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.
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]
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.
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" --]
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.
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.
Sounds like China laws to me 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.
[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. (//vny!://discoverseattle.net/forums/richedit/smileys/Happy/4.gif) [/FONT]
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
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]
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.
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.
That was me....login ran out.
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!
Awww.....Thanks CK. I think I'm going to have a little chat with him. I don't like to take advantage, as he's between a rock and a hard place right now with another few employees walking.....but maybe this is exactly the time he will be able to hear.
found this in the California Labor Code
[A href="vny!://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=00001-01000&file=500-558"]vny!://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=00001-01000&file=500-558[/A]
[FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff40"]512. (a) An employer may not employ an employee for a work period
of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a
meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total
work period per day of the employee is no more than six hours, the
meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and
employee. An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of
more than 10 hours per day without providing the employee with a
second meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the
total hours worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal period
may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee only
if the first meal period was not waived.
[/FONT]
49er....that's not too different from ours, except that we have that little paragraph that wipes that out.
Is there anything after that ? LOL
Is there anything after that ?
here is complete para.
512. (a) An employer may not employ an employee for a work period
of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a
meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total
work period per day of the employee is no more than six hours, the
meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and
employee. An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of
more than 10 hours per day without providing the employee with a
second meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the
total hours worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal period
may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee only
if the first meal period was not waived.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the Industrial Welfare
Commission may adopt a working condition order permitting a meal
period to commence after six hours of work if the commission
determines that the order is consistent with the health and welfare
of the affected employees.
(c) Subdivision (a) does not apply to an employee in the wholesale
baking industry who is subject to an Industrial Welfare Commission
wage order and who is covered by a valid collective bargaining
agreement that provides for a 35-hour workweek consisting of five
seven-hour days, payment of 1 and1/2 the regular rate of pay for time
worked in excess of seven hours per day, and a rest period of not
less than 10 minutes every two hours.
(d) If an employee in the motion picture industry or the
broadcasting industry, as those industries are defined in Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders 11 and 12, is covered by a valid
collective bargaining agreement that provides for meal periods and
includes a monetary remedy if the employee does not receive a meal
period required by the agreement, then the terms, conditions, and
remedies of the agreement pertaining to meal periods apply in lieu of
the applicable provisions pertaining to meal periods of subdivision
(a) of this section, Section 226.7, and Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders 11 and 12.
The only cool thing about being an independent contractor is that if you make just under 20k, as my self (although I work part time now) you don't have to pay taxes. Although taxes never really have bothered me personally, even thou I've never filled out a tax statement.
The bad thing, your an independent contractor, health benefits or benefits or plans of any kind do not exist.
P.C. wrote:
I'm definitely not for unions,
Hiya PC. You're not for unions? You don't really expect the fat cats at the top of the food chain to look after your interests, do you? Especially if it effects their bottom line. I know they have problems (they make lazy workers that can't get fired, make trouble with management, etc.) but they are neccesary to give the little guy a voice. You'll have to forgive me, I was raised with my Grandpa lecturing any chance he got how unions enabled us to live the (modestly comfortable middle-class) life we have. My inheritance put the down payment on our house. Those at the top will take any chance they can to make an extra buck.
As to your situation (8 hrs. no bathroom break?!?!? Do they issue you a carbon-fibre bladder?), since it doesn't sound legal or healthy or even good business sense perhaps you could innocently bring up to your manager that you were talking to a friend that works in (whatever Canada's labour authority) about this and maybe that's why there's such high turnover. Whether you do know someone like that or not, it'll put the bug in his ear that someone official might get on his case.
The only nice thing about my last job was the breaks. When one did a double shift they rolled your 30 min lunch, and two 15 min breaks we're legally allotted here, all into one glorious fully paid hour.
No, FC...I'm not a big union person at all. I think your grandfather knew of what he was speaking though. They were necessary then....they served a good purpose. NOW, they protect the wrong people (IMHO). The owner of this company is a really GOOD man.....a little old school, but a good man. He would be mortified at the thought of union.....which is why I'd like to go in with a gentle approach (even though I FEEL like it requires guns ablazing). I've been working on the courage all day to talk with boss guy tomorrow.
The new managers are astounded at the response from their clientele of my return...so I have a teeny bit of 'clout', but if I don't use it now, the time will pass. When you realize that I am in a seniority position after 3 or 4 days of work, it's pretty clear something isn't working.
I see what you are saying PC. There are good people that run companies and there are evil ones as well. The folks at the bottom end need some voice when up against the evil ones.
My new job doesn't have cushy breaks like my last one, but I don't mind because I enjoy the job and he's a cool guy.
Just a thought from experience.
If you can find a good deal with a good company without even thinking the word "union" you are far better off. Yes, unions were, and are, needed in some cases. I just found with my experience with the BC forest workers, the negatives have far out weighed the positives.
Another thing, every union is different.
is that avatar ronnie james dio?
CK wrote:
is that avatar ronnie james dio?
Good eyes! I used to be crazy about Dio.
lol! sweet. My oldest sis is an old school metal head! Dio, Sabbath, Megadeth. I grew up hearing it and actually have downloaded some recently.
Well, people who own businesses have some responsibility to keep abreast of how their employees are running things....but their interests are usually centered on numbers, and these people, who are next in the chain of command are the messengers. WE....(the next level down) depend on them to paint the WHOLE picture....and often this is not the case.
Its all about common sense on both sides.
My workplace has many weed smelling draftspeople. They are really fast and amazing at their jobs. I find myself turning a blind..nose to it. If we lost them, we would be in trouble, and they would find another good job within a week.
Best of luck tomorrow P.C. if it is another workday.(//vny!://discoverseattle.net/forums/richedit/smileys/Love/12.gif)
CK wrote: Just a thought from experience.
[FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffbf"]If you can find a good deal with a good company without even thinking the word "union" you are far better off.[/FONT] Yes, unions were, and are, needed in some cases. I just found with my experience with the BC forest workers, the negatives have far out weighed the positives.
Another thing, every union is different.
My sentiments exactly CK. I would be writing my own pink slip to even mention the word union at this place, and I respect that. I admire and adore the owner of this company.....and God knows he's had a ton to deal with over the last 6 months. BUT...the bottom line IS....I just want to do my job (and I do it well) and I want to get what I'm worth...and as it sits right now, I'm not.