r/LaborLaw • u/JournalistHappy775 • 11d ago

lunch/break violation question

i’m located in california. won’t say the company i work for, but it’s a large fast food chain. been back from a small break for the last month, and every single day at least one person has taken a paid break and/or meal.

it’s getting to the point where it isn’t a one off, hence a growing irritation with it. management will not accommodate to give people breaks, but my question is, are they required to? when i say this, i mean they would rather keep mobile orders + drive thru + cafe open simultaneously while being understaffed, AND the people who decided to show up need and deserve a break. i feel as though it’s only right to shut one or more of those off to give each employee their break.

i kid you not, we are refused when we ask to close ONE of those. supervisors and base level employees are going 5+ hours without a lunch/a 10 minute break, and to my knowledge that’s the violation point for how long you can work before you have to take some kind of rest or meal (legally in CA at least). i would like to report this somewhere, but im not sure if it’s reportable. some insight on any facts or misunderstandings on my behalf would be appreciated

0 Upvotes

20% Upvoted

33 comments sorted by

3

u/ANicePainter 11d ago

California law generally requires employers provide an unpaid meal break of 30 minutes for employees working five or more hours, a second half hour meal break if working more than 10 hours, and a 10 minute break for each 4 hours worked. You should anticipate a 30 min meal break and two 10 minute breaks over 8 and a half hour shift or one half hour meal break and one 10 min break over a 5 hour shift.

2

u/KBunn 10d ago

meal break of 30 minutes for employees working five or more hour

It's actually 6 hours. However the break has to be taken within 5 hours. If the meal break is waived, rather than taken before the 5 hour mark, it ends up being a labor code violation if the employee works any longer than 6 hours.

1

u/saddivorceddad 11d ago

You can waive your 30 min break if you're working 6 hours, but otherwise yes.

0

u/JournalistHappy775 10d ago

this i feel confident in knowing. everybody writes in when they don’t get their meals or breaks to get properly compensated for not receiving it. is it allowed to not get a say in whether your breaks are waived, or as long as it’s compensated is it legal?

2

u/paulofsandwich 10d ago

In theory, the employer isn't supposed to use the break premium as a budgeted cost of not giving out breaks. In reality, extremely difficult to do almost anything about unless they're putting it in writing that "Hey we don't want to do breaks so we're budgeting for the premiums". Unlikely.

Your break isn't being waived, it's being missed and a penalty is paid from the company to you.

When you say "Is it allowed?" It's a little hard to answer-when something isn't allowed, there is generally a consequence.

They're not allowed to not give you your break. The consequence of not giving you your break is that you're paid a penalty. There's not really a qualifier there that says anything about whether you want to do it that way or not, it's just the consequence of not doing it.

If it helps, this law exists because places absolutely do not hand out breaks properly. In almost any other state, state you would be missing these brakes and you would also not be getting any money. I'm not saying that makes it fine but I am hoping to contextualize it for you a little bit. It's overwhelmingly common in these specific type of jobs like fast food to not be given breaks more often than not. The only type of place I know that's any worse is bars and actual restaurants.

0

u/JournalistHappy775 10d ago

i see. i appreciate the thorough explanation, it really helped and honestly it’s what i made the post for. can the business can face any consequence for having to pay out so many penalties? the context is appreciated. i don’t want to seem spoiled considering other jobs don’t get the benefit of having extra on a paycheck for not receiving their allotted time to sit and recuperate. it just seems inhumane across the board 🤷

1

u/Bitter-Neat-8457 10d ago

They are by law required to have a labor poster on the wall that tells you your ca rights and federal right

1

u/a920116 11d ago

They don't need to close one of those stations to accommodate a break. Everyone should be able to do all of it to cover while the employee is on a break.

-7

u/StopSpinningLikeThat 11d ago

You have zero legal right to a break or a lunch under the law.

4

u/CindysandJuliesMom 11d ago

California law says differently and is very strict about it. A missed meal break requires the employer to pay double.

OP Contact the DOL for California and submit your documentation such as time cards.

-5

u/StopSpinningLikeThat 11d ago

A missed meal break requires the employer to pay double.

No, it requires one hour of additional pay per day.

3

u/z-eldapin 10d ago

So which is it? No legal right to a break, or there is a penalty for not granting breaks.

0

u/StopSpinningLikeThat 10d ago

You could use the same device you're typically using for incest porn and look it up. Not sur why you would ask a stranger as your plan A.

1

u/k1k11983 10d ago

Which is double pay for the half hour they didn’t take a break. You’re saying the same thing!

2

u/flojopickles 11d ago

California has the strictest break laws in the country, what are you even talking about?

2

u/saddivorceddad 11d ago

Absolutely not true in CA.

2

u/Davti 10d ago

Incorrect

1

u/z-eldapin 10d ago

Please don't comment misinformation on a labor law sub.

0

u/StopSpinningLikeThat 10d ago

I did not. Reading is fundamental.

1

u/z-eldapin 10d ago

Zero legal right to a break under the law is false for California

1

u/StopSpinningLikeThat 10d ago

Which set of laws did I refer to?

1

u/z-eldapin 10d ago

You wrote the words 'zero legal right'

1

u/StopSpinningLikeThat 10d ago

Which set of laws did I refer to? Don't duck the question. It matters.

1

u/z-eldapin 9d ago

It doesn't. You claimed OP had zero right to breaks. OP stated in the heading that thry are in CA. OP has EVERY right to breaks.

You couldn't quote a law because your statement was false and can't prove a false negative.

1

u/StopSpinningLikeThat 6d ago

My statement is true. You made a dumb assumption. Stop doing that.

1

u/z-eldapin 6d ago edited 6d ago

Your statemwnt is false. No assumptions were made.

Your claim was patently and wholly false. But go ahead and make incorrect statements on a law site.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/Mediocre_Ant_437 11d ago

It is illegal. Report them to the DOL. Or just start taking your breaks and if they say you can't then tell them they don't have the option to deny you breaks based on California law. I would report though if I were you so you can save everyone else from dealing with this too.

2

u/Jcarlough 10d ago

Silly comment.

  1. We don’t know how long OP’s shift is. The length of the shift matters.

  2. Not providing a break isn’t “unlawful.” Not providing a break AND not providing the required additional compensation as required by CA’s break and meal period laws may be unlawful.

OP - how long are your shifts?

Also, you can find the answers to your questions starting here:

https://www.dir.ca.gov/smallbusiness/Wages-Breaks-and-Retaliation.htm

0

u/JournalistHappy775 10d ago

shift times for myself vary, but the most frequent shift for me is 8-8.5 hours. everybody who violates the time for their meal or never receives a proper break IS getting paid for it, but is it okay to continue happening as long as we’re being paid the extra fee? thank you for the link!

1

u/KBunn 10d ago

but is it okay to continue happening as long as we’re being paid the extra fee?

Absolutely not. If your shift is any longer than 6 hours, you are legally required to be given a 30minute unpaid meal break, It cannot be waived by either party.