Getting Paid Lunches in MA

Submitted by stuartroelke t3_y1h1rw in massachusetts

I’ve always been surprised that lunch breaks “might be unpaid” in Massachusetts: https://www.mass.gov/guides/breaks-and-time-off

It has already been determined that employees need that break in order to stay happy and healthy during an eight hour shift. So, why should a shift then extend in order to accommodate a break which is essential and legally protected? We don’t cut out time spent in the bathroom. Why do that for lunch?

Aside from rallying a bunch of people to write to Michelle Wu, Elizabeth Warren, and Ed Markey—though I am willing—what can people do to help facilitate this kind of change?

EDIT: Thanks to those that suggested speaking with state lawmakers! I will admit that I am unfamiliar with this process, but I do intend to organize my thoughts and follow through. Please reach out directly if you have more insights, or if you just want to help. I know this topic is divisive—it aught to be, as it is based on individual opinions and experiences—but, please try to keep discussion civil. It’s 2022. We all know by now that insults are not productive 🕊️

51

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

katieleehaw t1_irxe1br wrote

I tend to agree that all breaks should be paid, because they aren't long enough to really do anything other than hit the restroom and eat a quick meal at most.

The answer to your question is: organize. First with your workplace, then see how it goes.

46

Proof-Variation7005 t1_irxx5sx wrote

>Michelle Wu, Elizabeth Warren, and Ed Markey

They'd all be nice spokespeople to have for any cause but I'd maybe focus on the state lawmakers and incoming governor if you want to make actual progress.

40

DogCuddler1 t1_irxhzlz wrote

I’ve never had a paid lunch break in my life, and I’ve had many different jobs. It would be nice!

35

RevengencerAlf t1_irxr34d wrote

"Fun" fact... very few states actually require a lunch break at all. Almost every employer gives one though because they know that not giving one is the best way to get their legislature to get around to changing that under terms that may not be as favorable to them.

Also, I don't particularly find it egregious. The law is simple on it. You are free to come and go during the break in almost all cases. It's gone to court before and that's generally the distinction. If they tell you that you can't leave they likely have to pay you if you push it. In that regard it is no different than not paying you for your commute time to and from work. It's generally universally accepted at least across the US that employers only have to pay you for time you are either doing work for them or are otherwise under their control.

24

stuartroelke OP t1_irxxfkf wrote

Just because it’s similar to not being paid for a commute—although it really isn’t—that doesn’t make it right. And, it’s not free time. You are taking lunch in order to remain an effective employee. You can’t do everything you would if that time was available at the begging or end of your shift, and therefore they are taking some of your freedom in exchange for nothing. I believe it should be compensated.

−3

Kissfan07 t1_iryc2fg wrote

But if they said you could leave an hour early if you skipped lunch, would you still need that hour to “remain effective”, or could you power through so that you could enjoy an extra hour at the end of the day? I’m willing to bet you would make it. An hour lunch break is a time you’re not working, and you can spend it as you choose. Nobody should be paying for an employee to sit around.

8

monicarperkins t1_irylr74 wrote

There have been many times I've taken my "lunch break" during the last hour of my shift and went home.

3

stuartroelke OP t1_iryqnsd wrote

It’s not “sitting around,” eating lunch is a basic right. I know you COULD fast for eight or more hours, but that’s also not a reason to comply with anything. And as I said before, it’s not free time, and you can’t spend it how you choose. You are bound to the location you work. It’s not the same as having time at the beginning or end of a shift.

−3

XtremeWRATH360 t1_is0b5a5 wrote

Your point you keep losing people on is this whole “it’s not free time you can’t spend it how you choose” makes zero sense. On a lunch you can go eat food, go to the bank, go get your car washed, go get your taxes done, spend some time with a significant other, take a walk and on and on. You have to have a better argument because again you’re making it seem like you’re held hostage and have to get permission from your employer to do anything while you’re out on lunch. And let’s say you magically get paid for lunch. How will getting paid allow you to get things done during the same time span that you magically can’t get done currently? None of this makes sense.

