Missed the memo 9 10.5 hour days
Ok, maybe I missed the memo.
Since working at the illegal age of 12 untl now - I'm 34 - I seemed to have missed the memo and can't seem to find it on the Federal DOL site or my own state's DOL site...please share your experiences.
Once upon a time when I started work (legally) - a 1/2 hour lunch break was required WITHIN an 8 hour day. WITHIN = during the 8 hours. When I was a minor working, they included the (2) 15 minute breaks, plus the 30 minute lunch. Then it progressed (or regressed, which is how I see it) to a 30 minute lunch break within an 8 hour period. Regardless - your day was 8 hours, your week was 40.
Then in my early 20's, it was a 45 minute lunch break, and no 15 minute break, but my day was extended to 8 hours and 15 minutes - so the 15 minute break was on my dime, so to speak. We asked to take a 30 minute lunch and leave 15 minutes "early" - even though the 15 minutes was on my personal time - nope, couldn't do that.
Nowadays it's - stay anywhere from 9 hours, to a wild and sick 10.5 hours per day - so all of your lunch time and your break time is on YOUR dime, and the work week has extended to anywhere from 42.5-50 "legal" hours a week? I take a 30 minute lunch, with an 8.5 hour day = 42.5 hour work week. All lunch time is on my dime, so I feel I shouldn't be forced to take an hour (because that's the part of the law the employer selectively wants to enforce - 1 hour is the law but stay longer and for free to get it).
Did I miss the memo? OR are employers just taking advantage of the times and the ignorance of employees on the subject?
A lot of this depends on what kind of job. Hourly? Salaried? Here is a link to the DOL rules. There may also be state rules involved.
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/breaks.htm
Tess
Thank you for that informative reply and link. I'm going to read and re-read.
Now please allow me to ask for a translation on one part that I skimmed - I am reading it as the 30 minutes lunch is uncompensated time for anyone (I'm salaried) - which is fine. I'd prefer to take it within an 8 hour day and have a 37.5 hour paid week, but ok. BUT the 'rest periods' - paid 5-20 minute breaks - are required to be paid within the 8 hour work day, correct?
Every workplace can set its own work hours and rules, as long as they do not violate Federal, State and local law. Federal law states that employee breaks are not mandatory, but if it is company policy to give them, they must be paid (this relates only to nonexempt employees, obviously). Companies are required to give workers at least a 30 minute lunch break when they work a certain number of hours, which employers are not required to pay for. States have additional requirements. In my state, breaks are required to be given to employees and are required to be paid.
A salaried employee, however, is a different animal. Basically you are contracted to your employer for $X to do your job. You are, by definition, exempt from overtime pay. Any agreement you have with your employer about what hours you will work, how many hours you will work, how long your lunch break, etc, are just that, agreements between you and your employer. However, you really can't consider your lunch break "paid" or "unpaid," since your salary is the same, technically, whether you take a 15 minute lunch or take a two hour lunch.
At least this is the way I understand it.
The American Way!
Not for nothing, but sounds to me like they're all violating the law, or at the very least skirting the law, or using the ambiguity to make people think that they're required to show up for endless days. I have a friend who works what her company calls a "waterfall schedule" - of which the point is I still cannot grasp. 10.5 hours Monday, 10 hours Tuesday, 9.5 hours Wednesday, 9 hours Thurs/Fri...hi, according to my math that's 43 hours a week WORKED, forget the excessive "breaks." And that's on a salary. I understand if that's a condition of employment, you can certainly feel free to look elsewhere for a job - but isn't it still ILLEGAL?
When did illegal become negotiable?
Guess I'm getting tired of what someone else (rightly) quoted as the 'American Way' - work till your dead, and then work some more.
There is nothing illegal about requiring a salaried employee to work 43 hours in a week. If she were nonexempt, the company would have to pay her overtime for anything over 40 hours, but it's still not illegal, as long as they pay the overtime. Salaried workers are often required to put in more than 40 hours a week. There is no law stating that it's illegal to require more than 40 hours a week from an employee of any kind.
Personally, my work schedule is 8:30 to 5, m-f, and I'm required to take an unpaid hour for lunch. My paid workweek is 37.5 hours. I'm happy with that. But in the past, in another industry, I was sometimes required to work 50 or 60 hours in a week if a big project was going on. I got paid overtime, but it was a condition of my continued employment that I work those hours.
I think the hours of work often depend on the industry and the type of work. For salaried employes today I think the average work week is somewhere in the neighborhood of 45. I know for those of us who work in my industry it can vary depending on many things but the average is closer to 55.
If you're salaried/Exempt, you can be expected to work practically 24/7, and no, they don't have to give you any paid breaks whatsoever.
The 40-hour work week does not apply to you.
PS. This is a state job, and I have absolutely no intention of beingthe first state employee to spend more than 42.5 hours a week atwork. 8 hours plus a half our lunch is all the time in my life myworkplace is entitled to. Legally or otherwise!