Question about California labor code - my wife's department at work is not allowed to take lunch (live in, to eat)

[Luke9686]

I hate the "She is lucky to have a job, so should take all abuse with a smile on her face" attitude many have. She was forced to go to a meeting during her scheduled lunch, therefore not able to eat. From what the OP says, it sounds like these things happen occasionally.

The old soldier may disagree with me (I'm military also), but people are a companies greatest asset. If you mistreat employees, you'll create bad work environment.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

Call center jobs that I know of are not normally exempt positions and I'm going on the assumption that this one is not.

I think the thing here is: this seems to be a one time occurance. If it happened all the time then we would be talking a totally different situation.

As for required to give a meal break, yes, it may be the law, but as Charles pointed out the lunch is not a paid break. Example and you all know this from your job: someone who works 8 to 5 is actually is paid for 8 hours, not 9, or 8 to 4:30 they are paid for 8, not 8 1/2.

I will add one morre thing to this and then I am out of the conversation, we are hearing one side of the story. Could it be possible wife got home from work, hadn't felt she was given a fair shake, tells hubby, he gets all upset and reacts in this way. Maybe there is a little more than we are being told. I don't know, just a thought.

I don't think I see where the OP said she was off the clock. My take, these meeting were set up and scheduled for certain times, this particular one interferred with her regular scheduled lunch. For whatever reason she didn't get her lunch, so took the pizza back to her work station. Unless I am missing something, I didn't see where she was off the clock. Maybe I need to go back and read the message again.

Nita

[theh]

Found from this site: California Meal Breaks, California Rest Breaks

California law provides that employees must receive a 30 minute meal break if they work in excess of five hours. During this time, the employee must be relieved of all duties because it cannot be a working lunch. If an employer fails to give a proper meal break, the employee can recover one hour of pay at their regular rate of pay for each day they are not provided a proper meal break.

There are exceptions to the rules regarding meal breaks. A bona fide "exempt" employee is not subject to this rule. If the work day is less than six hours, the employee can agree to waive the time period. In the health care industry, an employee can agree, in writing, to waive this meal period. Further, employees working under a collective bargaining agreement may not be subject to the rules regarding meal periods. In some cases, an "on duty" meal break can be provided only when the nature of the job prevents the employee from being relieved of duty and if there is a written agreement between the employer and employee. The written agreement shall state that the employee may revoke the agreement at any time.

These rules only apply to employees in California. Federal law does not have a meal time requirement.
California labor law requires that employees get rest breaks if they work over three and a half hours a day. These mandatory breaks must be in the middle of each work period and must be 10 minutes for every four hours worked or fraction thereof. Rest breaks are work time and the employee must be paid for them.

If an employer fails to provide an employee a rest period, the employee can recover one hour of pay for each work day that the rest period is not provided.

An exception to the rule is made for bona fide "exempt" employees. They are not subject to this rule.

It sounds like they are breaking the law to me...

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by nmnita

I think the thing here is: this seems to be a one time occurance. If it happened all the time then we would be talking a totally different situation.

As for required to give a meal break, yes, it may be the law, but as Charles pointed out the lunch is not a paid break. Example and you all know this from your job: someone who works 8 to 5 is actually is paid for 8 hours, not 9, or 8 to 4:30 they are paid for 8, not 8 1/2.

I will add one morre thing to this and then I am out of the conversation, we are hearing one side of the story. Could it be possible wife got home from work, hadn't felt she was given a fair shake, tells hubby, he gets all upset and reacts in this way. Maybe there is a little more than we are being told. I don't know, just a thought.

I don't think I see where the OP said she was off the clock. My take, these meeting were set up and scheduled for certain times, this particular one interferred with her regular scheduled lunch. For whatever reason she didn't get her lunch, so took the pizza back to her work station. Unless I am missing something, I didn't see where she was off the clock. Maybe I need to go back and read the message again.

Nita

The frequency of occurrence has nothing to do with it - other than to determine how much the unscrupulous employer owes the employee that they took illegal advantage of.

Now, we are waiting for the original poster to confirm this, but when he says that "Her and others in her department were forced to attend this meeting during her lunch" and that "They had to eat the pizza after the meeting after logging back in to her regular shift", there is every reason to believe that she was off the clock and little reason to believe she was on. This kind of job does not normally have a paid lunch and the poster did not specify that these meetings were exceptions and paid.

