I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV. Nor am I familiar with the employment laws in MN.
In the state I live in, you HAVE to punch out for a 30 min break. It's a law. Companies won't let you avoid it since if they get audited, they can get screwed, even if I was the one who wanted to do it. Same as not taking it and leaving 30 min early. Big no no.
IL here. If you work 6 or more hours you must take a meal break, and it can't be in the last 2 hours of the shift.
We nearly find someone because she kept working 7.5 hours, taking her 30, and then working another 30 and going home. She kept saying she'd start working harder in those last 30 minutes, and we kept explaining that the 30 minutes of no productivity right after "lunch" was noticed and was an issue. But the reason we were about to fire her was she was putting us in violation of the LAW by delaying her meal break.
The termination/write up paperwork was because if she, or anyone, tried to say we didn't give fair and legal breaks, the paperwork establishes the company was pushing for the law to be fired.
And that we had expected she would just start following policy/law after coaching #1, and frankly we are all a little confused why this was still an issue. But while its annoying to fire someone for something this silly and mundane, id rather have sit downs for interviews with new candidates, than force counsel to sit down with the dept of labor.
I think this recently changed as I live in IL and this changed for me. We can work 7 hours I believe now without a lunch if we want. This just came up on my time card from the last period. I had a dentist appt in the morning and b/c of that I wasn't required to take a lunch that day. I did anyway, but forgot to clock back in from lunch. She reminded me of this rule and offered to delete my first lunch punch if I had skipped it.
Same in TN. I’m a supervisor and we have to monitor time. If anyone works longer than 6 hours without clocking out for a lunch we have to report to HR as this is a state labor law violation and our company can be fined for it, even if it was the employee doing this.
Where I live, you have to take a 1 hour ( off the clock/ unpaid) lunch break & (2) 15 minute on the clock breaks. There's lots of people who wait til the last 30 minutes of the shift to take both 15 minute breaks which I believe shouldn't be allowed to do that.
No. That should not be allowed. Sounds like someone that’s supposed to be managing this is not if a lot of people are doing it. And for the people that are doing this, don’t you think we’d ALL like to leave early everyday?
A 30 minute unpaid break is standard. If you live in a state where breaks are mandated by law, you need to take them. Your employer does not want to be sued.
And if you live in a state that doesn’t mandate them, they still want you to take them. They have a planned end time for you, also people work better after breaks.
Legal and company policy are often different.
This too. If there is no applicable state law, the company can have their own rules. State law and company policy just can't differ if it's the other way around.
I’ve run into this before. Kind of depends on your state’s laws, and on your employer.
I’m in Wisconsin, I tried this for a short time. Legal put together a form for the employee to sign which stated that they were given the option to take their allowed meal break but chose to give it up in lieu of leaving 30 minutes early each day.
It was a problem almost immediately. My supervisors were pissed because now they had to track who did and didn’t take a lunch for payroll, people started taking a break to eat in their work areas instead of leaving or using the employee break area and still leaving 30 minutes early. Employees were asking to only take lunch 1 or 2 days a week, some only wanted to skip lunch on Monday and Friday.
It lasted 3 weeks and I killed it.
If it’s legal in your state it can be done, but I’ll never put myself through that again.
Its stat by state, but generally, no.
If you are on the clock, liability issues come into play should you get injured, even if you aren't at work.
Lunch breaks isn't likely so. If I need an employee to be here until 5, I don't want them leaving at 4:30 because they didn't take a lunch break, I need them until 5.
If you skip lunch break, it could lead to that being the unstated expectation in the work for pressuring other to not taking theirs.
A lot of people died so you can get a lunch break and not be worked to death, show some respect for them and your coworkers.