3

Kissfan07 t1_iryrjys wrote

You’re hopeless. Start your own business and do what you want. There is absolutely no pleasing people like you.

1

stuartroelke OP t1_iryyg9i wrote

Pleasing people like me? That phrase is meaningless. I’m asking for advice on how to advocate for labor regulations that I believe in, and you’re calling me hopeless. What do you want me to say? It’s hypocritical.

−1

Kissfan07 t1_is0o9sl wrote

Your arguments are bull shit. You’re telling me the hour isn’t free time. It is. Just because you can’t catch a movie, or mow your lawn in that hour, doesn’t mean it’s worthless. I do t eat lunch, so I sit around. You eat, so you expect to be paid because somehow that’s a “right”.

1

Ialnyien t1_irzawrv wrote

Eating lunch is not a basic right. You have a good thought but I would highly recommend you steer away from the hyperbole.

If you are prevented from leaving the premise of your employer, I would think they’d have to pay you for that. That was always a stipulation is that if they require you to be present during your lunch, it should be paid.

1

mtb40 t1_irxfrzb wrote

From what I recall, lunch break is unpaid if you are allowed to leave the premises. If they require you to stay on the work grounds they have to pay you for that time

22

stuartroelke OP t1_irxzy2p wrote

That is true, but I still feel that it’s work-related time and not the same as free time.

5

Abdellatif-T t1_is08mxj wrote

That’s what the place I work at does. 50 mins total paid breaks but people are not allowed to leave the building.

1

Potato_Octopi t1_irxcyte wrote

What problem are you trying to solve here? You are off the clock so you aren't being paid to work so there's no ambiguity that you aren't intended to work during that time. Keeps timekeeping clean.

Alternatively you can be salary exempt and work during lunch more than not.

19

katieleehaw t1_irxe5mr wrote

A lot of people do get paid during their breaks, it depends on a few factors. I think it's reasonable to expect to be paid for that time since you're basically captive.

12

RevengencerAlf t1_irxrgi9 wrote

As a matter of law, if you are forbidden to leave, you are supposed to get paid. If it's impractical but technically allowed for you to leave, it can be a grey area but it only usually falls on the employer if they are the ones putting up a roadblock that stop syou (for example requiring you to change out of uniform)

I don't really have a problem with that honestly. If I'm frree to walk out the door and not suffer any negative employment consequences I don't see why I'd get paid for that time.

11

impact4 t1_irxm417 wrote

I leave my work to go get lunch when i feel like taking a full hour. Otherwise I take a short lunch and leave early.

3

TywinShitsGold t1_irxgj9f wrote

Are you “basically” captive? Because in order for lunch to be unpaid you have to be relieved of all duties and free to leave.

Solution is find a place that allows you to eat at your desk and skip lunch.

−2

stuartroelke OP t1_irxhu9f wrote

As I mentioned before, they are removing freedoms someone would otherwise have. It’s not free time, it’s “stay healthy at work” time, and should be compensated because it’s entirely related to being able to work more effectively.

Also, finding a different place of employment is a temporary solution for one person. I’m not asking about that. I want to know how to advocate for change that helps everyone, especially those that don’t have the option to quit and work somewhere else on a whim.

1

mrlolloran t1_irxidmx wrote

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

paganlobster t1_irzfe9e wrote

The problem is not being compensated for time spent in service of the job. People aren’t machines, they need to consume energy to do the work. They should be compensated for time spent doing that. It’s human maintenance, if you want to look that way.

−1

MoreGuitarPlease t1_iry4hlp wrote

It’s a “small” issue but an hour of unpaid leave every day for a year is approximately 300 hours.

300 hours that you are basically tied to your job and can’t choose to do something else and you aren’t getting paid for it.

