Unpaid lunch
-
This post did not contain any content.
I can't because it wouldn't make much sense, we need people working together to do stuff so break times are synchronized
-
Wait, so you don't eat for 8 hours?
No, I normally eat for about ten minutes.
-
This post did not contain any content.
If they let you take lunch at the end of the day to leave sooner that creates a loophole to say they gave you your lunch break without actually doing so
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Reminder: the traditional "9 to 5" workday that is considered "full time" includes lunch. If you're not getting paid for it or are working 8 to 5 or whatever, you're getting swindled.
You might say it's "normal" now, but it only becomes normalized because workers fail to hold the line.
-
And that's why lunch should be paid if it's inside the workday.
I've always noted with a certain cynicism that the old nomenclature for the workday '9-5' adds up to eight hours. Surely these people weren't missing lunch...
-
8-4 is still 8 hours?
The average work day is 8-5 with an unpaid lunch break.
8-4 to your payroll people is 8 hours less a lunch break. Because they expect you took it and went home early.
Again it's not something that can't be fixed, and I'm sure once in a while it would be fine. But a bunch of people doing it all the time probably causes enough extra work to need to hire someone just to take care of it.
The most unreasonably rigid people you've ever met will work in accounting and payroll.
-
And that's why lunch should be paid if it's inside the workday.
In a way it is paid/unpaid either way.
At the end of the day, the time you spend "for" work includes your transit to and from work as well as the breaks that you take without being able to really do your thing.
You have to calculate that time against your pay. This is also why working from home shouldn't be something companies have any doubt about. Taking away the commute time maintains the time you can be productive for the company, while notably shorting your total time spent "for" work.
-
My entire career, I got a one-hour lunch, and two, paid, ten-minute breaks.
I know some will say you'd rather not because that's just more time at work, but with a one-hour lunch you can leave work, that's the whole point. It's a real break. One hour is enough time to go to a restaurant, or you can eat at work, and take a short walk. Half-an-hour is barely enough to time to eat and use the bathroom.
I guess what I'm saying is unionize.
That's why we use the bathroom before or after lunch.
-
A yearly meeting with your boss where they either tell you all the things you did great and maybe a couple small things you can improve on while not paying you more, or they tell you how terrible you did and try to pressure you into doing more work by hanging the threat of your job (homelessness, loss of insurance, death) over your head.
Don't forget they also hold you responsible for all your work they held up.
-
I can't because it wouldn't make much sense, we need people working together to do stuff so break times are synchronized
so then it's not my time because I can't take it when I want. since that's the case, why isn't it paid?
-
It's not illegal where I live but it's against my union rules (though it's not a labour job). They have super strict rules about exactly when we should take our breaks. I get it in principle because there are asshole bosses who would try to force people to work through their breaks or shame them into it, but it really sucks for those of us who just don't mind pushing through so we can leave early or like to take late lunches.
Yeah, that's one thing that sucks about union jobs. On the other hand, I'm no longer at a union job and can break/lunch whenever I want, but my boss can make unrealistic expectations and I have no way to argue if I can't get another manager in the line to back me up. My current workplace is very quickly turning into a shittty place to work since there isn't a union to push back.
-
My entire career, I got a one-hour lunch, and two, paid, ten-minute breaks.
I know some will say you'd rather not because that's just more time at work, but with a one-hour lunch you can leave work, that's the whole point. It's a real break. One hour is enough time to go to a restaurant, or you can eat at work, and take a short walk. Half-an-hour is barely enough to time to eat and use the bathroom.
I guess what I'm saying is unionize.
Or live in a state that doesn’t screw you over.
1 hr lunch, two 15 minute breaks for 8 hour shift. Or half hour lunch minimum required after 6 hours work.This is with or without union.
Being on the clock for lunch is a terrible idea. I like my own time thanks.
-
No, I normally eat for about ten minutes.
That's pretty quick.
-
This is how it is at my current job in Denmark. Never experienced it before working in Denmark.
There's also unpaid lunch in Denmark. This would though mean that you cannot be interrupted in your half-hour lunch break for work. If you get paid lunch time your employer can though legally call you in for work again if they need you, e.g. calling in the doctor for an emergency operation.
-
Reminder: the traditional "9 to 5" workday that is considered "full time" includes lunch. If you're not getting paid for it or are working 8 to 5 or whatever, you're getting swindled.
You might say it's "normal" now, but it only becomes normalized because workers fail to hold the line.
Would anyone have a reference on this? (I failed to find one. Internet searches now suck.)
-
Reminder: the traditional "9 to 5" workday that is considered "full time" includes lunch. If you're not getting paid for it or are working 8 to 5 or whatever, you're getting swindled.
You might say it's "normal" now, but it only becomes normalized because workers fail to hold the line.
My full time job is considered part-time because of this. Plus I just found out we don’t receive jury duty compensation because we’re seasonal workers that’ll just get fired at the end of the season anyways.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Check your local laws. In many states, there is no requirement that you take a lunch. There is no federal requirement for that either.
I’ve had employers tell me that that I legally had to clock out for a certain amount of time, but that’s bullshit. It might be company policy but it’s not a law.
Also, this applies to teens working too. The laws are bad. Found this out when Subway was making my 16 yr old niece work 9-12 hour shifts with no lunch break.
-
Would anyone have a reference on this? (I failed to find one. Internet searches now suck.)
Here's a source I found for the UK at least:
-
If they let you take lunch at the end of the day to leave sooner that creates a loophole to say they gave you your lunch break without actually doing so
There’s no federal law in the US that requires them to give you a lunch break. My state doesn’t have one either.
-
Check your local laws. In many states, there is no requirement that you take a lunch. There is no federal requirement for that either.
I’ve had employers tell me that that I legally had to clock out for a certain amount of time, but that’s bullshit. It might be company policy but it’s not a law.
Also, this applies to teens working too. The laws are bad. Found this out when Subway was making my 16 yr old niece work 9-12 hour shifts with no lunch break.
In California, you can only waive it if you work less than 6 hours. Otherwise, you need to take a lunch before the 5th hour hits. For overtime, you get a second (you can waive, they cant) meal period after your 10th hour.
