When I was the graveyard cook at a 24-hour restaurant, the manager kept telling me I had to clock out and take a 1/2-hour break. I told him “no”. I wasn’t going to clock out for 30 minutes when I was the only person in the kitchen. There was usually no manager on duty on that shift, and so there was nobody to cover in the kitchen while I was on break. As far as I was concerned, if I’m off the clock for 30 minutes, then I’m damn well going to sit on my ass for those 30 minutes, not be jumping up to cook something every time an order comes in. But that wouldn’t go over very well with the customers (“Where’s my damn food?” “I’m sorry, the cook is on his lunch break…”) so I just didn’t take the break.
For one thing, the odds were that I would be in the middle of cooking something when the 30 minutes were up, and I would forget or be unable to clock back in at the correct time, meaning I would be off the clock for more than 30 minutes. For another thing, an unpaid 30-minute break is supposed to be 30 consecutive minutes, not ten minutes here, six minutes there, fourteen minutes there.
So one of your coworkers called the Wage and Hours cops and you wonder why your boss is pissed and being paranoid about covering her ass?
Gee I guess it’s a real puzzle. Sounds to me like you “educated professionals, many with law degrees,” ought to try working in the real world for a while and then see if you really have something to complain about.
I think everyone has pretty much covered the info you requested. I will offer my opinion as an employer of 30 people, however. Our work day ranges from7:30-5:30. That is a ten hour day. I stagger employees so they all work 8 hours, with a 30 minute lunch that is mandatory. That 30 minute break is part of the labor law but also, I think it is important for people to get the opportunity to step away from their desks and reboot each day.
I know it is annoying because essentially, you need to be at work 30 minutes longer to get your 8 hours in so I suggest you find something you enjoy to do during that time. You may start looking forward to it.
You could get some knitting in on your break, read a chapter of a book, or a short story. Your boss didn’t say you had to eat the whole time, just that you had to take a break from work. So after you have eaten, knit or whatever?
If I get a 10-minute break to sit down and eat a sandwich and drink a coffee I consider myself lucky. 30 minutes? Luxury!
Honestly, go for a walk, drink another coffee, have another smoke (if that’s what you do), just, for the love of God, don’t start telling your boss that you don’t need no steenken’ 30-minute break… otherwise they may remove them completely- not only from you, but from the people who do want and/or need them.
I can only speak from experience. I had an employee who wanted to come in at 6:30 AM and leave at 2:30 PM without taking a lunch. My boss, for reasons that seemed good and valid to him, wanted everyone to be in during his “core” hours. He also wanted everyone to take 30 minutes for lunch.
I went to our HR department to be sure that I could legally do this. They said that I could.
General rule: Employer sets work hours. Employer sets work conditions. Employer sets break times. Some employers have to accommodate the needs of those with disabilities, to some extent. Most employers have to accommodate the religious requirements of employees, to some extent. Otherwise, the employer usually wins. Some states have specific rules about work hours, mandatory breaks (which might be waivable), maximum number of hours, minor’s work schedules, and the working conditions of government employees. Sometimes collective bargaining agreements have specific provisions on this kind of thing. I’ve probably forgotten a few other exceptions and qualifications.
nyctea scandiaca, I for one would be interested to hear what you learned if you contacted anyone about this.
Gfactor, I haven’t talked to anyone about this. I gotta admit, the whole situation (not just this but everything that has happened) has just mentally exhausted me and I sort of just don’t care anymore. This just isn’t important enough to me to make a big deal out of it.
I know this may sound snotty, but the main reason this irks me so much is because she isn’t doing this out of any genuine concern for us, but because she is being spiteful and micromanaging.
Are you sure it’s out of spite? She just transitioned a bunch of employees from salary (which caps her labor costs) to hourly (which can result in unexpected overages). She might also have talked to some lawyers about the situation and been advised to make changes in her policies (hourly employees require more explicit work rules.) If there aren’t policies, employees can run up a pretty good overtime tab, just by hanging around, even if the employer doesn’t want them to work overtime (permitting or suffering to work). Looks to me like she’s covering her ass, but maybe she is bitter, too. Both seem like predictable and natural reactions. Your reaction is pretty normal, too.
Pretty much says it all for me. If you are a professional, you should be treated like one. OTOH, professionals get salaries, in part, because they sometimes are expected to put in long hours. It’s a trade off. The person who complained changed the deal for everyone; and it probably won’t get changed back.
Sorry. I know I’d leave this job in a second if they started making me punch a clock.
It’s better than punching a clock and not getting paid anything for overtime. I’ve been in situations where I was considered exempt but management was obsessed with monitoring their employees attendance with the aid of reports from the building security system. Every morning, some management goon would wander around the office, timekeeping report in hand, demanding explanations for offenses like leaving five minutes early on the previous day. They wanted the free overtime, but didn’t want to treat us like professionals.
A related question: Can the employer force employees to leave their desks at lunchtime?
My department just found out that we’re being changed to non-exempt status (primarily because we don’t manage anyone and have a set schedule for work). We’ve been told that we must take a one hour lunch and we must take it away from our desks.
This means we can’t read the newspaper, pay bills, browse the web or take a nap at our desks.
The California FAQ linked in Post #2 mentions a couple exceptions where employers can require you to stay in the building, but doesn’t cover requirements to leave.
My guess would be that, in California, an employee on his or her meal break is (supposed to be) completely off the job, not on-call or anything. If the worker isn’t completely unavailable to work during that period, he or she is supposed to still on the clock during lunch. An employer might be using such an order to ensure that you are not called upon to work during your lunch because you’re at your desk.
That sounds very much like what they told us, but dagnabbit, I want to be able to surf! And on a rainy day, I don’t even want to leave the building unless it’s either on fire, or it’s 5:00.
I work for a Huge Evil Retailer that has had some legal problems with lunch breaks (among other things). We are required to take at least a 30 minute lunch if we are there more than 6 hours, or we get in serious trouble.
I’m guessing the rules change a bit from state to state, but that’s the basic corporate rule. I don’t know about the salaried people (managers), but I know damn well what I’m entitled to.