Employers need to start paying a real version of their employees time. An employee is committing 45 hours per week and only getting paid 40. It’s really pretty simple. That’s not even including the pain and suffering of this commute…

−4

Potato_Octopi t1_irykjat wrote

Just have people work 40 hrs no lunch break. Otherwise the employer isn't getting anything out of you eating and will adjust overall comp.

1

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

XtremeWRATH360 t1_irxmztx wrote

I’m not following this. You get an hour to go on lunch you’re not held captive anywhere. I have my usual spots I go to for lunch and I’ve never felt captive and why should I get paid? I am not working. I wasn’t hired to stuff my mouth with a meatball sub so I don’t expect to get paid while I go down to the sub shop down the street.

11

PLS-Surveyor-US t1_irxooxg wrote

What we should really be talking about is who has the best meatball sub.

3

stuartroelke OP t1_irxptx8 wrote

It’s not an hour. Most people only get thirty minutes of unpaid lunch. And, it’s not the same as free time. You can leave and go get food, but you can’t do everything you could if that time was provided to you at the beginning or end of your shift. You are eating so that you can continue working effectively. If you don’t feel like that time aught to be compensated, then that’s fine. But I do. If don’t have suggestions as to how someone could fight for this change, then you’re not really reading my post.

3

modernhomeowner t1_irxqfkx wrote

If you want to be paid, and feel you are entitled to it, negotiate with your employer and show them how your getting paid for lunch will earn them more money, get a salaried job, or open your own business.

5

stuartroelke OP t1_irxxmar wrote

That’s an effective strategy for one person. That doesn’t help those that can’t do the same. If you don’t share the same opinion, then you don’t have anything to offer to this conversation unfortunately.

0

RevengencerAlf t1_irxztzs wrote

There is actually an extremely popular mechanism that a large portion of the labor sector in both the US and the rest of the free world tend to use to collectively bargain for terms with employers based exactly on the kind of value propositions we're talking about here.

Now you're just being petulant and dismissing people for "having nothing to offer" because they don't just bend over backwards and agree with you. Continue behaving like this and you'll never get anyone to come around to support you even if they nominally agree with your positions.

3

stuartroelke OP t1_iry2sz1 wrote

I’m not being “petulant,” I’m asking for advice and receiving surprisingly opinionated responses that aren’t actually helpful or related to the original question. And, I’m not interested in working with anyone that isn’t helpful in this context. That’s a choice I’m making. Feel free to disagree with it.

−1

RevengencerAlf t1_iry399w wrote

My dude you advocated for a political change on the internet. People are gonna tell you that they think it's a bad idea. Grow the fuck up and get over it, because you're sure as hell going to have to deal with it if you want to actually push for such a change.

Pissing at people and telling them they "don't have anything to add" because they didn't give you the answer you wanted to hear is fairly charitably described as being petulant.

But... since I'm feeling nice and you seem like you need all the help you can get to get your shit together here, of the 3 politicians you mentioned, 2 of them are federal offices and one of them is a mayor. None of them are going to do dick about MA labor laws. Focus on state and even local level officials. If you have trouble figuring out who to go to there start with your representative, not the senators. They'll more likely know your local contacts in your specific part of the state and those people and their staff are more likely to help you network and find like minded people in other election districts who feel the same. They'll have a better idea of what districts will be receptive to making it a campaign issue and who will listen.

6

stuartroelke OP t1_iry4rez wrote

Thanks? I don’t even know what to say because that last part was all you had to say.

Thanks for all the laughs and hypocrisy along the way.

−3

RevengencerAlf t1_iry4z1j wrote

I'd say you're welcome but I doubt you have the personal restraint, self control, rhetorical filter, or contextual literacy skills to actually use that information effectively after being such a dismissive baby about people not telling you what you want to hear, but what can I say I'm a sucker for fools I guess.

At this point you clearly just keep using words you don't even know the meaning of and it's sad as hell.

