Should unpaid lunch be restricted?

[Jack]

At the job I used to work (quit a couple of days ago - http://jack.is/quitting/ - might get a laugh there) our lunches were 1hr, unpaid. You logged completely out of the website that you logged in to for work.

My problem with the system, as mentioned on that web page I linked to, is that you could only take lunch if you were working 7 hours or more that shift. I ended up with quite a lot of 6-hour shifts, which made me eligible for only one 15-minute paid break. I had to do a lot of clever time management and take long "restroom breaks" to get by on those shifts (this is not the sort of thing I can do for hours without stopping to recollect my sanity).

I never understood why. Lunch is unpaid. So what's the problem? They have another rule that says you can't take lunch in the first or last hour of shift. This seems to make more sense, so perhaps at least 3 hours is reasonable, to allow for this rule, but otherwise why does it matter? I think I would have been happier and more productive if I didn't have to figure out how to work a shift without a significant break all the time.

What are you thoughts on this? How about any other restrictions of your activity or use of unpaid lunches or breaks?

[Andara Bledin]

The reason that a lot of companies will try to have as few people taking lunch as allowed by law is to keep as much coverage as possible with the fewest people possible. This actually makes a bit of sense from the management side of things.

Unfortunately, there are no national laws regarding meal or rest periods, with each state mandating what is required of companies (and the employees) separately. And what rules work best vary depending on the type of job.

For a workplace that has a lot of part time workers working in shifts, it's actually in their best interest to schedule as many people for the longest unbroken shifts allowable. That way, once one person leaves, the next person can take over that position. When done correctly, it makes for much more even and complete coverage.

But I can certainly see the frustration of someone who is working nearly full-time shifts having to spend that entire time working but for some single piddly break.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

I couldn't very well answer that there should be NO limits; after all, taken literally that would mean anybody could take however long an unpaid break they wanted, whenever they felt like it, which would make scheduling impossible if nothing else.

They shouldn't make the limit for getting a lunch so close to full time and then routinely schedule just slightly less than it takes to qualify, though. If the 15 minutes were 30, and about the middle of the shift, for people with, say, five hours or more...

[Jack]

Ah, yeah, I did ask a bad question there. Thanks for the replies.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm not sure where you are, but in California, if you work a minimum of 6 hours, you are required to be provided with a minimum of 20 minutes unpaid meal period. At 4 hours, you are entitled to 10 minutes of paid rest period. At 8 hours, you are entitled to a second 10 minute rest period. The meal period is to be scheduled as close to the middle of the work shift as feasible.

Other than the whole "at will" thing, California law is actually better for the worker than most other states.

^-.-^

[telecom_goddess]

The laws in Oregon are pretty much the same as in California. I personally get two 15 minute breaks (which I don't even bother taking) and 1 hour unpaid lunch. I feel I should be able to do with my lunch what I want..and I like right in the middle of my day.

[Rageaholic]

I voted no. After all, it's unpaid. I tend to take the employee side of things over management anyway.

[Ladeeda]

I voted Other.

I'm one of those people who likes to minimize my lunch break to just how long it takes me to eat (I get paid for the time I'm working, even if I cut my break short). I think this should be an option for everyone. Including the GETTING PAID once you're back on the clock part.

However, there are those that would abuse the system, and take like 2 hour lunches for a 4 hour day. Sure, they're not being paid, but it also screws up the scheduling. Someone else can't go on break and there's 1 less person to help with whatever the job is. There should be recourse for that situation.

[protege]

I don't get paid for my lunch break. Yet, I usually eat at my desk. What sucks, is that I'm expected to work as well. Unless I absolutely have to, I don't do shit. I'll take the occasional phone call, the emails, etc. but other than that, I shut down and surf the web. Management wants me to work for free? Sorry, but fuck that. You want me to work, you'll damn well pay me for it. I try to keep my lunch contained to an hour, but it's not my fault if it takes longer because of interruptions.

[Andara Bledin]

I personally get two 15 minute breaks (which I don't even bother taking) and 1 hour unpaid lunch.

Be careful with not taking your breaks. I don't know about there, but here, if you don't take your breaks, the company can get huge fines. They're responsible for not only making sure you get them, but that you observe them.

I don't get paid for my lunch break. Yet, I usually eat at my desk. What sucks, is that I'm expected to work as well.

You might want to check with your local labor board. If they regulate an unpaid lunch period and your workplace demands that you do work while still on that unpaid lunch period, then you may be eligible to start that unpaid lunch period over from the first minute. Of course, whether it's worth the hassle of fighting over that is another matter entirely.

^-.-^

[bhskittykatt]

At my motel, the housekeeping staff takes unpaid breaks. If they take as long as they like, the rooms get cleaned later, and guests have to wait. So we say no less than 35 minutes (to ensure compliance with labor laws) but no more than 45 minutes.

Also, we don't require it, but we strongly encourage they wait at least two hours or halfway through their assigned rooms to take a break. Again, it's because we need rooms turned over as quickly as we can so we don't have a lobby full of rioting guests who have to wait.

[Aethian]

I voted yes only because they way we have the rules for our lunch is... Can't start before 11:30 and can't end after 1:30 and is :30 mins long. Seems good to me to be in almost the complete middle of our days.

[Android Kaeli]

I really, really, REALLY hate having to take an unpaid lunch at six hours, because if I'm working six hours I DON'T need a freaking half hour lunch. Two fifteen minute breaks would do, with two hours between breaks.

It used to be that employees with the company could take either a lunch or two fifteen minutes, then the big wigs decided to crack down on people clocking in and out late and calling out. So it's a lunch regardless of what the employees want and not every employee wants/needs to take that half hour lunch for six hours.

If I'm working seven hours or more, yea I'll take a lunch. But not for six hours or less.

[Jack]

My ideal situation would be:

- Length of lunch is limited. Can't have people taking hours-long lunches for obvious reasons already stated here.
- Time of lunch is limited. The company I quit recently said you can't take lunch in the first or last hour and I'm fine with that. It should be a break, not a way to get on or off shift early.
- Whether you can take unpaid lunch is limited only by the above. I never understood why I had to work 7+ hours to take a lunch especially when 6 hour shifts left me with only one 15 minute break. It's unpaid - if I take it it's my loss - if it's their loss too then they should have scheduled me longer.