Unless an ambiguous term needs construction, a court should stop with the stat- utory language. Interpretation is a contextual enterprise, and the prin- cipal context of sec. To resolve this supposed contra- diction the district court limited sec. Yet a court should endeavor to apply all parts of a statute whenever possible. Tensions among stat- utory provisions are common.
Legislation reflects com- promise among competing interests.
That employers won a battle and secured the right to modify plans, while em- ployees prevailed in a different skirmish and secured the right to qualify for benefits under existing plans, shows no more than that each side could claim some victories. It upsets the legislative balance to push the outcome farther in either direction. Just as a court should not use sec. If firms were stuck with terms that in retrospect proved to be excessively costly, they would err initially on the side of omission. The mutual benefits of allowing employers to amend plans does not imply, however, that promises ac- tually in place are illusory.