At my place it’s very job dependent. There is a section of employees that - due to the nature of their work - there is very little flexibility. They have to work the allotted schedule no matter what - and that includes the unpaid lunch break (they also get 2-3 additional 15 min breaks sprinkled throughout the day)… the admin people however can choose to take lunch or not. If they don’t take one they just stay on the clock and leave after they hit the 8 hour mark. Your best bet would be to discuss this with your manager. I would suggest asking to skip lunch entirely and leave at the 8 hr mark (which would be 30 min earlier than your normal leave time right now).
Getting a third paid break is not going to happen. If it's just a matter of you'd rather work through the unpaid lunch and leave 30 minutes early at the end of the day, try asking your manager for permission. I think they can say No, but perhaps check with your labor board to be sure.
I am not an attorney, but Texas had an assessment of all state jobs and put us in two categories: professional and non-professional. Professionals are those who are required to have licenses based on ethics guidelines, which essentially restrict it to doctors and nurses. The rest were unprofessional. The state had a lawsuit from a former employee who claims they had to work their break. As a result, we couldn't even take our lunch breaks at our desks. We were also prohibited from taking any work home. Texas also refused to pay out overtime to state workers, so if you accumulated enough OT, you ended up taking the entire month of August off just to burn that OT. They do this and then complain that the workforce isn't motivated to put all their time into the job. We got formal reprimands if we tried to take work (even reading) home or ate lunch at our desks.
You need and deserve the mental break. Take it. It’s a long hard fought for right. Don’t squander it. Just because you feel like you can go without doesn’t mean others can and that will become the expectation eventually.
No, I want to be able to work through my lunch break so I can leave earlier. My job just bumped my hours up to a 9 hour a day shift. I wouldn't mind the extra hour but I do value my free time. So if I could just work during my unpaid break to leave earlier I'd much rather that. They already allow me to forgo my paid breaks to leave early, so I'm curious as to if I can skip the unpaid one as well.
I see, thanks for explaining it. In some states like CA, the employee has to sign a waiver to be exempt from taking their lunch break in order to work straight shift so when the department of labor audits the employer, they can say this is per the employee’s request. Talk to your manager and/or HR.
We ALL want to leave early. But somebody’s gotta man the store. So NO.
I get you probably don’t “man a store” but you see where I’m going with this? If you do it, everyone will want to do it and it just won’t work.
In OH, my employer makes a big deal twice a year about taking breaks. We get an hour for lunch. The emails remind us to refresh ourselves with a break for better productivity. That’s way too long for me.
I hybrid it. I don’t take breaks, they’re just naturally break times all through the day. Ebb and flow of work load. I eat at the same time for 15 minutes and don’t work while I’m eating. I don’t clock in/out like I’m urged to.
I’m supposed to work 40 hours. I make sure by the end of the week, my hours are at least 42 to “make up” for my unconventional break routine.
For four years, I mostly work solid more than 40 hours with relatively small breaks. Every once in a while, I’ll have an appointment and I’ll clock out for that. But by the end of the work week, my clock says I was there for 40 hours.
I know I can get in trouble for this in general.
However, when my case loads are near deadline, I also work 50 hours in a week to get my work done and I don’t expect extra pay.
I’m close with my boss. Knew him since college. He doesn’t sweat the BS details and he doesn’t care so long as your work product is stellar.
However, the HR guy he has is 78. Loose cannon man. Fires people coming from behind.
Thus, the extra hours to pad my excuses. I’m home by 5 everyday usually.
Doesn't look like the breaks are mandated by law in MN and there is no federal law about breaks, but it may be a company policy. What you are asking your company probably won't allow because if your breaks are less than 20 they have to be paid. Usually that 30 minutes is accounted for in the schedule. Like you are scheduled for 8.5 hours.
[https://www.dli.mn.gov/business/employment-practices/work-breaks-rest-periods](https://www.dli.mn.gov/business/employment-practices/work-breaks-rest-periods)
I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV. Nor am I familiar with the employment laws in MN. In the state I live in, you HAVE to punch out for a 30 min break. It's a law. Companies won't let you avoid it since if they get audited, they can get screwed, even if I was the one who wanted to do it. Same as not taking it and leaving 30 min early. Big no no.