And even in the hypothetical scenario where the employee can waive their right to a meal period, the employee must consent. Based on what we know at this point, she did not. The only other factor that could alter the situation here is if it were a union job and you can bet your bottom dollar that it is not.

[ehcsrop]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

Well, if by "loophole" you mean except that when a work period of not more than six (6) hours will complete the day’s work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee, it still does not apply here. First, there was no mutual consent. And, more importantly, that exception means that the employee is paid for that entire work period.

Perhaps the OP can confirm this, but his message conveys that she was not on the clock for this meeting and not paid for the time. If that is the case, the law was clearly broken.

And some seem to be confused by the employer's furnishing pizza. An employer may certainly do that if they wish, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the labor law and does not allow them to control an employee off the clock and not being paid for the time.

What, are you an attorney? Did you see this:

"If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period or rest period in accordance with
an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the employer shall pay the employee
one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each work day that
the meal or rest period is not provided."

Did we hear whether the OP's wife was paid in lieu of the break and then asked to return to work (logging in here doesn't mean she was off the time clock) to eat while working.

Did you open my .pdf? I don't think this is a cut and dry deal. Any company that operates a call center is probably aware of what they are doing.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Luke9686

I hate the "She is lucky to have a job, so should take all abuse with a smile on her face" attitude many have. She was forced to go to a meeting during her scheduled lunch, therefore not able to eat. From what the OP says, it sounds like these things happen occasionally.

The old soldier may disagree with me (I'm military also), but people are a companies greatest asset. If you mistreat employees, you'll create bad work environment.

The old soldier doesn'ty disagree with you at all over the issue of personnel treatment. Do you recall the catch-all, "for the good of the service?" That "attitude" can also be found in the private sector and regardless of venue, loyalty should always go up AND down the chain-of-command.

[zugor]

Originally Posted by Charles

I think the term "9 to 5" originated before all these labor laws existed. Still, I'd like to know how people who worked those hours took lunch. They must have worked those hours, or something close to them, or the term would have never become the label for a white collar work schedule. Unless it is an urban legend...

I know that back in the 50's when my mom worked a white collar job in NYC it was 9 to 5 with an hour of PAID lunch. That's pretty much non existent today but it used to be the norm for white collar and clerical staff in offices.

I also got an hours paid lunch when I was working some temp jobs for big employers ie., TWA Airlines in the late 60's but the practice was on its way out even then.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by zugor

I know that back in the 50's when my mom worked a white collar job in NYC it was 9 to 5 with an hour of PAID lunch.

When I started working in aerospace in the mid 1980s, this older WWII veteran colleague guy came up to me with a straight face and said

"They're paying us for eight; we should at least work five."

A few years later, our admin would leave at 11 to hit the gym and get back at 1 and she was only accounting for an hour for lunch. Her rational was "One hour for lunch, two 15 minute breaks and two 15 minute smoke breaks but I don't smoke so I spend all that time at the gym."

http://forum.freeadvice.com/hiring-f...ss-116437.html

[Paula Lynn]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSmiling

I think you are over-reacting. They provided a FREE lunch for her, and she has a job??? You know how many people would jump at that chance?
Plus, I would let wifey poo fight her own battles.
JMHO......
If there is any cold pizza left, I'd like some!!!

WOW, I would love to be employed and a FREE lunch from time-to-time.

[nmnita]

the more I think about this, the more I have my opinion as to what may have happened or something similar.

This was a benefit package meeting, probably everyone was required to attend. I would guess the meetings were scheduled every hour and it happened that the OPs wifes hour fell during lunch break. She may have clocked out which by the way, working in a call center would be unusaual today as most call centers no longer have time clocks, the time is calculated by the computer, but that is another subject. Anyway, her scheduled time to learn about the nexts years benefits did fall during her scheduled lunch, she may have not made anyone aware of this. I am just guessing. When the meeting was over, she returned to her work station, eating cold pizza (yuk) between calls. When she arrived home she was pissed, understandable so. Anyone something like that could have been the situation. Most companies, if they are reputable and any size at all are not going to go against the labor laws.

Again,we do not have any details and only one side of the story. We will never really know what happened. If this is a common occurance which I doubt then, yes the Ops wife should keep notes and take action.

Nita