case was decided by the six or could this court came down with the bonds opinion so we had to well defined approaches to be taken in addressing the collective bargaining agreement effect over the maintenance and cure doctrine as this court reiterated on october third that in deciding what approach to take the courts are going to have to weigh tradeoffs and that is in the interim a as a best of product litigation a case that just came down to reese ago after the baron's opinion of the barns approach was more or less  since the eleven hundreds ferrars a bill around that was a products liability case and this court found that the maritime doctrines that it is better to give than to withhold the remedy dispositive in this case in applying the townsend approach as the supreme court stated in the agro he's case that's been cited throughout this appeal at four hundred u voted labor management relations act i assume the rules served by the federal courts to be protective of the rights of seamen under that act in other words the labor management relations act is not designed to be protected by the rights of seamen as is this court's exercise of authority over it the towns in approach the towns in approach has been applied before the  a passenger injury on an on a vessel a cruise ship or a recreational bop it was maritime law and what the court stated the circuit stated applying the townson approach we conclude has townsend changed the game for us in this matter because it explicitly addresses when a statute can't create them to a general maritime about in the context of maintenance that you cannot completely eliminate this but in the next breath says that we encourage people to negotiate these things how could it be sensible for this court said in bars we negotiate these things if picking it down a penny from what you say is the actual expenses would amount to an aggravation of you know no reason to negotiate ever right i an amount that is equal or surpasses the actual rader's negotiated that would be how would you sell that in advance your position is if anything is less than what was actually spent who got the foresight to say you know what i think bob the  to be disregarded in this context the way you seem to suggest when every circuit to look at it except us as no collective bargaining really matters and in fact should control and even we  barnes said yeah collective bargain is a good thing you should do that negotiating how can it be the case if there's an individual ais decision making necessary the collective bargain would have any place at all because just about the overtime because the because not getting the overtime doesn't bring it up to the actual rate right i mean we're talking about fifty percent reduction here  something different in curious clearly different medical expense but maintenance as your opponents point on the page neither wreath that that that's a living wage that's to be paid during the time  f illness or recovery under wages are completely different because they only last until when the term of the week is going yeah right it's a different thing isn't it we had different measuring lost over time was quantified in this case but we never got to the damages aspect of the case that's why you don't have it but it's very clear in the record is it quantif superseded by its own terms the broadest panel majority could not discern any nation by the u s supreme court to step back from scrutinizing even union negotiating negotiated contracts in favor of se and may not be adequate to cover a seafarers meal and lodging expenses but that cannot be looked in isolation as professor shown bombo means as a small part of a very favorable package of remedies that seafarers have for injuries and his is appropriate the suggestion is then that the rate be tied to the room rate that seafarers received when they're in poor and when they don't have board furnished it usually happens when the ship goes into a shipyard and work is not to include any company like over time well i think it's i think the padilla case did not have the base wages languished in the collective bargaining agreement but different i understand that my question you like it but medea and gordon are the ones you point to and say these are right you should be paid attention to these other circuits they say if you want to limit a rate which was generally available in maritime law if you have to look at the history do those musicians mean when they say you have to look at the history of our wages our wages go back for centuries and we go back to a time when there was no overtime when overtime was not being paid to the sea floor and it was ago i would agree with that but we have already gone down the the boring staff pretty pretty far in engineering breached pretty heavily and i think the answer to the appeal in this case if barnes is the practice between that particular seafarer and that shipping company at that although not written perhaps is still in the nature of contract work and ems we are really looking to whether base wages but they are things which have been traditionally and did in general maritime law treated as an earned wages isn't that the the line of reasoning that we got out of the second circuit the night circuit and arguably out of our own circuit in shock exactly roger and it was we want to get to where you want to get to we need to wrestle with bronze you don't have to but how house is this thing right you're here questions about do we have get to it or not so i put it to you if under what ages stand on the same footing as maintenance and cure as historically rooted in maritime law how can we ignore the existence of barns and say well under wages or are different because there's a contract element to him so they're just not rooted in general maritime laws that the is that the thinking well the issue is is  now you're talking about how low you can go that's a different question the question is does under the wages stand on the same footing as maintenance insurer as a rate traditionally enjoyed by seafarers and therefore i don't understand your answer is abrogation if it's if they're not made whole abrogation means in my dictionary that it's totally and specifically the question of whether or not we even have request forms because this is other ways that it's different we could just talk about a hundred ways and not worry about ours you know it's the same the same forty nine to one fifty eight of the the the appendix i would urge the court to read to run to bird washington state court opinion following b