPL § 1304 as a condition precedent to a foreclosure action (Id. at 3, 8). However, the Debtor argues that RPAPL § 1304 does not prohibit the addition of bankruptcy- disclaimer language (Id. at 5). The Debtor argues that such language would bring the notice mandated by state law in compliance with the Bankruptcy Code (Id. at 15-16). The Debtor further contends that—even though not required by the prescribed statutory notice language—the ESL notice was also infirmed because it did not indicate that the 90-day standstill period under RPAPL § 1304 did not apply because the Debtor had obtained an Order for Relief (Id.). The Debtor argues that the issuance of the statutorily mandated preforeclosure notice is a per se violation of the discharge injunction because the notice did not specifically state that ESL was not attempting to collect the underlying debt as a personal liability of the Debtor (ECF No. 37).ESL argues that no purpose would be served in reopening the case (ECF Nos. 35, 39). As a home loan lender, ESL was statutorily required by RPAPL § 1304(1) to send the notice as a precondition to exercising its right to commence a foreclosure action (ECF No. 35). Therefore, the Debtor’s anticipated sanctions motion could not serve as the basis to grant relief, because ESL sent the notice in strict compliance with the New York foreclosure statute (Id.). ESL contends that—in any event—the statutory notice is merely informational, providing a consumer-mortgagor with an opportunity to cure a default on a mortgage to avoid commencement of a foreclosure action (ECF No. 40). ESL argues that RPAPL § 1304 has been strictly construed by the New York Courts (ECF No. 39 at 3). ESL observes that, contrary to the Debtor’s view, RPAPL § 1304(1) does not include a requirement for bankruptcy discharge disclaimer language (Id. at 2). Absent proof of strict compliance with RPAPL § 1304, ESL contends that its eventual foreclosure proceeding would be summarily dismissed (Id.). In addition, ESL argues that Congress codified a “safe harbor” for residential mor...
Arguments. A brief summary of the arguments made by each party;