Help with labour codes

[P.C.]

Can someone decipher this for me ?

  [FONT size=2][FONT face=Arial]Meal Breaks
An employee must not work more than five hours in a row without a 30-minute unpaid meal break. An employee who is required to work or be available for work during a meal break must be paid for the meal break.

Employers are not required to provide coffee breaks. [/FONT][/FONT]


  This is not the original 'code' I came across the first time, but I can't seem to find it again.

It went something like this:

  1) an employee must not work more than five hours in a row without a 30 minute meal break.

  2)  (can't remember this one)

  3)  if an employee must work through their 30 minute break they must be paid....(duh)

    Now THIS is where I'm confused.  If you must have a 30 minute break after 5 hours but have to WORK through this 30 minute break, you must be paid.  This sounds so redundant to me.

Can anyone shed some light on this...it's making me mental with it's stupidity.      

[49er]

 3)  if an employee must work through their 30 minute break they must be paid....(duh)



because the employee will end up working 8.5 hours for the day (shift).........with half hour of overtime.  If he is not paid he will only have worked 8 hrs on record[/DIV]

[P.C.]

Well, that's how I interpreted it also 49er....but apparently this is not the case.  I wish I could find the code written in 'legal terms'.  The 3rd paragraph basically contradicted paragraphs 1 and 2.  The 3rd paragraph not only sounds redundant to me, but also 'unwrites paragraph 1 and 2.  Hubby phoned this morn to check it out, and they said.....an employer is not required to give a 'meal break' (or ANY break) in an 8 hour shift.

[P.C.]

So I think this is the one I was referring to......is this mental, or is it just me ?

    [SPAN class=subsection][FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fcfae1"]Text of Legislation[/FONT][/SPAN][A id=2 name=2][/A][FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fcfae1"] [/FONT] [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fcfae1"]32. (1) An employer must ensure[/FONT]

 [BLOCKQUOTE] [BLOCKQUOTE] [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fcfae1"](a) that no employee works more than 5 consecutive hours without a meal break, and[/FONT]

 [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fcfae1"](b) that each meal break lasts at least 1/2 hour.[/FONT]

[/BLOCKQUOTE] [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fcfae1"](2) An employer who requires an employee to work or be available for work during a meal break must count the meal break as time worked by the employee.[/FONT]

[/BLOCKQUOTE] [P align=right][!-- #BeginLibraryItem "/Library/toTopLink.lbi" --]

[49er]

Hubby phoned this morn to check it out, and they said.....an employer is not required to give a 'meal break' (or ANY break) in an 8 hour shift.

 Sure sounds illegal and unsafe.  I have heard of employees working thru lunches and not get paid but was because of their fear of loosing their jobs.

 
 

   

[P.C.]

I'm not looking to get paid for a meal break....just the break will do.  This job requires one to work on their feet in a 3 to 4 foot space for 8 hours.  No pee break....no meal break AND you MUST NOT  eat food in your 3 to 4 foot space.

  Now, whether this is legal or not is one thing....but it sure doesn't seem to make any kind of sense when it comes to expecting cheerful service in the last half of ones shift....it just seems counter-productive to me.  I've just started back at a job I had a few years ago (that I loved).....but this is looking like a deal breaker for me.  

  EVERYONE has quit.....and boss guy asked me to 'fill in' all these vacant shifts.  I'd feel bad to walk, but I don't believe I can do this......and to find this is LEGAL is incredible to me.

[Sportsdude]

Sounds like China laws to me P.C.

[P.C.]

I'm usually pretty easy going about most things.  I just go along and get along.  I also think this might be a good time to negotiate because in only 4 days, I am now the senior employer in this department....lol.  He's scrambling.  I think I'll explain to him, he is going to be spending a great deal of his time training new staff.  8 to 10 hours shifts (no overtime) no breaks, isn't going to muster a loyal following.

[Sportsdude]

[FONT face=Arial size=2]"Employers are not required to provide coffee breaks. "[/FONT]

[FONT face=Arial size=2][/FONT]

[FONT face=Arial size=2]Only in the Pacific Northwest would they have a line about coffee breaks. [/FONT]

[49er]

the labor code quoted above (I assumed from Canadian Labor Code) sounded so archaic that I went to the US Dept of Labor to see whats there.....and its the same

[A href="vny!://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/breaks.htm#doltopics"]vny!://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/breaks.htm#doltopics[/A]

 [FONT class=headersm][/FONT]

 [FONT class=headersm]Breaks & Meal Periods[/FONT]

 [UL] [LI][A href="vny!://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/breaks.htm#doltopics"]DOL Web Pages on This Topic[/A]   [LI][A href="vny!://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/breaks.htm#lawregs"]Laws and Regulations on This Topic[/A] [/LI][/UL] Federal law does not require lunch or coffee breaks. However, when employers do offer short breaks (usually lasting about 5 to 20 minutes), federal law considers the breaks work-time that must be paid. Unauthorized extensions of authorized work breaks need not be counted as hours worked when the employer has expressly and unambiguously communicated to the employee that the authorized break may only last for a specific length of time, that any extension of the break is contrary to the employer's rules, and any extension of the break will be punished.

 Bona fide meal periods (typically lasting at least 30 minutes), serve a different purpose than coffee or snack breaks and, thus, are not work time and are not compensable

 

[P.C.]

This makes absolutely no sense to me.  Why even have the clause about working 5 consecutive hours.

What's the point in this ?  I'm so baffled.  I can't believe that I've never heard of this before.

I'm definitely not for unions, but this makes me see why they still exist.

   [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fcfae1"]32. (1) An employer must ensure[/FONT]

 [BLOCKQUOTE] [BLOCKQUOTE] [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fcfae1"](a) that no employee works more than 5 consecutive hours without a meal break, and[/FONT]

 [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fcfae1"](b) that each meal break lasts at least 1/2 hour.   [/FONT]

[/BLOCKQUOTE][/BLOCKQUOTE]

[CK]

Hi P.C.,

that sounds like a bunch of BS to me!? This sounds like conditions that took place back in the industrial revolution.

best of luck buddy. Not sure what would work better?  A union, or some mafia friends?

  Sure different here. Employers are so afraid their employees will find a better offer, they beg, plead, change conditions, add perks, raise pay, offer other incentives so they don't quit. The firm where I am can't find anyone to hire, and they are ready to basically pay as much as people will ask for.

[P.C. (oops)]

It truly does sound archaic CK.  Hubby says what difference does it make to have the law on your side if you have employees who are miserable, and training new employees becomes a full time job for the employers.  This place is under new management, and I wonder if they believe they will gain any employee loyalty with this type of behavior.

I'm certainly no wimp, and can handle a hard days work. but I find this more challenging than doing dawn to dusk physical labour.  

[P.C.]

That was me....login ran out.

[CK]

Employees that don't have the slightest clue about morale, will get bit hard in the end!

I hope it works out. A happy P.C., makes me happy!