Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Beck316 t1_irxkybn wrote

Idk. Technically you don't have to stay at work during an unpaid break. You could go outside, to your car or whatever. If you worked somewhere close to go get food and you choose to spend your time that way, that's up to you. I think our state laws are if you are scheduled for an 8 hr shift, you are entitled to two 15 minute paid breaks and one 30 minute unpaid break.

11

Pficky t1_irycl6e wrote

I go let my dog out to pee and play a little everyday at lunch. I don't mind not being paid for it. I'm literally hanging out with my dog not working lol.

4

stuartroelke OP t1_iryxqe9 wrote

For those of us that work on location, lunch breaks force us to take lunch in an area that is not our homes. It’s not free time, it’s “eat lunch near work because it is required by law” time.

2

Pficky t1_irz2y9w wrote

I work on site, I just live closer to work...

1

stuartroelke OP t1_irxonac wrote

The law—as I understand it from the link I posted—is that six hours of work entitle you to a thirty minute (possibly unpaid) lunch. I understand that you are free to go to your car or go outside, but my point is that it isn’t the same as free time. It’s time allotted to keep you working effectively. Therefore, that time helps your employer more than it helps you.

−3

RevengencerAlf t1_irxs2hl wrote

It literally is "Free time" You can go where you want. You just have to be back. Which is no different than the time in the morning between when you wake up and when you arrive at work. My work doesn't pay me for my mornings because I have to make sure I'm home and out the door by 7:30 to make an 8am meeting. I can choose to spend that time at home, at a diner getting breakfast, or rubbing one out in a motel room, nobody cares as long as I show up on time. Same for lunch.

5

paganlobster t1_irzezie wrote

You can’t teleport anywhere to do whatever the fuck you want. 30 minutes is no time at all especially if you need to pick up food before eating it. That’s not free time.

0

RevengencerAlf t1_irzo59y wrote

You don't need to pick up food elsewhere. You can bring a meal with you if your work is too far from restaurant (it's cheaper and healthier to do anyway). It's a meal break not a fucking siesta.

I know this is trouble for the night school sociogy crowd to understand but time where you are permitted to do what you want is but definition free time and that doesn't magically go away because there are practical limitations that prevent you from exercising whatever scenarios it can concoct.

Under you hilariously bad logic my time tonight isn't "free time" because I can't travel anywhere that would prevent me from getting back to work on time in the morning.

1

stuartroelke OP t1_irxy5is wrote

That is logically incorrect. You cannot do the same things you would before or after work. If you want to go home, you’d still have to drive (that is, if you can even get home and back within thirty minutes). You are essentially bound to the location you work at. And, just because you’re not being paid for a commute doesn’t make unpaid lunches okay. Everything you said is not sensical, and also not very helpful.

−3

RevengencerAlf t1_irxyd89 wrote

You seem to have a vocabulary problem where you insert terms you don't understand the meaning of like "incorrect" when you mean to say "I don't agree with this."

Your first reply to me, while I don't agree with it, was much less unhinged and Ben Shapiro-esque.

Calling something nonsensical just because you disagree with it or don't understand it just paints you as a child throwing a pissy fit because someone has a different viewpoint from yours.

11

stuartroelke OP t1_iry1yyk wrote

No, you don’t understand that freedom bound to your work location IS NOT the same as freedom outside of work hours. That is simply a fact, and it is not debatable. Any argument against that is illogical. It is literally a different location, and you are bound to how far you can travel—using your own gas or physical energy—within the amount of break time allotted. It’s not a “pissy fit” (fun typo), but actually a difference very much rooted in reality.

0

RevengencerAlf t1_iry2895 wrote

Ah so I see we've just reached the point of the pissed of kid who just took a sociology class declaring everything he believes to be objective fact to win internet points.

12

stuartroelke OP t1_iry433a wrote

I just don’t get how you don’t understand that two physical locations are not the same. By being in one location because you have to be is not the same as being somewhere else because you want to be.

2

RevengencerAlf t1_iry4s2e wrote

Nobody is saying the locations are physically the same. This isn't some metaphysical shit, chief. The argument is that the situations are comparable, and for some reason while you could easily disagree with that you've decided to just start unilaterally declaring things fact because you think it helps you (it doesn't).

I have to be on the road at 7:45 AM not because I want to be, but because I have to be to get to the office by 8am, get paid, and not get fired. I can't take a Trip up to Maine after work today because I wouldn't get back in time to get my ass to work tomorrow.

9

stuartroelke OP t1_irz2w04 wrote

You are still bringing up commuting. Commuting is NOT comparable to unpaid lunches. Why? Commuting is NOT regulated the same (or at all for that matter). Why? I don’t know, but that’s a completely different discussion!

“This isn’t some metaphysical shit, chief”? No, it’s not. As I stated time and time again, It’s a belief that I’m trying to logically explain and advocate for. I need to organize my thoughts better—that’s all part of evolution and change—but I’m NOT trying to get paid for commuting, or not working, or “taking a trip to Maine” (and whatever mudslide arguments you are making). I’m only trying to explain my viewpoint, and then I’d like to turn those ideas into law if possible. You seem deeply invested in dismantling my logic, so do it. That’s all part of the process, no?

0

RevengencerAlf t1_irza21c wrote

"This thing that is clearly comprable isn't comparable because I don't like what it does to my argument."

Lol, k.

2

richg0404 t1_iryhb6k wrote

> I understand that you are free to go to your car or go outside, but my point is that it isn’t the same as free time. It’s time allotted to keep you working effectively.

You mention that it is time allotted to keep you working effectively but if you really tried you could probably make it through a shift without a lunch break. Sure it makes it more comfortable if you eat lunch but so does sleeping but I don't expect my employer to compensate me for sleep time.

3

paganlobster t1_irzeuyk wrote

How is being paid to eat to get through a shift like being paid to sleep?

1

richg0404 t1_is0owfl wrote

Well you claim that you have to eat lunch to be able to continue working well so you should be paid for it. I would argue that you also need to sleep to be able to work well so you should get paid for it.

I know it's a stupid statement but that's the point. So is yours.

1

paganlobster t1_is2erad wrote

I didn't even make a statement lol. But if you wanna project go ahead

1