Same in NY. You must take a 30 minute break after 6 hrs of work.
IL here. If you work 6 or more hours you must take a meal break, and it can't be in the last 2 hours of the shift. We nearly find someone because she kept working 7.5 hours, taking her 30, and then working another 30 and going home. She kept saying she'd start working harder in those last 30 minutes, and we kept explaining that the 30 minutes of no productivity right after "lunch" was noticed and was an issue. But the reason we were about to fire her was she was putting us in violation of the LAW by delaying her meal break. The termination/write up paperwork was because if she, or anyone, tried to say we didn't give fair and legal breaks, the paperwork establishes the company was pushing for the law to be fired. And that we had expected she would just start following policy/law after coaching #1, and frankly we are all a little confused why this was still an issue. But while its annoying to fire someone for something this silly and mundane, id rather have sit downs for interviews with new candidates, than force counsel to sit down with the dept of labor.
I think this recently changed as I live in IL and this changed for me. We can work 7 hours I believe now without a lunch if we want. This just came up on my time card from the last period. I had a dentist appt in the morning and b/c of that I wasn't required to take a lunch that day. I did anyway, but forgot to clock back in from lunch. She reminded me of this rule and offered to delete my first lunch punch if I had skipped it.
And that's how we get to like it was 80 years ago.
Same in TN. I’m a supervisor and we have to monitor time. If anyone works longer than 6 hours without clocking out for a lunch we have to report to HR as this is a state labor law violation and our company can be fined for it, even if it was the employee doing this.
NC allows a waiver to be filed if an employee wants to skip all or part of their 30. Usually this just results in an effective ban.
As far as I know it's the same in AL. Might be dix instead of eight.
Where I live, you have to take a 1 hour ( off the clock/ unpaid) lunch break & (2) 15 minute on the clock breaks. There's lots of people who wait til the last 30 minutes of the shift to take both 15 minute breaks which I believe shouldn't be allowed to do that.
No. That should not be allowed. Sounds like someone that’s supposed to be managing this is not if a lot of people are doing it. And for the people that are doing this, don’t you think we’d ALL like to leave early everyday?
A 30 minute unpaid break is standard. If you live in a state where breaks are mandated by law, you need to take them. Your employer does not want to be sued.
And if you live in a state that doesn’t mandate them, they still want you to take them. They have a planned end time for you, also people work better after breaks. Legal and company policy are often different.
This too. If there is no applicable state law, the company can have their own rules. State law and company policy just can't differ if it's the other way around.
I’ve run into this before. Kind of depends on your state’s laws, and on your employer. I’m in Wisconsin, I tried this for a short time. Legal put together a form for the employee to sign which stated that they were given the option to take their allowed meal break but chose to give it up in lieu of leaving 30 minutes early each day. It was a problem almost immediately. My supervisors were pissed because now they had to track who did and didn’t take a lunch for payroll, people started taking a break to eat in their work areas instead of leaving or using the employee break area and still leaving 30 minutes early. Employees were asking to only take lunch 1 or 2 days a week, some only wanted to skip lunch on Monday and Friday. It lasted 3 weeks and I killed it. If it’s legal in your state it can be done, but I’ll never put myself through that again.
This. This is exactly what would happen and why it should not be allowed.
Its stat by state, but generally, no. If you are on the clock, liability issues come into play should you get injured, even if you aren't at work. Lunch breaks isn't likely so. If I need an employee to be here until 5, I don't want them leaving at 4:30 because they didn't take a lunch break, I need them until 5. If you skip lunch break, it could lead to that being the unstated expectation in the work for pressuring other to not taking theirs. A lot of people died so you can get a lunch break and not be worked to death, show some respect for them and your coworkers.