7

stuartroelke OP t1_iryt091 wrote

Yes, I wanted to hear advice about how to advocate for something I feel strongly about. You continue insult my intelligence, but I’ve made my intention and my stance well known at this point. You wouldn’t insult me if you didn’t want to elicit some kind of response, but I do not know what you were hoping to gain from spamming me with contrary opinions, giving me actual advice, and then senselessly bashing me with childish criticism. I’m left partially baffled by all this confusion and negativity, but with the same opinion I’ve had since the beginning.

0

XtremeWRATH360 t1_irxqcfd wrote

I don’t know what line of work you’re in but I get hour lunches and have at other jobs. When I get my lunch I get plenty of time to do stuff and I don’t know exactly what you’re looking to do on your lunch break but now it seems you want time to eat lunch and do other stuff on top of that all while getting paid. That’s quite the fantasy. You want to go fight for that right all the power to you. There are probably bigger labor issues that you could spend your energy focusing on however.

3

stuartroelke OP t1_irxreo2 wrote

Other labor issues don’t necessarily reflect my experience, and someone else can work on those if they choose. Your privileges while on break also don’t reflect my working conditions since moving to MA, so you might not feel as strongly about this as I do.

I’m looking for some insight into changing what I believe is an injustice. It doesn’t have to be a fantasy to fight for workers rights, but it seems that the general opinion lately is “why bother?” That’s pretty unsettling, and ultimately not helpful.

−1

monotoonz t1_is08sd3 wrote

OP wants to work 7.5 hours and get paid for 8. It's That simple. He/she keeps going on about free time and whatnot, but as I said, OP just wants to get paid free money.

2

bobbywaz t1_iry2dbw wrote

I've worked in like 15 states and ain't never had a paid lunch anywhere...

11

stuartroelke OP t1_iry52bp wrote

Okay? What’s your point?

−3

chancimus33 t1_iry9g3k wrote

Same. Also every job I’ve had my shift has been extended by the exact same amount of time I’ve spent in the bathroom.

4

GrimeyPipes27 t1_iryfums wrote

I don't get a paid lunch break. On top of that. I don't get paid to drive my company work truck ( which is full of company tools and materials ) back to the warehouse from the job site everyday. C'est la vie

4

paganlobster t1_irzg6kt wrote

You fucking should, why aren’t you mad about that? Serious question.

2

GrimeyPipes27 t1_is02heg wrote

I am mad. However I am a father of 2, my wife can't work and I don't have a lot of skills. I'm pretty much stuck where I am. Aside from this my boss really is a good guy, and tries to help me out as much as he can. I try and take the good with the bad.

1

stuartroelke OP t1_irywwib wrote

That second part seems like a violation—especially if you got in an accident—but, I unfortunately do not have enough information to know for certain.

1

Asleep_Leading_5462 t1_irylomr wrote

When I worked retail prior to the mandatory lunch break 30 minutes, I loved working and leaving an extra half hour early. I felt that if I actually took a break for lunch it would slow me down. But that’s just me. Then the paid half hour lunches were mandatory to take. We had an. Unpaid half hour where we were free to leave the property within that half hour. Because as I understood it, if you left the premises and got into an accident on their clock, it would be a liability issue? I could be wrong.

Edit: wow sorry I’ve been up for too long not sure if that even makes any sense lol!

3

stuartroelke OP t1_irytnp5 wrote

Ah, a very interesting point. Thank you for the insight, because I definitely will have to research that.

1

theladythunderfunk t1_irz0dk5 wrote

>We don’t cut out time spent in the bathroom. Why do that for lunch?

I actually know at least one job that tried to insist remote employees clock out when they got up to go to the bathroom and clock back in when they were done. The policy was not successful.

3

ThrillDr1 t1_irxalhw wrote

Why should the company pay you for your lunchtime?

2

stuartroelke OP t1_irxbv5z wrote

Because it’s not free time, it’s time that employers encourage you to take in order to continue working effectively. Sandwiching—no pun intended—unpaid lunches between work hours takes away freedoms you would otherwise have if that time was given back in the form of shorter shifts.

