Boss told me to stop taking lunch breaks....is that legal? (employee, apply)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm a salaried and commissioned sales rep for small company. My boss (head of the company) was upset that my sales were low half way through the month (even though I landed 3 large deals that afternoon to put me close to goal), and at the end of our conversation where he basically yelled at me he told me to stop taking lunch breaks and that I needed to work harder since I'm salaried and he's paying me.
Is this legal? What options do I have if my boss tells me not to eat lunch? I put in extra hours almost daily...aren't I entitled by law to get a lunch break? What do I do if he were to fire me because I took a lunch?
Seems that Illinois is the most restrictive state where these laws are concerned. This should answer the question (but you can find others on a google):
I'd probably laugh at a boss if they told me that. "You're really saying I can't eat a lunch in the middle of the day? Really? Can I get that in writing?"
In the state of Illinois, employers are required to give employees a meal period of at least 20 minutes if they have worked seven and a half hours or more. This meal break must happen no more than five hours after the start of the employee’s work day. This state law does not apply to workers who are under a collective bargaining agreement that covers meal periods, and it also doesn’t apply to workers who monitor individuals with developmental disabilities or mental illness.
So, hell no, he can't tell you no. Plus the definition of salaried also fits in:
In order for an employee to be exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements, he or she must be paid, with only minor exceptions relating to persons paid a fee, on a "salary basis". DOL regulations at 29 C.F.R. 541.602(a) (former regulation 541.118(a)) state that a person is paid a salary if he or she receives each pay period a set amount constituting all or part of the compensation, the amount of which is "not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed." The minimum salary amount is $455 per week. Generally, an employee "must receive his full salary for any week in which he performs any work without regard to the number of days or hours worked". However, the regulation recognizes "the general rule that an employee need not be paid for any workweek in which he performs no work". Further guidance on the salary test is found in DOL's Field Operations Handbook, Section 22b01: "Extra compensation may by paid for OT to an exempt employee on any basis. The OT payment need not be at time and one-half, but may be at straight time, or flat sum, or on any other basis." "Any other basis" would presumably include compensatory time. That same rule is found in DOL regulation 29 C.F.R. § 541.604(a).
If my performance is not up to par, I would be concerned about losing my job. You are misunderstanding his point I think. He is trying to say that your performance has been sliding and you need to catch up. He doesn't care whether you eat lunch, he cares that you meet your numbers. He sounds like a goofy manager, but I think you also need to start realizing that your job is in jeopardy. Without a job, you can have all of the lunch breaks you want...
Legal? Some people believe that there should be no government to regulate, for the people to turn to for employment problems, or anything else. They have such fear and hatred of government that they would rather we take down all stop signs and red lights as 'unwarranted government interference in our lives', pay toll for every road we drive on because they were sold to private investors, and pay per-call for fire and police calls. Can't afford a fire call? Your house burns down.
Anything more, is Socialism and Communism. (interchangeable)
If my performance is not up to par, I would be concerned about losing my job. You are misunderstanding his point I think. He is trying to say that your performance has been sliding and you need to catch up. He doesn't care whether you eat lunch, he cares that you meet your numbers. He sounds like a goofy manager, but I think you also need to start realizing that your job is in jeopardy. Without a job, you can have all of the lunch breaks you want...
Not worried about losing my job for many reasons I won't get into, but basically they had a hard time finding someone for this position and interviewed 50 people before me. I also know that I'm $10k over my goal for the year so far. He basis for the thrashing was unwarranted and based on incorrect informaiton. He thought I sold nothing, I had, and I proved it to him later. Anyway, I just never know when to take him seriously, so I assume everything he says he means, so I'm just making sure I'm allowed to eat lunch. I average a 9-10 hour work day, and sometimes work nights and weekends for networking/trade show events.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
