I work at a place where I have to go the whole shift without a break or lunch due to not having enought employees to cover. If I do take a lunch because I have to do to working a certain number of hours, it has to be almost immediately when I get there. For example the other day I worked 12- 10pm and since my coworker was leaving at 2 I was supposed to take my lunch at 1. What sense does that make. I don't need a lunch or break right after I get there. I would think that about 5 would make sense for a lunch as I would not get any breaks. I have had this experience before and it seems that retail employers miss the point of what a break is for, it isn't something to "get out of the way" it is for the benefit of the employee. I don't like the idea of working 1 hour and then taking a lunch and then working 8 hours without any thing.
2006-08-14 04:04:26 · 3 answers · asked by reallyfedup 5 in Business & Finance ➔ Careers & Employment
Breaks are not a benefit to the employee. Depending on what state you are in and what type of work you do there may not being any labor laws that cover this. You are by federal labor laws one 30 minute unpaid break "lunch" for each eight hour period you work. I would check with your local labor & hour office and see what they have to say. Or start looking for another job.
2006-08-14 04:13:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Technically you are absolutely right.
Sounds like you are a very hard worker and they are taking advantage of you. I am not sure of your age but if possible, get out of the retail business and into an office/mfg/or service related position. If you are still in school then tough it out cash your pay checks and make sure to use them as a reference on your next application.
2006-08-14 04:16:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
your place of work is breaking the law. by law you are intitled to at least a 30 minute to an hour lunch, and two 15 minute breaks. report them.
2006-08-14 04:10:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