14

ThrillDr1 t1_irxqqul wrote

If you are free to leave the facility, it is your own time. No company should be paying for your free time.

4

stuartroelke OP t1_irxyodp wrote

It’s not the same as free time. You are bound to the location where you work, and you are eating in order to remain an effective and healthy employee. It is an essential human right, but it is also essentially work time and aught to be compensated.

3

endofthered01674 t1_irxhvix wrote

Get a job where your break is your own time.

1

stuartroelke OP t1_irxyfln wrote

Not everyone has that option, and that’s why I’m asking for advice on advocating for change. I’m getting tired of writing that comment, and telling me to get a different job is not helpful.

2

endofthered01674 t1_irxzx3m wrote

If your employer is paying you, they're going to expect something out of you. You're not forced to stay where you are. Find somewhere that will give you what you want. I could leave for an hour every day on my lunch break if I felt like it.

4

stuartroelke OP t1_iry3521 wrote

I keep saying this, but getting a different job isn’t always an option. It’s also not an effective strategy for change.

2

katieleehaw t1_irxe2sf wrote

Because you have to be there all day and humans require breaks and food?

8

[deleted] t1_irxh9d1 wrote

[deleted]

2

ThrillDr1 t1_iryirv5 wrote

Does your employer monitor and ascertain if you have eaten, how much you have eaten, whether it is healthy or not? Of course they don't. You are given a break, they call it lunch, but you are free to do what you want during it.

3

sad0panda t1_irxu15a wrote

It's not that lunch breaks "may not be paid", it's that they may be unpaid (or paid). The way I read your post made it seem like you think lunch breaks must be unpaid.

2

stuartroelke OP t1_iry39yh wrote

Thank you, I misquoted. The post has been edited.

−1

CANiEATthatNow t1_iry9krn wrote

Unpaid in Vt too!

2

RevengencerAlf t1_iryp72z wrote

They're unpaid in almost every single state that actually requires them, although some call out specific circumstances that require it to be paid.

3

crazyasusual t1_iryf8vu wrote

I worked for a union world wide company in Massachusetts for 30 years , our lunch was paid , you were paid for every minute you where on the clock there was no punching in or out for lunch you ate when you had time … so yea ..

2

geffe71 t1_iryh0al wrote

I get unpaid lunch, but I also work 8.5 hours so that 30 minute lunch brings me down to the 8

2

stuartroelke OP t1_iryu3kp wrote

This is the part that bothers me. I’m of the opinion that dedicating 8.5 hours to work—regardless of how that time is spent—should be fully compensated. That extra half hour would also qualify for overtime if lunches were paid, so employers would probably shift back to the standard “9 to 5” model.

1

Beck316 t1_irywimf wrote

Then you have jobs that schedule you for 8 hrs, take the lunch out so you're paid for 7.5 and if you're called in to work a couple hrs on the weekend the OT pay only kicks in if your shift was longer that 2.5 hrs.

1

monotoonz t1_irzxbd2 wrote

So you're expecting what, to work 7.5 hours, but be paid for 8 (per day)?

Lol, get real.

2

stuartroelke OP t1_is059m2 wrote

That lunch break is to allow you to continue working effectively. I have always felt that it’s a part of work, and not the same as time off. Also, most employers that have unpaid lunches expect you to work 8.5 hours and get paid for 8, which—in my mind—is expecting overtime for allowing you to do something that is necessary for health and well-being.

−2

Beck316 t1_irywxya wrote

I think if be too easy for employers to coerce you into producing on break if they were paying you for a break. I prefer my protected break.

1

paganlobster t1_irzh35j wrote

Damn this thread got brigaded by shitty bosses and deep throaters of the boot. I hope they’re bots because if they want to fellate their employers so bad, I really pity them. I agree OP, any time spent in service to the job should be paid. That includes bio breaks because we’re not robots yet.

1

RevengencerAlf t1_irzocd3 wrote

A bunch of people having a different opinion from you isn't a "brigade" just because you lack the emotional maturity to deal with opposition.

