easy to do the reason why that's easy to do is because for a given unlike california requires that has chosen to require that employees participate in the administration of all state recognized apprenticeship training program well your honor i would want to look at statute and make sure my understanding was that and has always been that what happens is that the employee of the sponsors so left an employee representative all employees as a matter of fact whether and that it was the result of these laws i am not aware of anything in the record that suggests that any employee representatives of that that is not so unless that unless they are union affiliated employees or employee representatives and there's nothing in any statute or in any case for that matter that sa that union affiliation matters and in fact what arista says is that you're a covered program as a labor organization if you're a union or other employee organization  is in all instances enforced what's question your it is whether or not these programs are funded by or are covered by risk and they are because they've got employer representatives on them now somebody proven to us as a matter of fact that all were funded we might have a different result that seemed to me to be the substance of their footnote so in other words if it had been true that as a matter of law they weren't required to be covered by recess but in fact they were then dillingham might have reached a different result but that is not the same thing as saying that if as a matter of law under california law they all had to be well i think that there is a case that was stated in the brief and i believe actually it is cabot carbon which is the supreme court's original case in which the labor organization was not unionized really it was fine i think it's capital carbon in the united states supreme court right now i understand that and i think that is correct but but that but the statute refers back to the exact same test and so if you're an employee organization for one thing under the test you're an employee organization for everything regarding the statutory factors so i don't think that it matters not what cap the carbon was about so so the argument really isn't all that creative it where the statute issues the california statute issue says you have to have employer representatives if there is a union affiliation so i naturally the courts in those cases talked about court was only talking about unions because that was what was relevant under california law now in our case that's not so our case as an employee representatives have to participate in the mini well because there's a different program that does things differently and if you know a different location for example in this case the existing program is actually up in north portland but it but it cover you know for whatever reason you want to have your program it's as if we're not going to recognize you and give you whatever benefits you can achieve through that unless you go for now you know i think ultimately the connection with is it's not as clear in general and it's certainly not as good case for us as the reference to because i think we can show that they're all of us are programmed so the law says this is under the federal law and that's simply because they're very consistent there's no nice base requirement anywhere else there's no need based requirement for that matter in many other states so well they're not doing what they want to do and they don't have recognition you're having your own land they are and and the record before the district court supported that that can't last forever for the obvious reasons that you can't survive  program so so there are severe consequences but i don't think that that's what makes the connection different i mean that the incentives for becoming recognized are the same and i think that that that is just plainly correct but the laws that are challenged here are not laws that give any incentive at all there are laws that say we need the state of oregon have decided that we're going to have a to and in the lower limit is if all you have all you can show is an indirect economic effect then you're not going to be able to show a connection an impermissible connection too but it doesn't say that supposing there is an indirect economic effect to the statutory structure but there's also a direct effect to the statutory structure that those laws that have a direct effect are not going to be preempted so that's why i journeyman or anything of that nature we're saying that oregon can't require programs who want to become recognized from being recognized based on needs i see my time is up moment and just summarized in a nutshell what i think the plaintiff's position is and what it necessarily leads to dillingham and none make it quite clear that a risk that does not preempt state apprenticeship was at least in those states like california that permit employer only apprenticeship training committees plaintiffs argued that arista does pretty oregon's apprenticeship at least those necessary and needed standards that they specifically attacked here because of one provision that differentiates oregon law from california is that oregon requires that employees necessary and needed standards in this action if they are correct that those laws relate to arrest because they refer to arrests of plans it could easily be argued that the saying would be true of all of oregon state apprenticeship regulations in other words if plaintiffs prevail all of oregon's regulations governing the running of state approved apprenticeship programs would be  they will gain the benefit of becoming state registered apprenticeship training committees and will have the benefit that goes with that without having to meet the other standards that apply  to the other standards that govern the necessary excuse me i lost track of my sentence the other requirements that the state applies through the necessary and needed standards for example like not discriminating this goes in there everything becomes vulnerable to attack or if just the necessary unneeded standards go and not everything else then plaintiffs get to become state registered committee because the necessary and needed standards don't apply but they still get the benefit of one of oregon's other laws the one they haven't challenged which allows them to pay lower wages so they either get to pick and choose like they're trying to do here or all of or against apprenticeship training laws become vulnerable and that's that those are the two points i was trying to m different let me answer your the earlier question first there is another section if you read further down in the regulations that talks about what with respect to whether they have to be employed i have to admit that is not something that i looked at carefully and not something that i discussed with my client and the reason the latter point is important is that under oregon law not surprisingly the agency that promulgated regulations are given desk for instant interpretation of those regulations and so without having discussed with the commissioner or the head of the apprenticeship training council how they interpret that regulation i'm afraid i'm not prepared to give a good response to that question i would be happy to submit a memorandum on that point if your honour's would like to have one i don't intend to go through the step by step analysis because i think it's fourth fairly clearly in the breach in samarra supreme ssion is triggered if a state law either makes the assumption that all local joint committees in oregon are arrests of plans and if that's true you don't need to get as far as the connection with pronk you still are at the makes reference to crohn's so i think that's where th space really rests is on whether oregon's requirement that some employees or employee representatives participate on local joint committee is enough to relations management act and prohibits payments from employers only to any representative of an employer's employees or any labor organization in the brief read three five gone through in some detail technical reasons why a local joint committee can't be a labor organization and i won't repeat those here i think it's sufficient sort of began to thrive bath and recall that there are both employer people and employed people on these committees has to happen for something to be a lower labor organization the way it was structured in that case it happened within the committee and that's one thing that  concern about money flows through all those at the local joint committees in oregon and that they're not set up to be the money managing programs even if they were the money would not be flowing to the people who benefit from the programs in the same way that labor unions and their representatives on who engage in negotiations or collective bargaining with employers are and so there aren't the same concerns about collusion and corruption that gave rise to the elem are a requirement that there be the separate funding of these sorts of tr the final point i'd like to make is that even if the inclusion of employee on in the local joint committees were enough to trigger arist apprenticeship training and if this court were to hold that the mere fact that some employee or skilled trade practitioners participate on the local joint committee that oregon state apprenticeship regulations go out the window that would not be consonant with the fitzgerald act and therefore the savings class applies thank you which relates to dealing with requirements and i just want to clarify that regarding the dealing with requirement i think it's clear that dealing with them in the sense of bargaining is a lower limit in other words if you do that then you're if you bargain with that you deal with if you determined you deal with to it just like i might say to my assistants i'll deal with that in terms of take care of that when i get back to the office and there's no case that if you if you are making determinations regarding the factors rather than bargaining regarding the factors that you're not dealing with that  by i don't think being representatives of apprentices means that they are themselves apprentices that means that they are there a labor organization is a representative of employees if it deals with employers regarding those certain factors of employment like wages like working conditions and so on and so forth so they don't need to be the same class of employees or anything like that and i think maybe another another issue that you're raising there is what of value are the employers giving the labor organizations or giving the employee representatives and there's there's two things so the individual employee representatives are giving them a position on this committee whether that's something of value or not i don't know but