Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mrlolloran t1_irxidmx wrote

Reply to comment by Potato_Octopi in Getting Paid Lunches in MA by stuartroelke

Opportunity cost. If I can’t leave work and come back then I’m stuck at work, whether working or not. If I’m stuck at work I should be paid.

4

RevengencerAlf t1_irxrllk wrote

If you are not allowed to leave they have to pay you. If it's just impractical for you to leave because you don't want to waste time goin to and from a different place, that's honestly no different than you not being paid for your commute.

10

mrlolloran t1_irxsa6l wrote

I dunno there’s a practicality issue here. I live 1.3 miles from my job and last week I ripped my pants during my shift. Now my job is fairly laid back so I was able to leave, change and come back. I did nothing else. It took me 20+ minutes. 1.3 miles by car is about as short as a trip/commute gets.

Being technically allowed to leave but for extremely short periods of time is not practical. You are effectively stuck at work and should be compensated for that.

4

RevengencerAlf t1_iryonl7 wrote

Physical impossibility due to circumstance is still not the same thing as a lack of freedom, practical or not. I can't visit Virginia between work days because there isn't enough time to get there and back between shirts. That doesn't mean that I am not free during that time.

1

paganlobster t1_irzfmqd wrote

How is it not a lack of freedom? Lack of time and lack of mobility due to obligation is quite literally a lack of freedom

1

stuartroelke OP t1_irxw3ad wrote

Just because it’s “no different than you not being paid for your commute” doesn’t mean it’s right.

−1

ThrillDr1 t1_irxr4xd wrote

That I agree with. If you are not allowed to leave the job, then they should pay you for your time. If you can leave, then it is your time, and your company should not be paying you for it.

5

stuartroelke OP t1_irxwgi1 wrote

You are eating in order to be a more effective employee. It’s a basic human right—and it’s not the same as working—but, it’s not free time.

−4

ThrillDr1 t1_iry142f wrote

So long as you are capable of leaving, then it 100% is free time, you can do what you want during that time - watch videos, smoke in your car. You are not being forced to eat during your lunch break. So no human rights are being violated.

5

stuartroelke OP t1_iry1jlj wrote

It’s not the same as free time. You are bound to the location you work out, and can only travel—using your own gas or physical energy—as far as your break allows. That’s the bottom line. I believe it’s not the same, and therefore should be compensated.

−2

ThrillDr1 t1_iry4lyn wrote

You use your own gas or physical energy to get to and from work. Should they pay you for that too?

You are free to do as you want during your free time. Your employer can not tell you what to do or how to do it during that time period they can however confine you by time. IF they pay you, THEN they can. You will be mandated to stay in a certain location and to eat.

Do you want the freedom to leave during that time frame, or do you want to be mandated to stay and eat as they desire? Because you can't have both.

4

stuartroelke OP t1_iryr27m wrote

“You can’t have both” is not a law. Also, people need to stop comparing a commute to paid lunches. Those are entirely different situations, and I’m clearly discussing paid lunches at this time.

1

ThrillDr1 t1_iryvyxs wrote

The law is unpaid lunch unless you are required to stay.

1

Potato_Octopi t1_irxt4lo wrote

So, you'd be fine with a lower payrate but paid for the lunch hour (net same)? Or allow employers to not offer a lunch break?

−6

mrlolloran t1_irxtp08 wrote

If your goal is to payout the same net then why bother making the distinction of what you’re being paid for?

It should not be the same net, even if you get a slightly lower rate to compensate. I laid out why you should get paid for these breaks but wtf is the point if you effectively make the same? Even worse all of your overtime would be at the lower rate. That sounds like a shit deal to me.

2

Potato_Octopi t1_irxtzml wrote

Are you working during the lunch break? If not then you're not generating anything for the business so why should you be paid more?

2

mrlolloran t1_irxusz9 wrote

Then the lunch break should be long enough to actually leave and come back. Not everybody has an office. Not everybody goes to the same job site everyday.

Again opportunity cost: if I can’t leave (I, personally, include practicality and not just technically) then I need to be paid.

Contractors who bill by the hour can charge for getting stuck on a job site even if they’re in “hurry up and wait” mode and therefore not generating any work.

6

Potato_Octopi t1_irxvtg7 wrote

Why do you need to be able to leave? What opportunity cost?

