The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I am currently in a debate with the GM where I work (in California) about lunch breaks. Here is the issue: 4 of us like to take a lunch together, however, for one particular individual, that means he is taking his lunch break 2.5 hours after he starts his shift. We work in an office environment and up until now, everyone has been able to take a 30 minute break pretty much whenever they want to.
However, as of today, the GM has decided to throw his weight around and say that our 4th is no longer allowed to join us as it leaves too much of his afternoon shift without a break (after lunch, he would have to work an additional 5.5 hours). We have been going to lunch like this for over 1.5 years and it has never been an issue.
I have scoured California labor laws and haven't found anything that I would interpret that would prevent our group from all going at the same time (my main resource is here). Is anybody aware of any laws that would actually prohibit this from happening? As I said, before, this isn't an issue of company policy - as there isn't one as of yet.
Basically if you work an 8 hour shift, you get 2 ten-minute breaks and a 30 min, off-the clock lunch (making for an 8hr and 30 min work day.) So it's supposed to be work 115 min, 10 min off, 115 min , lunch, 115 min, 10 min off, 115 min, go home.
The thing is, if you take your 30 min lunch instead of your first break, it still works out fine so that his 2 ten-minute breaks are acceptable for the rest of the 5.5 hours that he works. However, the boss does have a legitimate concern that all stations are manned during that extra 20 minutes that the last guy is taking off early (i.e. if you're at a call center, they might be one person short of answering phones for that extra time.)
Depending on how your boss argues it you might not be able to get around it, but if he's just concerned about watching the clock you should be able to show him no extra time is being taken from the company. Also, if you're not getting those two ten-minute breaks, he's breaking the law.
Edits to make the clock more precise.
Dropping Loads on
Sceptre: Penny Arcade, where you get starcraft AND marriage advice.
3clipse: The key to any successful marriage is a good mid-game transition.
It's pretty common for companies to make people adhere to their scheduled breaks and lunches. You should all deal with it or the 4th can try to get their shift change.
Well, perhaps a bit of background is needed. We are a relatively small company and in terms of seniority, I am 3rd (right behind the GM). The GM and I tend to butt heads a lot.
The person in question reports directly to me, and I can say that having coverage is not an issue. We all take our respective breaks appropriately and as I mentioned this hasn't ever been an issue. I am mainly trying to figure out if he is just being an ass as far as I am concerned (which has happened repeatedly in the past) or if he is voicing a legitimate concern.
Really, it's primarily an issue that the employee would complain about (more than 5 hours without a lunch break), so if they're actively requesting it, I don't see him having a leg to stand on. These rules are more for establishing employee (as opposed to employer) rights.
Given all that though, you should try to find an amicable solution with the GM, as otherwise he'll just be steaming to find another way to get back at you.
A request for the odd break schedule in writing should be enough. There is no agency that's going to do anything to you for his odd schedule unless the employee complains.
Cabezone on
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
A request for the odd break schedule in writing should be enough. There is no agency that's going to do anything to you for his odd schedule unless the employee complains.
This assume he isn't just flexing his nuts which is probably the case.
Posts
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_restperiods.htm
Basically if you work an 8 hour shift, you get 2 ten-minute breaks and a 30 min, off-the clock lunch (making for an 8hr and 30 min work day.) So it's supposed to be work 115 min, 10 min off, 115 min , lunch, 115 min, 10 min off, 115 min, go home.
The thing is, if you take your 30 min lunch instead of your first break, it still works out fine so that his 2 ten-minute breaks are acceptable for the rest of the 5.5 hours that he works. However, the boss does have a legitimate concern that all stations are manned during that extra 20 minutes that the last guy is taking off early (i.e. if you're at a call center, they might be one person short of answering phones for that extra time.)
Depending on how your boss argues it you might not be able to get around it, but if he's just concerned about watching the clock you should be able to show him no extra time is being taken from the company. Also, if you're not getting those two ten-minute breaks, he's breaking the law.
Edits to make the clock more precise.
3clipse: The key to any successful marriage is a good mid-game transition.
The person in question reports directly to me, and I can say that having coverage is not an issue. We all take our respective breaks appropriately and as I mentioned this hasn't ever been an issue. I am mainly trying to figure out if he is just being an ass as far as I am concerned (which has happened repeatedly in the past) or if he is voicing a legitimate concern.
Given all that though, you should try to find an amicable solution with the GM, as otherwise he'll just be steaming to find another way to get back at you.
This assume he isn't just flexing his nuts which is probably the case.