Thanks to an anonymous tipster (since I'm not cool and don't find these things on my own), I have recently discovered "Chad Vader." I watched one episode so far. I'll allow that it's somewhat amusing, but is anyone else bothered by the name? It's not like "Vader" is a family name. If anything, it should be "Darth Chad." Makes me wonder if the people who made it even know much about Star Wars.
A headline on the cover of a recent periodical mentions "beating heart disease." Now, I think that a beating heart is a positive physical condition and shouldn't be called a disease -- except maybe for the undead.
And now to the nitty gritty of this post: I believe a supervisor at the store has misinterpreted the wording in the employee handbook, leading to the wrong number of breaks being scheduled. I really think the interpretation is wrong, but I want to get public opinion before I try to argue it with the boss.
Here is the wording straight from the handbook:
"[store name omitted]... employees who work at least 3.5 hours should take one 15 minute paid break during that shift. Employees who work longer than 6 working hours per day should take 2 paid breaks of 15 minutes each, one to be taken during the first half and the other during the second half of the work day.
"Employees who are scheduled to work more than 5 hours in a given day should take a 30 minute unpaid meal period no later than the completion of the fifth work hour."
So. I think it's clear that anyone who works fewer than 5 hours gets just one 15 minute break. And I think it's almost as clear that someone who works more than 6 hours gets two 15 minute breaks and one 30 minute break.
But the gray area, where there is disagreement, is a shift longer than 5 hours but no greater than 6 hours. Using the wording above, how many (and what type of) breaks do you think said shift earns?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I would say you would get one 30 min break and one 15 min break if you worked at least 5 hours but less than 6 hours.
i think you should just contact HR and request that they rewrite that handbook at a 4th grade level. In fact, perhaps you could offer to do that for them =)
-bt
The handbook is written clearly. The unnamed supervisor is an idiot. you get a 15 and a 30 (unpaid). You need to work at least 6 hours to get that last 15 minute break.
The only ambiguity is whether the unpaid 30 minute break constitutes "work time," or whether that time does not count towards the day worked as far as breaks go. In other words, if someone works three hours, takes a thirty minute break, and then works another 2.5 hours, does that make it a 6 hour day?
To be on the safe side, I guess I'd say yes.
just my bloated perspective. word!
svb
Yeah, the "at least 5 hours" gets you the 30 minute unpaid lunch break, and the (then obviously) "at least 3.5 hours" gets you one 15 minute break, but you don't get the second 15 minute break until you hit the 6 hour mark.
I believe everyone has staed it pretty clearly. They stack. I believe that it is by law... at least in most states.
Though technically, you need to work 6 hours and 1 second to get that second paid break since it clearly states "greater than six hours."
The key is what the law states. Many state laws require that employers give (and employees take) a 30 minute unpaid lunch break if they've worked a certain amount of time. Same goes for the other schedule breaks. I once got yelled at because a number of us didn't want to take lunch breaks, and the manager took offense and brought in HR to explain that it was required per MN state law.
Interestingly, the handbook uses the word "should" which is very different than "shall." Should implies from a quality (and I assume legal) standpoint more of a suggestion than a requirement. Shall is a requirement.
Post a Comment