California labor Law Question (employee, employer, work, companies)

[Cailly]

I know of a major retailer that requires its employees who work more than 4 hours to clock out at 4 hours and then clock back in after the 10 minute break to avoid paying the employee for the lawfully required (paid) 10 minute break. (They require clock out at the 30 minute break too, but that is legal). If an employee does not clock out at 4 hour mark, they are fired.

I need to know HOW the employer is able to get away with this please.

[Momotaro]

People are not reporting it. That is how they are getting away with it.

[Cailly]

ok, TY. But I need documentation to supply to my friend ( who, even though there are retribution laws, fears it) I have read the labor law codes. I just need to figure out a way to show them it is illegal. (This is a national chain, maybe they only go by federal law and not state?)

[thebunny]

Originally Posted by Cailly

I know of a major retailer that requires its employees who work more than 4 hours to clock out at 4 hours and then clock back in after the 10 minute break to avoid paying the employee for the lawfully required (paid) 10 minute break. (They require clock out at the 30 minute break too, but that is legal). If an employee does not clock out at 4 hour mark, they are fired.

I need to know HOW the employer is able to get away with this please.

Most likely they are not actually "clocking out" and not getting paid.

Retailers over the last few years have been sued left and right for break and lunch violations. Most of them now require you to clock in and out for your breaks and lunches. When you "clock out" for the break, you change your hours code to, for example in a few of the places I have worked "CA10PD" which stands for California 10 minute break paid. When you go to lunch, you clock out to "CA30UP" which is CA 30 minute break updaid.

I would tell the friend to check the pay stubs. If he/she is working exactly 4 hours, I am guessing they are paid for 4 hours, and that the clocking in and out at the register is for employer time keeping, as if the employee changes their "hours code" in the system, if it is ever questioned, the company has proof that they took their breaks.

Also, the fact that they will terminate an employee for failing to take the breaks is another giant clue that they are one of the companies that have been sued at one point for the issue. This pretty much only becomes a rule after the lawsuit.

I have 2 major ones in mind right now. If you want to tell us the name of the retailer I can give you an idea if they have been sued.

However, I am going to guess that this is what is happening. I was once a manager in a place who did this, and I can tell you, it was one of the biggest confusions for the employees when they started as they were POSITIVE they were not getting paid for the 10 minute breaks when they actually were.

[thebunny]

Originally Posted by Cailly

ok, TY. But I need documentation to supply to my friend ( who, even though there are retribution laws, fears it) I have read the labor law codes. I just need to figure out a way to show them it is illegal. (This is a national chain, maybe they only go by federal law and not state?)

It doesn't actually work that way. In order for them to go by state law and not federal, they would have to follow state law that gives employees MORE than the federal law.

But I am guessing what is going on is what I put in my post. And I would tread lightly on it....as it is very possible, I am going to say likely, that the employee is actually being paid for the breaks and is going to end up in hot water for throwing a fit when he may well be in error.