My work schedule used to be 2:30pm-11pm. That was 8 hours, so I always took an hour lunch. My job is cutting shifts. The new shift is 3:30pm-11pm. (7 hours, 30 minutes) They now say we take a 45 minute clocked out lunch. Is this legal? I thought if it’s under 8 hours I take a 30 minute lunch? I tried looking up labor law sites, but I owuld like help from my fellow Straight Dopers.
I’m not familiar with California law, but… you’re complaining at getting a greater benefit than the law requires? Unless there’s some negative consequence from a longer break, I doubt that companies will be required to give you the exact minimum and nothing but.
To clarify, you’re asking if it’s illegal to force you to take a longer lunch break, right?
Laws establish minimums, not maximums. If your workplace wants to make everyone take a 45 minute lunch instead of a 30 minute lunch, there’s nothing illegal about that. You can try talking to your supervisor about only taking a 30 minute lunch, which they might go along with, but they might change your shift to start 15 minutes later or end 15 minutes earlier to compensate.
I think what the OP is complaining about is that the employees are required to clock out when taking lunch, so instead of getting paid for 7 hours each day employees on that shift are only paid for 6 hours and 45 minutes.
A lunch break is required to be at least 30 minutes, but it can be longer. If you are clocking out for lunch then it is your time. If the company requires you to be avable or on property during your lunch then they are required to pay you for the time.
Are you considered full time? What is the company manual’s definition of full time? I can only give an Illinois example as with my current employer, employees have to work at least 35 hours a week - that’s be paid for 35 hours a week - to be considered full time, and a normal work week for a full timer is 37.5 hours (that’s scheduled for 40 hours, 5 8-hour days, with 30 minute unpaid lunches). Full-timers working a scheduled 8-hour shift are also allowed to take two 15 minute paid breaks during their shift. So, they get 30 minutes of unpaid break time and 30 minutes total paid break time. I’ve seen some employers add one of those 15 minute break times to lunches, rather than try to eke out an extra break with thin staff, but the total unpaid time is still 30 minutes.
It seems the OP’s issue may have more than one repercussion, if less than a 35 hour work week reduces status from full-time to part-time. Benefits may be impacted. If I were you, I’d re-read the company manual and make sure the lunch periods required to be unpaid are clearly defined. It’s possible someone’s got it wrong and the unpaid period for lunch is really 30 minutes with an added 15, which may sound generous but might be just one of the 15 minute paid breaks allowed added to lunch rather than allowed to be taken separately.
Having a work week reduced from 35 hours (which is already suspect regarding full time status), to 33.75 hours doesn’t sound right. Well, maybe it does if they are making the staff technically part time. That could reduce their insurance expense because they might not have to offer it to part-timers, and it might also reduce earned time off. I think if that happens, they’re going to have a lot of people jumping ship.
A similar thing is going on at my workplace. Normally, full-time staff are scheduled for 37.5 hours, and require 32 to maintain their status and benefits.
A few months back the company decided to cut hours, and local managers did so by scheduling some full-timers for only 30 hours. Several people talked to HR, who talked to the relevant managers, and the problem was apparently fixed.
Then I was off for a while for surgery, and returned to a couple of 32-hour weeks followed by a regular 37.5. This week was scheduled for 37.5, but the next day there was a note: “We had to make some changes.” I’m back to 30 hours.
I’ve mentioned it to HR, and will certainly talk to them again if it’s the same when I see next week’s schedule.
I’d suggest you check up on the law and your employee handbook, and continue to follow up.
Yes, it’s legal, you are being provided a minimum 30 minute unpaid meal period whilst working at least 5 hours (which is when the mandatory meal period becomes a requirement).
What I don’t understand is why you were paid for 30 minutes of your 1 hour meal previously. That seems like a pretty generous benefit.