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

[Latchkey Kid]

And I think they may have been expected to do overtime without additional compensation.

[needa916]

Originally Posted by Bluesbabe

Are their lunch hours paid for by the employer? I'd be highly surprised if it is; however, that may explain the control. And if that's the case then those meetings should be "brown-baggers". They should be brown-baggers if they're NOT paid for! Catered, even better. Point is, they should be allowed to eat during their LUNCH hour.

I agree with the posters, something just doesn't sound right here, and I'd be pissed, too, if I was her. There's a definite lack of respect for her job.

No, they are not paid lunches. Typically, they "log in" for 4 hours, then log out for lunch (1 hr). Log in again for 4 hours for total of 8 hours worked.

Good news, the latest meeting fell in the morning for my wife, so she didn't have to use her lunch period to attend a meeting. Bad news is that some folks in her department had to use their lunch to attend the meeting. They had same problem the wife had in which they grabbed the food after the meeting and ate at their desk in between calls.

I think one of the posters got it right - if the meetings occur during someone's lunch period, they are out of luck.

By the way, I believe it was Costo pizza

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by needa916

I think one of the posters got it right - if the meetings occur during someone's lunch period, they are out of luck.

They are absolutely not out of luck.

If a mandatory meeting is scheduled for their normal lunch period, then they DO NOT clock out for it as the law requires that they be paid. In addition, they MUST be given a 30 minute lunch break either before or after that meeting - if they are scheduled for 6 or more hours of work. That meeting has no effect whatsoever on the law and it is the employer's burden to see that employees get their legally required 30 minute lunch.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that company deserves a big fat lawsuit and I would talk to an attorney.

[Bluesmama]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

its a violation but considering the american hatred of unions, that info does not do you much good without real backing.

SOOOOOOOO true!!!!

[Magnolia Bloom]

Originally Posted by needa916

Sorry, I should clarify - she tells me this has happened before, and they are planning another lunch/meeting tomorrow - so, this is a regular occurrence and reason to get concerned. She is an hourly employee. She was told 10 minutes before the meeting that she will be required to log out for lunch as she normally would, but attend a meeting instead of going to lunch.

I am sorry but I don't agree with employers breaking the law. I don't think we should be "thankful we have a job and free food" if there is a law being broken.

Anyway, thanks for the replies. I got some good information. If this continues after tomorrow, I will certainly take action.
I think they should allow everyone equal time to eat something when working an 8 hour shift. I am quite certain I am going to get laid off in my company this September, but I am not going to let my employer take advantage of me in any way.

Thank you.

I thought it was your wife who was being forced to eat free pizza?

so you are certain that you will be laid off next month and now you are going to take action against your wife's employer? Go for it. She works for a call center, there are 8000 people lined up just waiting for her job. And they would probably agree to brown bag it for a benefits meeting.

The best advice I have seen on this thread is to choose your battles. Not much good in winning the battle if you ultimately lose the war.

How long has she been with this company?

[FreeSpirited1]

whether or not one takes legal action...I don't think these two isolated incidents would go anywhere.

It would be better for the wife to go to her supervisor and say, "I know things get hectic, but please remember that in the future, when I log out for lunch, that is my time. When I log back in, that is your time." Leave it at that.

I had to do this with a former employer who constantly interrupted my lunch - sometimes, accidentally - but I really valued that 45 minutes of "me" time. He stopped bugging me, and later we kinda joked about it "Oh, that's right - lunch, I won't bother you, I am leaving...I'm not talking to you...bye." It was fine.

I don't see how eating pizza while being told about benefits is so "bad" anyway - it's a call center, right? I've worked at a few companies who instead held a "Lunch & Learn" - you didn't have to attend then, though, you could attend a non-lunch session, but most opted for the lunch, of course.

The wife could even talk to her supervisor/human resource person that the meeting/lunch idea was not handled as well as it may have been, since the pizza ended up cold and everyone had a hard time eating lunch and answering the phone at the same time She could suggest the "Lunch & Learn" idea, stating that since logging out for lunch is technically is "employee time" and that people need at least 30 minutes to actually eat something.

No big drama should result from that conversation; she is merely letting on that she is aware they are wrong, but not as upset as she really is. This could just be lousy management and no real intention to skirt the labor laws, so I'd be careful to step gently before making any rash accusations.

In any event, the employer may ask other employees to re-enact the "cold pizza lunch scenario" but not her and I don't think they can very easily fire someone for sticking to the labor laws

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

It may depend on how large the company is. Our policy has changed because of 2 lawsuits within the state. Both had to do with meal time policy. These lawsuits had nothing to do with our facility or anything. What we do have is a compliance office that works to keep us out of any litigation.

Here is the deal; At our facility we clock ourselves in by swiping our badges in a card reader at a screen on the wall. These units on every floor and some floors have several of them to choose from. We do the same to clock out and in the past we would clock out for lunch. The system would then clock us back in after our meal time. (I work in a hospital and lunch could be dinner or breakfast, so the screen just calls it meal time.)

What changed was a ruling that was handed out in reference to the 2 lawsuits. Employers now in the state of California are required to have employees log out, swipe out, or what ever your place of employment calls it and the employee is then out for lunch. The employee has to swipe back in after they return back from work. They are off the clock during that time frame. As employees we have a 6 minute clock in window, since the system will not clock us in on its own anymore. Supposed to be better for everyone. What I am getting at is that your employer does not have a choice anymore. The rulling was there to protect the employees and not the employer. I think you have a case.

[ehcsrop]

Here's a whole forum dedicated to labor law:
pay for meetings outside of office - Labor Law Talk

And here's the statute: http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_29/Part_785/29CFR785.27.htm (broken link)

It seems that CrownVic has won this debate.

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by ehcsrop

Here's a whole forum dedicated to labor law:
pay for meetings outside of office - Labor Law Talk

And here's the statute: 29CFR785.785.27 - General. (http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_29/Part_785/29CFR785.27.htm - broken link)

It seems that CrownVic has won this debate.

(Taking a bow) Thank you for posting this.

I've learned a lot in 43 years of work experience and am observing a troubling trend today toward employers thumbing their nose at the law and at the very idea of doing what's right by their people.

They will push it as far as we let them push it, as history has shown time and time again.

[Latchkey Kid]

Which debate? Weren't there two? 1) Is it a violation of labor laws? 2) Is it worth doing anything about it, and if so, what? Maybe that's 2.5 debates.