3

stuartroelke OP t1_is06dx2 wrote

Comparing disagreement to a “lack of emotional maturity”—especially on a post that has unfortunately shifted almost entirely to opinions—is missing the point. Passing judgement and biases off as fact is not the same as an opinion on the subject matter, it’s not helpful, and not part of this disagreement. As far as I’m concerned, insulting someone for disagreeing is more of “a lack of emotional maturity” than posting your opinion in the first place.

0

stuartroelke OP t1_is08dsc wrote

I wouldn’t resort to name calling, but it does feel like a lot of people aren’t considering why someone might have this stance. Many brought the same ideology in equally confusing ways, and that’s just not productive.

0

paganlobster t1_is2f4gi wrote

I think they have considered why, and they choose to dismiss it as weakness because that's all they really care about: projecting strength and power. If they don't complain about not getting paid for ALL their work-related responsibilities, they will be seen as weak by their employer and might get fired. So they lean in hard. It's a brutal self-perpetuating system that eats people alive.

Anywho, you might be interested in /r/antiwork and /r/workreform if you haven't dropped by already.

0

stankycheerio t1_irzmdlf wrote

One argument for employers to consider is that a paid break might make it easier to retain people.

My last job gave us pretty ample paid breaks throughout the day, which made it a much more difficult decision to leave knowing that that hardly exists anywhere else that I know of. Without those, I probably would've left earlier - I needed a pretty good reason to decide to go.

1

Murky_Ad_5786 t1_irxeud7 wrote

There's a really simple solution to this. If you don't like not being paid to take a lunch, go to a company that does pay you to sit and eat lunch.

−4

[deleted] t1_irxh0to wrote

[deleted]

6

Murky_Ad_5786 t1_irxthzu wrote

It is that easy

−2

burneraccount_1995 t1_irxtt7n wrote

You gotta tell me man, where did you find your job tree?

2

Murky_Ad_5786 t1_irxvhug wrote

I turned my side hustle into my full time. It's not easy but it's an option everyone can do.

0

burneraccount_1995 t1_irxvyd0 wrote

Yea! You’re right, it’s doable and everyone* can do it!

*unless you’re someone who has a disability, a family to take care of, a family to care of AND a family member(s) with their own disabilities, an intense job you need to keep to pay bills, or a criminal record

1

burneraccount_1995 t1_irxw38z wrote

You know what! You’ve inspired me, I’m going to turn my side hustle of trolling people on Reddit into trolling business by advocating for unions!

1

Murky_Ad_5786 t1_irxx6ns wrote

Victim mentality

Lol like everyone who's ever started their own business or made something of themselves didn't have kids or responsibilities

−1

burneraccount_1995 t1_irxxduy wrote

Lol insane hustler mentality the inability to realize that life is complicated and people may other problems and complications in their life

3

paganlobster t1_irzglkm wrote

Sure bud, I bet you got up every day at 4am with the hustler grindset and now you’re a billionaire

1

Murky_Ad_5786 t1_is1cn69 wrote

Hate me because you ain't me

1

paganlobster t1_is2eknp wrote

yes it makes me so sad that I don't spend the majority of my time grifting others lol

1

stuartroelke OP t1_irxz6tf wrote

I did that, and then the pandemic happened. Some people have to make sacrifices, and you clearly don’t understand how fortunate you are if that is your current work situation. Your experience doesn’t reflect other people’s experiences. It also doesn’t justify injustices.

0

stuartroelke OP t1_irxgrue wrote

Not everyone has the privilege to choose their working conditions. That’s why citizens advocate for laws and government intervention when necessary.

5

Murky_Ad_5786 t1_irxte06 wrote

Everyone has that privilege in the USA. Your life is your own responsibility. It's not the governments job to make employers pay people for no reason

1

stuartroelke OP t1_irxzl7k wrote

This comment is unhelpful, and “everyone has that privilege” is an incredibly privileged thing to say. Oh, and what I just said is not a compliment.

2