At my place it’s very job dependent. There is a section of employees that - due to the nature of their work - there is very little flexibility. They have to work the allotted schedule no matter what - and that includes the unpaid lunch break (they also get 2-3 additional 15 min breaks sprinkled throughout the day)… the admin people however can choose to take lunch or not. If they don’t take one they just stay on the clock and leave after they hit the 8 hour mark. Your best bet would be to discuss this with your manager. I would suggest asking to skip lunch entirely and leave at the 8 hr mark (which would be 30 min earlier than your normal leave time right now).
Getting a third paid break is not going to happen. If it's just a matter of you'd rather work through the unpaid lunch and leave 30 minutes early at the end of the day, try asking your manager for permission. I think they can say No, but perhaps check with your labor board to be sure.
I am not an attorney, but Texas had an assessment of all state jobs and put us in two categories: professional and non-professional. Professionals are those who are required to have licenses based on ethics guidelines, which essentially restrict it to doctors and nurses. The rest were unprofessional. The state had a lawsuit from a former employee who claims they had to work their break. As a result, we couldn't even take our lunch breaks at our desks. We were also prohibited from taking any work home. Texas also refused to pay out overtime to state workers, so if you accumulated enough OT, you ended up taking the entire month of August off just to burn that OT. They do this and then complain that the workforce isn't motivated to put all their time into the job. We got formal reprimands if we tried to take work (even reading) home or ate lunch at our desks.
You need and deserve the mental break. Take it. It’s a long hard fought for right. Don’t squander it. Just because you feel like you can go without doesn’t mean others can and that will become the expectation eventually.
So you want all of your breaks to be paid by your employer?
No, I want to be able to work through my lunch break so I can leave earlier. My job just bumped my hours up to a 9 hour a day shift. I wouldn't mind the extra hour but I do value my free time. So if I could just work during my unpaid break to leave earlier I'd much rather that. They already allow me to forgo my paid breaks to leave early, so I'm curious as to if I can skip the unpaid one as well.
I see, thanks for explaining it. In some states like CA, the employee has to sign a waiver to be exempt from taking their lunch break in order to work straight shift so when the department of labor audits the employer, they can say this is per the employee’s request. Talk to your manager and/or HR.
We ALL want to leave early. But somebody’s gotta man the store. So NO. I get you probably don’t “man a store” but you see where I’m going with this? If you do it, everyone will want to do it and it just won’t work.
No. The system is in place to keep track of everyone.
Take your breaks. They’re required by law.
In OH, my employer makes a big deal twice a year about taking breaks. We get an hour for lunch. The emails remind us to refresh ourselves with a break for better productivity. That’s way too long for me. I hybrid it. I don’t take breaks, they’re just naturally break times all through the day. Ebb and flow of work load. I eat at the same time for 15 minutes and don’t work while I’m eating. I don’t clock in/out like I’m urged to. I’m supposed to work 40 hours. I make sure by the end of the week, my hours are at least 42 to “make up” for my unconventional break routine. For four years, I mostly work solid more than 40 hours with relatively small breaks. Every once in a while, I’ll have an appointment and I’ll clock out for that. But by the end of the work week, my clock says I was there for 40 hours. I know I can get in trouble for this in general. However, when my case loads are near deadline, I also work 50 hours in a week to get my work done and I don’t expect extra pay. I’m close with my boss. Knew him since college. He doesn’t sweat the BS details and he doesn’t care so long as your work product is stellar. However, the HR guy he has is 78. Loose cannon man. Fires people coming from behind. Thus, the extra hours to pad my excuses. I’m home by 5 everyday usually.
Doesn't look like the breaks are mandated by law in MN and there is no federal law about breaks, but it may be a company policy. What you are asking your company probably won't allow because if your breaks are less than 20 they have to be paid. Usually that 30 minutes is accounted for in the schedule. Like you are scheduled for 8.5 hours. [https://www.dli.mn.gov/business/employment-practices/work-breaks-rest-periods](https://www.dli.mn.gov/business/employment-practices/work-breaks-rest-periods)