Back in the day, when your insurance copay was really all you paid, I asked my mom why they even made me pay the $10 to see the doctor or $5 for a script. Same reasoning. If it was free, you’d be there all the time, if you’re charged something, even a few dollars, maybe you’ll wait and see if that cough clears up in a day or two.
The only fast food place I’ve worked, we were allowed to eat or take home any expired food- stuff like cakes and pre-made paninis, good for another day or so at least- but the manager was very clear that if stock rotation wasn’t happening properly, even a hint that people were trying to screw the system to get free stuff, that policy would stop and would not restart. Behave or the perk vanishes. I was there 18 months, and it was still policy when I left.
There was a 50% discount for food bought during break and a 20% discount for food bought if not on shift. Buying one drink and meal for an SO or one friend with the 20% off was OK-but-don’t-do-it-too-often, showing up with a bunch of friends and trying to wheedle a discount on 5 people’s purchases was not.
It was a coffee shop, and we could have all the free drinks we wanted on shift, on condition that they were small size and all recorded on a board in the staff room, with one ‘added extra’ in one drink per day (syrup, whipped cream etc) and the rest plain. I heard a few complaints, but people stuck to it. I was temporarily moved to another branch at one point, as emergency cover. That branch allowed any size drink, no record, just help yourself to whatever. Staff there would grab a large, stuff marshmallows, 5 shots of syrup and cream in, then drink a bit then throw the rest away 'cos it was cold and too sickly. Then two hours later, make another one… You’d find rows of 16 oz cups, stone cold, all with just a mouthful taken out of them in the staff room. Finding one cold drink in my normal branch would get comments about wasting drinks from the other staff. Bit of an eye opener as a difference.
Both ‘free staff drinks’ but how they’d implemented it made all the difference.
I’m not arguing one side or the other, just describing the case. Of course, the court ruled for the employer.
I know someone that works at a big store, a Wal-targ-meier-menardepot type of place. When he goes on break, he punches out near the back of the store before making an exit out the front. Unoccupied employees are often difficult to find in these stores and he would be approached very often by customers seeking help. You can imagine how telling them what amounts to ‘Sorry, I won’t help you and I’m leaving for lunch’ goes over. He now keeps a sweatshirt in his locker to wear as a disguise over his nametag, corportate-approved shirt/pants, duty belt, etc. He still gets stopped but less now.
I realize that’s not the same as someone with food in front of them but do you really think there aren’t people who would interrupt an employee sitting in the dining room munching on some food and avoiding eye contact to tell them can I get some extra Fire sauce or you forgot my sour cream or there’s vomit in the men’s room?
Having worked in fast-food when I was in college, there sure are such people. And if people asked me anything other than where the restroom was, I told them to go to the counter.
Bu here’s the thing about this Taco Bell case in particular - even if you want to consider the situation where employees taking their break in the dining room are on call because customers ask them questions, those employees aren’t in the dining room in uniform because Taco Bell insisted on it. They could have put a sweatshirt over their uniform shirt like your friend did. They could have foregone the discounted meal and left the premises. There isn’t even a mention in the court decision that eating in the building means eating in the dining room- I worked at more than one place that had a break/locker room. Also according to the court decision:
She didn’t even claim that Taco Bell required her to get sour cream for customers who asked for it while she was on her break.
I think a lot of people don’t see the distinction between " I can’t leave the building for my break and I am not fully relieved of my duties" and " I am fully relieved of my duties and can leave the building for my break but there’s some reason I don’t want to". People at my job have to testify at hearings frequently. And then they come back and fill out their timesheets claiming an hour’s overtime because " I didn’t take lunch- there isn’t enough time to leave, eat lunch and get back"" . Well, the hearings stopped from 1-2 for lunch. They were free to leave the building. They could have left and gotten pizza for lunch, they could have brought lunch and ate in the car, they could have sat in the car and napped. They could have done any number of things but they were not expected to work and did not even claim they worked during that hour- they expected time and a half because they chose not to leave. And there appears to have been similar thinking in the Taco Bell case - since by her theory, she was on-call during her break she also wanted that thirty minutes added to her time worked which would have entitled her to overtime.
People don’t realize that lawsuits like these often result in perks being taken away. If I am going to have to pay you time-and-a-half because you chose to take the discounted meal and eat it on-premises, then you can just pay full price from now on and eat wherever you want to.
I worked at a fast food pizza place in high school and this sort of thing was very common, especially since our food policy was much more *laissez faire *than our neighbors.
