Comments on: Can I please take a lunch break?

By: Eric Post

Eric Post — Sat, 25 Apr 2015 20:40:52 +0000

One thing to remember when you question why some state have such “weak” labor laws is to remember this, they probably had strong unions at one time.

I recently completed a project for Illinois which has fairly, in my opinion weak laws for the employees. But doing my research I found at one time Illinois have very strong unions. These unions negotiated CBA (collective bargaining agreements) that WERE enforceable.

So basically the attitude of state lawmakers was, “Why pass laws when the union’s contracts are doing it for us.”

When the unions declined in membership, the CBAs became non-effective for most new jobs, thus leaving the hole.

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 11:17:52 +0000

I live in Indiana which legally only has to pay you OT for anything over 8 hours, unless you are salaried, which is pretty freely used. Eating lunch while working is common in my experience. I’ve had several jobs that had a lunch time scheded but since there was no lunch or break room, you had to eat @ your desk and guess what that meant? Constant interruption, yes indeed.
Honestly, most places I’ve worked have been managed poorly.

By: Iforget

Iforget — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 09:09:21 +0000

In reply to JB.

Hey now… In one of those pictures two kids are having lunch.

In AZ they have no state law, so default to no mandated meals/breaks federal guideline. That said, employers who I have worked for granted non-exempt staff the same 2x10min & 30min requirements as in CA. These employers had employees located in CA also, so it was likely just easier to do paperwork-wise.

A lot of people value the image ‘no breaks’ can give and can get promoted in to positions of authority where they will really be oblivious unless it is spelled out. I had one particularly horrible boss who did “hunger strike it” up the ladder and I’m pretty sure she lived off of tiny peices of souls and full sugar soda. To her credit though, I probably wouldn’t want to eat after I rode a broom in to work either. It’s insane breaks do not seem logical to some people.

It’s better for everyone if I don’t get hangry and can get up to walk.

I really hope you can get some lunch… It shouldn’t be this hard!

By: JB

JB — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 01:52:51 +0000

Are US labor laws just a work-around for murder? If an exempt employee technically and legally can be required to work 24 hours a day for about 2 weeks and denied meal breaks it seems possible to, in theory, kill them without breaking any laws. Seriously though, are we really getting to the point where people need to justify why they need food? Here are some pictures of child labor in America just to remind us the just because something is legal doesn’t mean it isn’t deranged. I think the lesson here is that employers apparently need everything spelled out for them and a labor law regarding “eating” may soon become necessary:

http://www.businessinsider.com/shocking-pictures-of-child-labor-in-america-less-than-100-years-ago-2012-2#cigar-factory-indianapolis-ind-boys-in-foreground-1

By: HRTerminator

HRTerminator — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:34:41 +0000

In Oregon, non-exempt employees are required to take a 10 minute break for every 4 hours of work (or major portion thereof) and a 30 minute unpaid meal break for every 6 hours. So, an 8 hour day gets you 2 breaks and a meal. For some of my employees, getting them to come back from break after 10 minutes is impossible (hence my nickname, The Terminator) and for others, it is impossible to get them to take their breaks. Since it is required and Oregon is a stickler for those breaks and meals, I document everything and write employees up for missed breaks and lunches (and long breaks and lunches). Personally, I always take my lunch. I am exempt, so I am not required, but, see me on a day without food, and Terminator is the least of our problems.

By: TheWitchFromHR

TheWitchFromHR — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 21:27:16 +0000

Checking in from California, where the law requires employers to provide non-exempt employees who work more than 6 hours with not only an unpaid 30-minute meal break, and two paid 10-minute rest breaks. Missing a rest or meal break altogether earns the employee one hour paid time as a ‘missed meal period premium’, and yes, it is possible, if you don’t get any of these breaks, to get an addition 3 hours pay – 1 MMPP for the first missed rest break, 1 MMPP for the missed meal break, 1 MMPP for the second missed meal break.

It’s surprising how many employees get angry when told they have to take their breaks!

By: AggrAV8ed Tech

AggrAV8ed Tech — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 14:40:00 +0000

In reply to Evil HR Lady. Ooooh, I like the way you think!

By: Evil HR Lady

Evil HR Lady — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 14:05:46 +0000

In reply to AggrAV8ed Tech. Keep track of your unpaid hours. After you find a new job and leave, file with the department of labor for unpaid wages. Thy don't call me evil for nothing.

By: Evil HR Lady

Evil HR Lady — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 14:05:04 +0000

In reply to Dee. It's great fun for some people. For others, they need some alone time to recharge.

By: AggrAV8ed Tech

AggrAV8ed Tech — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 13:55:55 +0000

I’m one of those people that seems to rarely be able to take a lunch, but it’s not by choice in my case. I’ve been left as the only person in my department during the day and often, there’s no spare hour in which I can take a lunch to go decompress. Or, on the odd occasion I DO get a spare hour, I’m interrupted by a service call on the dept. cell phone and my lunch is cut very short.

And you may ask, why am I taking my dept. cell phone with me to lunch? Because my boss will come down on me if I don’t, despite the fact that the (spineless) union here says I should get paid for lunches if I’m essentially “on call”. What’s worse is that I don’t get OT for missing lunches because I’ll get hammered by both my boss and HR if I don’t put a lunch on my timesheet. It’s rather frustrating.