Pitting the 'whistleblower'

The BBQ Pit
1

My tutoring job is a somewhat unconvential kind of job where most employees (such as me) work short, 3-4 hour shifts. Due to the unpredictable nature of the job, and the short shifts, we don’t normally have breaks. The only exception is if we are working a double shift- we get a lunch break for that.

One new employee, unhappy that he had to work four hours straight, challenged the boss about the fact that according to CA labor laws, we are REQUIRED to have a break if we work four hours. Now you may ask, why am I complaining about getting a break?

Because having someone sitting there doing nothing for ten minutes puts a huge cramp in the system. If there were a couple of people working four-hour shifts that day, and it was particularly busy (which is common), having one person take a break would negatively affect performance. Why not have them take breaks when it is quiet? Well, that would be the most logical thing, except up until now we had an even better solution- send people home early. If it was relatively quiet, whoever was scheduled to be off next would be sent home early. This would mean that just because they were scheduled to work a four-hour shift, that did not mean they would be there for 4 hours necessarily.

The whistleblower took it to himself to call up everybody and remind them about this. We have a lot of new employees lately, and they are mostly 16 year olds that have a tendency to take a mile when given an inch. Worse, the breaks aren’t scheduled, because it would be impossible for the boss to predict when the center will be quiet enough to faciliate a break. This means people will just go on break arbitrarily, something I don’t like one bit (several employees already have an annoying habit of leaving early :mad: ).

Concerned, I brought this up with the boss, and I told her I don’t like having a break because the 10 minutes isn’t enough to do anything, and its hard for me to just sit there and not help people/get things done. I asked her what her solution to this was, and she said “No more 4 hour shifts”.

:eek: I was mortified. Right now I rely heavily on volunteering to work 4 hour shifts because I can only work there 4 days a week, and by being able to work 25% longer each day, I can earn the around same amount of money as I did working 6 days a week. But now, because one person had to make a stink about the stupid break rule, I’m going to inevitably get scheduled less hours, which will lower my income :mad:

2

Yeah, it sucks for you.

But it’s a State law. If you’re organization was ever audited, and they found that employees were not given their breaks that are required by law, your organization might face some serious penalties.

3

That is true, which is why the boss had to change policy. She was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Technically, she HAD to let people take breaks if they worked that long, but it would be such a hassle to do it. We already get asked to do some work on the computer, where we get to sit down for a while. Personally, I found that to be close enough to a break, since the work is so easy.

I’m going to talk to my boss and ask her if there was ANY way she could let me work longer shifts- perhaps by working two shifts that were 15 minutes apart, or by working 3 hours and simply ‘sticking around to finish up’ which is often how I got extra hours (don’t get me wrong, it was always with permission).

4

Would scheduling shifts for 3 hours and 59 minutes be a legal tactic? If so, would it be a practical way to avoid changing much?

I know basically nothing about California labor law; neither a “yes” or a “no” would particularly surprise me.

5

Either/or, neither/nor. Eye no mye grammer. Really. :smack:

6

Scheduling people for a 3 hour 59 minute work shift to avoid a paid 10 minute break sounds like a fucked up Republican wet dream to me.

7

Well, that’s leadership for you.

Incubis, a question. You say you don’t normally have breaks for a 4 hour shift. Does this mean:

A) no breaks, period. You gotta go the can, tough, Cigarette? Forget it. Water? Don’t think so.

OR

B) no scheduled breaks. But you can go the bathroom, smoke a cigarette, or get water or coffee, just don’t be toooo long about it.

I’m guessing you mean B, right?

8

Yeah its B). So in a way we already have ‘unoffical’ breaks- if someone needs a gulp of water, or really has to use the restroom, its fine as long as someone can cover their area. But its mutually understood that the person is only going to be gone for a moment.

For me, I have gotten quite used to just working four hours straight. By the time I start to get fatigued/cranky/hungry/etc, my shift is done and I can go home.

BTW, about ‘cigarette breaks’. I don’t think that would fly where I work, because they are really sensitive about their image. Having an employee standing outside smoking a cigarette would do little to attract parents looking to get their kids extra tutoring. :eek: Now of course, I don’t think they could legally discriminate against hiring smokers, but it could be brought up as a ‘professionalism’ issue, so if you were a smoker, you’re certainly not doing any smoking near the center, and if you can’t go four hours without a cigarette, you might want to consider another line of work.

9

Why stop there? If you can’t work without crapping or peeing for four hours, you should also find different work.

I want robots, damn it, robots!