What we definitely were not supposed to do was trade pizza for Blockbuster rentals, but that was mostly because the managers had dibs on the really good deals.
I have not read everything here, but the reason is 2 fold. 1 you may be selling your discounted meal and 2 those people would most likely be buying full priced meals, so even though you are entitled to a discount meal, by giving it to someone else you are costing them money they should have made selling at full price.
This thread dragged up an old memory.
There was a middle aged lady that sold beer out of her house. She had a job at a convenience store. She’d buy several cases of beer and have it iced down for Sunday sales.
I was in high school and my friends and I bought from her frequently. Sometimes she ran out mid week. She’d sell single cans and that was great for us. 
Her main focus was Sunday sales because they were prohibited at stores. I’m sure it yielded a nice profit.
I doubt that she got a discount at the convenience store. But, she could buy large quantities without raising suspicion.
It would be a red flag for anyone else to buy that much every week.
I’m sure she eventually got caught. But, I never heard anything.
Used to manage a Pizza Hut. We traded out with KFC all the time.
A beerporium I drink at allows their bartenders to try the beers so they can more effectively advise the clientele. With 40 beers on tap that sounds like a recipe for disaster, but it mostly works.
Beat ya both. Post 34. 
I think they’re already being 'paid" unless they’re being deducted from paycheck. Most states have rules about breaks being mandatory, so no harm
I’m not sure about their state, but in Wisconsin, breaks (for most workers) are not required. And, so far as I know, when employers do provide breaks, which most do, it’s up to the employer as to if it’s paid or not.
No, the breaks were unpaid - you work 8-4, you get paid for 7.5 hours and have a 30 minute unpaid break. That’s basically what the entire lawsuit was about- the employees were claiming they should have been paid for the breaks since they couldn’t leave the premises to eat a discounted meal.
Then pay full price and leave all you want.
That is not a new thing in restaurants, many have had similar policies in places for decades.
No one asks you to mop the toilet when you are on your lunch break, you are off the clock.
It seems like there are two issues going on.
1)The court case where the employees stated that they should be paid while they are on their break. The court shot that down because they are fully relieved of their duties during the break. Assuming they are actually fully relieved, then that seems correct.
2)I don’t know if this is an issue the employees ever mentioned or if it became part of the discussion. They want to be paid for their break AND get discounted food (claiming they were required to stay on site) or they want to be able to leave AND get discounted food. I don’t think there’s any merit to either of those claims beyond the store’s policy being explained or explained better and/or the employees understanding what the law is and how it differs from store policy.
Regarding the second item, the store isn’t required to provide discounted food to the employees. Complaining about it seems like a good way to get it taken away.
This one seems pretty obvious to me.
A meal that anyone can eat is more valuable than one that only one person can eat, so employees are more likely to use it. An employee who’s bored of Taco Bell or not hungry during his shift isn’t going to eat a meal, and that’s a meal that Taco Bell won’t have to pay for. A bored-of-TB not-hungry employee with a friend who drops by is going to cost Taco Bell a meal.
I’m sure someone at Taco Bell corporate has a model for how much this perk costs them, and how much more it would cost them if employees could give the meals away to anyone they felt like.
Back in college when I worked food service, when I started, the policy was that employees could get whatever they wanted at break time, for free. Partway through, that changed to employees could still get whatever they wanted, and it was still free, but you had to write down the total price in a book by the register. It had the same chilling effect others mentioned.
I briefly worked in a Luden’s factory for a while, which (apart from the cough drops) made 5th Avenue candy bars. Same deal - all you can eat onsite, but no takeaways. By the end of the first day working in an atmosphere redolent with the odor of cocoa butter, the appeal of gorging on chocolate had already gone.
My first real job had a seriously good free food perk. It was at a dinner theatre, a venue that served a nice buffet dinner followed by a performance of a play, usually a classic Broadway musical. It was kind of cheesy, but the place was a local favorite for a special evening out.
And the food buffet - although it was the same very night- was really pretty good, a choice of about 20-30 salads and side dishes plus carved ham, turkey and prime rib.
The other thing about this place was it served as a tax dodge for the owner so they weren’t particularly concerned with keeping down expenses. We could go through the buffet with the paying customers and eat as much as we wanted every day. I never took food home but I don’t think it was prohibited. We also got free drinks after work.
But even then, we got bored with the food so management also cooked up an employee meal every day - usually burgers, pizza, lasagna or something more casual. As this was my first job, I didn’t appreciate the generousity of the perks