Labor Laws Regarding Breaks?

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by Rachel Saucedo

My company went around all the loop holes by having All new employees sign a waiver that read that we were willing to do a "working " lunch. So we worked an 8 hr day got paid for all 8 hrs. Our workdays 2:30pm - 10:30pm. No 15 min. breaks.

Certain rights can't be "waived" - employees can simply "make book" (just keep records - even a $.39 notebook as a "log" works fine!) & file a complaint /lawsuit even years later. The cute little "waiver" would be a slam-dunk in court, showing a willful "intent" on the part of the employer to violate the labor laws & subject the employer to additional punitive damages. Pretty sure the statute of limitations is two years, but three if the violation is "willful" - most of the firms that do that kind of work attempt to turn it into a class-action suit for all affected employees going back two or three years, collecting back-pay, overtime & punitive damages for everyone + legal fees & usually even a little *extra* dough for the initiating complainant.

Most cases are settled, because a court ruling would require that *everyone* affected gets paid, versus paying off only the "complainants" & making them sign a non-disclosure agreement in a settlement. Lots of big employers get nicked for this every year (like pizza hut, wal-mart, etc) , but they keep doing it because paying the settlements is cheaper than paying the employees.

Anyway, there's prolly a few thousand $$ waiting for you (and all your co-workers) when & if you leave the company if they aren't super-nice to you .. you don't have to quit to sue, but some companies are stupid & fire the complainants // subjecting themselves to even *bigger* damage awards.. lol.. stupid employer games!

[Bummer]

If you like your job and the pay / benefits are good . . . is a lousy break that important?

[observer53]

The OP has been gone for three years, and is no longer a member here. But, for future reference for anyone who comes across this thread, another good resource is here : http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/

[AZDesertBrat]

Originally Posted by Zippyman

Certain rights can't be "waived" - employees can simply "make book" (just keep records - even a $.39 notebook as a "log" works fine!) & file a complaint /lawsuit even years later. The cute little "waiver" would be a slam-dunk in court, showing a willful "intent" on the part of the employer to violate the labor laws & subject the employer to additional punitive damages. Pretty sure the statute of limitations is two years, but three if the violation is "willful" - most of the firms that do that kind of work attempt to turn it into a class-action suit for all affected employees going back two or three years, collecting back-pay, overtime & punitive damages for everyone + legal fees & usually even a little *extra* dough for the initiating complainant.

Most cases are settled, because a court ruling would require that *everyone* affected gets paid, versus paying off only the "complainants" & making them sign a non-disclosure agreement in a settlement. Lots of big employers get nicked for this every year (like pizza hut, wal-mart, etc) , but they keep doing it because paying the settlements is cheaper than paying the employees.

Anyway, there's prolly a few thousand $$ waiting for you (and all your co-workers) when & if you leave the company if they aren't super-nice to you .. you don't have to quit to sue, but some companies are stupid & fire the complainants // subjecting themselves to even *bigger* damage awards.. lol.. stupid employer games!

Sorry but I have to comment on the bolded part of your post. Walmart is VERY on the ball when it comes to breaks and lunches. I think it's, partly, because at one time they weren't! They got called on the carpet, had to pay out some money and 'changed their ways'. Breaks are mandatory and come every one and a half or two hours. Sometimes a tad more and sometimes a tad less but they ARE given. Lunch is an hour, which I used to think was too long but realized, shortly, that it's necessary to simply decompress. I am grateful that they are so strict about it because my job is mind and body intense work.

My last employer told me that I couldn't take any breaks because I only worked 4-5 hours a day. I should have had ONE break in there somewhere. Working in restaurants most of my life I knew that breaks/lunch and bathroom runs were made 'on the run' and if I ate it was mostly standing up while working. The chain restaurants are better about it now...or at least the last couple I worked for were. My niece was complaining about lack of breaks at a restaurant where she worked so I looked up the Arizona labor laws and found that an employer DOESN'T have to give them. Dumb law, IMO, but I worked with it for many years.

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by AZDesertBrat

Sorry but I have to comment on the bolded part of your post. Walmart is VERY on the ball when it comes to breaks and lunches. I think it's, partly, because at one time they weren't! They got called on the carpet, had to pay out some money and 'changed their ways'. Breaks are mandatory and come every one and a half or two hours. Sometimes a tad more and sometimes a tad less but they ARE given. Lunch is an hour, which I used to think was too long but realized, shortly, that it's necessary to simply decompress. I am grateful that they are so strict about it because my job is mind and body intense work.

My last employer told me that I couldn't take any breaks because I only worked 4-5 hours a day. I should have had ONE break in there somewhere. Working in restaurants most of my life I knew that breaks/lunch and bathroom runs were made 'on the run' and if I ate it was mostly standing up while working. The chain restaurants are better about it now...or at least the last couple I worked for were. My niece was complaining about lack of breaks at a restaurant where she worked so I looked up the Arizona labor laws and found that an employer DOESN'T have to give them. Dumb law, IMO, but I worked with it for many years.

Glad your experience is different, but if you spend a few minutes googling (just about any) major company name & flsa lawsuit, you'll likely get multiple hits. I know of one national chain personally that has been sued & settled four different times by the same attorneys - every few years they settle one "class" & a few months later get hit with another suit. It's cheaper for them to pay a few hundred employees to settle than to pay all their employees overtime. Many employees are afraid to join the classes, because theyre afraid of getting fired - so they never get paid.

As for Arizona labor laws, they can be stricter than federal laws, but if theyre less stringent, you still get federal protections.

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by Bummer

If you like your job and the pay / benefits are good . . . is a lousy break that important?

The people most likely to get stiffed out of breaks/lunches & wages are those with lousy jobs that pay lousy wages, so yes - breaks are important.

[AZDesertBrat]

Originally Posted by Zippyman

Glad your experience is different, but if you spend a few minutes googling (just about any) major company name & flsa lawsuit, you'll likely get multiple hits. I know of one national chain personally that has been sued & settled four different times by the same attorneys - every few years they settle one "class" & a few months later get hit with another suit. It's cheaper for them to pay a few hundred employees to settle than to pay all their employees overtime. Many employees are afraid to join the classes, because theyre afraid of getting fired - so they never get paid.

As for Arizona labor laws, they can be stricter than federal laws, but if theyre less stringent, you still get federal protections.

Yes, I know there are employers out there who take advantage of employees. You would think, after being sued enough times, they'd 'fix' the problems. Another thing we don't have to worry about is overtime. We don't get it because we don't work it. I've heard dept. managers say they 'have to leave early' because they've hit their 40 hour mark. I used to think it was consideration for the employee but I know it's just because they don't want to PAY overtime. And that goes for any large corporation with so many employees, I think.