−1

mrlolloran t1_irxvylo wrote

Why does the employer need to know?

They don’t. All that matters is that they’re back on time.

6

Potato_Octopi t1_irxwfn1 wrote

You'd have to ask your employer why they need to know. Sometimes it's just a courtesy so people aren't confused why you're leaving or when you'll be back.

0

mrlolloran t1_irxx2dj wrote

It still doesn’t matter. I have MS asking me too specifically, and god forbid denying me, could be ADA violation.

If an employer doesn’t like it they can offer a fair salary and save themselves the headache. MA is still a right to work state so if your unhappy with their performance because they’re taking it too easy fire their ass. Although most employees like this are probably not coming back from breaks on time anyway so it’s 6 of one, half dozen of the other there.

1

Potato_Octopi t1_irxxukk wrote

Not following what the ADA or anti union laws have to do with this discussion. Not aware of MA being a 'right to work' state either.

1

mrlolloran t1_irxyk52 wrote

That was just an example and MA is a right to work state. People think Mass is super liberal and in a lot of ways we are but our employment laws are far from the most liberal/progressive in the country. It’s why this topics is being discussed like this instead of the other way around, as in: Why are we even forced to pay for lunch breaks?

2

Potato_Octopi t1_irxyvv0 wrote

MA is not a right to work state. Are you thinking "at will employment"?

It sounds like you just want to get paid more and think "paid lunch" is some hot idea it isn't.

1

stuartroelke OP t1_iry10y1 wrote

“Some hot idea”? I’m asking how I go about effectively advocating for change. If you don’t care about this—either because it doesn’t apply to your experience, or you don’t agree—then that’s your decision. But, you’re not going to sway me. I believe that employees—especially those with hourly wages—should get paid more. And lunch is not the same as free time. It’s built into work because it keeps employees working effectively (and safely)—especially manual laborers—and is time that aught to be compensated.

2

Potato_Octopi t1_iry5ouh wrote

> I believe that employees—especially those with hourly wages—should get paid more.

But why not just advocate for that?

>And lunch is not the same as free time. It’s built into work because it keeps employees working effectively (and safely)—especially manual laborers—and is time that aught to be compensated.

And that argument is job specific. Office worker may be better off with some light snacking during the day. Lunch only became the norm with factory work.

2

mrlolloran t1_iry1kp8 wrote

I’m not salary but I actually only work 8 hours a day. I don’t personally benefit from what I’m talking about.

I did confuse right to work with at will employee but tbh since you’re now casting aspersions at me let send one back.

You sound like the type of person who thinks paychecks are favor from employers and not something owed to employees. You want the deck stacked for the “job creators” and would be an awful person to work for.

2

Potato_Octopi t1_iry5ztg wrote

If you want more pay just ask for that. I don't see why "paid lunch" is a compelling argument. You're not working, nor doing work prep. You're taking care of yourself just like breakfast, dinner or whatever. The fact that leaving the worksite can be inconvenient due to travel time is.. whatever.

1

mrlolloran t1_iry6zzb wrote

If I want more pay I don’t need some random person Reddit to encourage me to ask for a raise. Or did you not understand when I said I would not benefit because I only work 8 hours a day and advocating for what you think is right for other people to get a foreign concept to you?

I work an 8 hour shift and my boss is laid back. I can go to the bathroom whenever the fuck I want without people counting the time it takes or the amount trips I make. I intermittent fast by choice so I don’t need a lunch break but he has offered to work something out if I ever do need a real break. I personally am fine, but that doesn’t mean that I think everybody should have to do things the way I do them.

2

paganlobster t1_irzftnm wrote

The employee needs to eat to perform the labor. I’d say that’s directly related to the value they’re creating, which is always more than they’re actually paid anyway.

1

Potato_Octopi t1_is2m4wh wrote

They also need to sleep and eat other meals during their life. You want to pay people to sleep too?

Cleaner to just ban lunch and start the shift later.

2

stuartroelke OP t1_irxwr55 wrote

I keep typing this, and I don’t understand why nobody seems to understand. Just because you aren’t working doesn’t mean it’s free time. You are eating in order to remain an effective employee, therefore it is a part of working and should be compensated.

−1

Potato_Octopi t1_irxx7yv wrote

If the lunch break helps you be an effective employee then it's arguably already baked into your paycheck. But for the lunch break you'd be less effective, and so paid less.

4