Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

California: You Don't Need A Lunch Break


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Blitz-Wing

Blitz-Wing

    Just another anchovie on the pizza of life

  • Members
  • 6,795 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:47 PM

A major decision was handed down today by the California Supreme Court deciding that it is not the responsibility of the employer to ensure that workers get lunch or break periods. Brinker Intl, who owns several restaurant chains including Chili's, filed the suit in 2003 stating it was disrupting work flow due to employees being forced to take a regulated lunch during busy periods. Attorneys representing workers tried unsuccessfully to argue that employers would abuse the ruling.

Find more details here

As if these poor workers weren't abused enough by these low paying service jobs, now they'll get shirked by employers by being forced to take lunches way too early or way too late in their shifts. I guarantee you the first company to take advantage of this ruling will be Walmart. Way to go California :tdown

#2 Lord_Onslaught

Lord_Onslaught

    Megatron Bows To ME!

  • Members
  • 6,215 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 03:58 PM

An employer is only suppose to give the person a lunch break. Never said when during the work day. When I worked at Olive Garden, during the day shift I would take my lunch at 2 pm. When I worked Nights I took lunch at 10 pm

#3 Blitz-Wing

Blitz-Wing

    Just another anchovie on the pizza of life

  • Members
  • 6,795 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 04:35 PM

I just think it's crap when an employee gets their 30min lunch 1hr before they go home, or 1hr into their shift. Not really fair to the employee. If the employer doesn't have enough people to cover lunches maybe they should... gasp... hire more people!

#4 Lord_Onslaught

Lord_Onslaught

    Megatron Bows To ME!

  • Members
  • 6,215 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 04:40 PM

I just think it's crap when an employee gets their 30min lunch 1hr before they go home, or 1hr into their shift. Not really fair to the employee. If the employer doesn't have enough people to cover lunches maybe they should... gasp... hire more people!


Then don't get a job in the restaurant business. cause peak time is 11:30 to 1:30 and Dinner peak time is 6:00 to 8:30. Restaurants are way different then retail or any other job. Sorry but I side with the Restaurants on this. It isn't good if your employees are on break during the peak times.

#5 Blitz-Wing

Blitz-Wing

    Just another anchovie on the pizza of life

  • Members
  • 6,795 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 05:10 PM

I'll agree to disagree. They know their peak times, therefore they should schedule better around them. I hear restaurants crying constantly about low margins, but I don't buy it. No sympathy from me :)

#6 Lord_Onslaught

Lord_Onslaught

    Megatron Bows To ME!

  • Members
  • 6,215 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 05:19 PM

I'll agree to disagree. They know their peak times, therefore they should schedule better around them. I hear restaurants crying constantly about low margins, but I don't buy it. No sympathy from me :)


I will agree to disagree also, but toss this final one in. When you are a server you know you are mostly working for tips that is why your pay is low. If you don't like it then don't be a server.

#7 Shadowpanther

Shadowpanther

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • 1,503 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 05:45 PM

Just another case of corporate america getting more greedy. appparently having the bulk share of american manufactoring & telemarketing jobs over seas & in the middle east isn't enough. then people wonder why china is so over-populated & their army is so huge,it's because they have the most jobs available in the world.

#8 Lord_Onslaught

Lord_Onslaught

    Megatron Bows To ME!

  • Members
  • 6,215 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 06:29 PM

And they don't get lunches :tflaugh

#9 Jason X

Jason X

    Jumpstarter

  • Members
  • 2,744 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 05:53 PM

Personally, mandatory lunches piss me off. Generally, I take one at my convenience, but some days I'd just rather get other things done. I think it's great there are laws here in the great hotbed of corruption that is Illinois saying workers are entitled to breaks and lunches, but don't make me do it. I rotate all 3 shifts. I don't necessarily want a "lunch" at 3am. Fortunately, my employer recently changed company policy. If I can justfiy not taking a lunch, I don't have to take it. So that an extra half hour of pay each day I have something betterto do. It's not much, but it does add up, and the freedom to do what I want means more than the money anyway.

#10 Blitz-Wing

Blitz-Wing

    Just another anchovie on the pizza of life

  • Members
  • 6,795 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 07:59 PM

I usually work through my lunch myself. However, being in the restaurant industry years ago, I used to hate it when I have a 10-5 shift and they'd make me take lunch at 11am or 4pm. What's the fricking point of having a lunch so early/late into the shift? Again, my whole beef is that the only reason Brinker fought this is because they don't want to hire enough people to adequately service the customers AND keep good morale with their employees.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users




ENI
About
Entertainment News International (ENI) is the popular culture network for fans all around the world. Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!
Sites
Action Figures
Comics
Classifieds
Entertainment
 
Marvel
Podcasts
Star Wars
Transformers
Links
Support
This site and content are copyright © Entertainment News International - All other rights revert to their lawful owners
This website is provided for the general public as an information and entertainment resource. If you feel this site has infringed on your legal rights, please contact us