vB Easy Archive - On duty lunches

Pages: 1

On duty lunches
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: codered07

Curious as to any other non exempt employees being forced to have on duty lunches. Agent I work for had us sign on duty lunch agreement.

Posted by: CellOne508

What is this? does this mean that you take a lunch but also have to serve customers, that sounds like Bull _ _ _ _ to me, and also does not sound like a lunch.

Cellone508

Posted by: anubis9278

yep, common practice here in GA at most locations. lunch on desk with customers in store. i thought at&t policy said no food or drink on sales floor. but who enforces that.

Posted by: lowkey16

Quote:

Originally Posted by anubis9278

yep, common practice here in GA at most locations. lunch on desk with customers in store. i thought at&t policy said no food or drink on sales floor. but who enforces that.

it's company policy that you take at least a 30min lunch break and be off the floor. our store recently got in trouble for this, because our mgr was rushing us back because of our hot zones...we then received an email from HR stating that we must be off the floor. and i actually believe it's a labor law that for an 8 hour shift you must be able to take at least 30min off along with a 15min paid break

Posted by: JP Whoregan

No way in HELL does this fly in my store. Any store that allows this is opening up the store manager AND corporate AT&T to labor lawsuits, which is why HR is so damn stringent on it. They're not forcing you to take a 30 minute lunch because they want you to enjoy your Big Mac. They're forcing you to take a lunch because they don't want you to sue them later or start a labor dispute.

Anubis, if I ever met your store manager, I'd report him in a New York minute. I understand there are certain things that we "turn a blind eye on" in this company, but screwing with labor laws is not one of them.

Posted by: fusiclover

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP Whoregan

No way in HELL does this fly in my store. Any store that allows this is opening up the store manager AND corporate AT&T to labor lawsuits, which is why HR is so damn stringent on it. They're not forcing you to take a 30 minute lunch because they want you to enjoy your Big Mac. They're forcing you to take a lunch because they don't want you to sue them later or start a labor dispute.

Anubis, if I ever met your store manager, I'd report him in a New York minute. I understand there are certain things that we "turn a blind eye on" in this company, but screwing with labor laws is not one of them.

I agree. To the above poster, you CANNOT sign any agreement stating that you will agree to on-duty lunches. It's null and void even if you did sign it, considering it's in violation of Federal and State labor laws.

To the other posters, having food and drink on a sales floor is unprofessional, and NOONE is allowed to make you work through you lunch.
If you are a Union member, contact your union rep IMMEDIATELY, and report your Manager to their supervisor.
That's rediculous.

Posted by: anubis9278

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP Whoregan

i'm an RAE. just seen it in COR and many agent locations. i personally take 2hr breaks but thats between you and me.

Posted by: JP Whoregan

Actually, if you work for an agent, he can really do whatever the hell he wants, and there's nothing corporate ATT can do for you on the legal side. To get change, you'll have to go directly to your state's labor board.

All I know is that if a manager put an "on duty lunch agreement" in front of me to sign, I'd promptly drop my drawers and defecate on said request, then turn him in to the state. If your agent has "staffing issues", that's his own damn problem, and the way to rectify that problem is not to break federal labor laws.

PLEEEAAAAASSEE tell me you didn't sign this "agreement"...did you?

Posted by: codered07

This is an exclusive agent , and it's not store manager that had us sign, it was as per company president. At a manager meeting he instructed us to all sign and all sales staff were required to sign.There was no choice. In other words not mutual agreement. Thanks for the comments.

Posted by: holaDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusiclover

There is no truth to this at all. The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act does not require an employer to provide breaks or lunches. These are regulated more so by your state. I have provided a few links below to the US department of Labor. Now, should they provide you with a lunch break, then they are required to allow you the time to eat your food away from your work area. Here is an excert from the website as well as some cases in reference to meals.

Quote:

(a) Bona fide meal periods. Bona fide meal periods are not worktime.
Bona fide meal periods do not include coffee breaks or time for snacks. These are rest periods. The employee must be completely relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals. Ordinarily 30 minutes or more is long enough for a bona fide meal period. A shorter period may be long enough under special conditions. The employee is not relieved if he is required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while eating. For example, an office employee who is required to eat at his desk or a factory worker who is required to be at his machine is working while eating. (Culkin v. Glenn L. Martin, Nebraska Co., 97 F. Supp. 661
(D. Neb. 1951), aff'd 197 F. 2d 981 (C.A. 8, 1952), cert. denied 344
U.S. 888 (1952); Thompson v. Stock & Sons, Inc., 93 F. Supp. 213 (E.D.
Mich 1950), aff'd 194 F. 2d 493 (C.A. 6, 1952); Biggs v. Joshua Hendy
Corp., 183 F. 2d 515 (C. A. 9, 1950), 187 F. 2d 447 (C.A. 9, 1951);
Walling v. Dunbar Transfer & Storage Co., 3 W.H. Cases 284; 7 Labor
Cases para. 61.565 (W.D. Tenn. 1943); Lofton v. Seneca Coal and Coke
Co., 2 W.H. Cases 669; 6 Labor Cases para. 61,271 (N.D. Okla. 1942);
aff'd 136 F. 2d 359 (C.A. 10, 1943); cert. denied 320 U.S. 772 (1943);
Mitchell v. Tampa Cigar Co., 36 Labor Cases para. 65, 198, 14 W.H. Cases
38 (S.D. Fla. 1959); Douglass v. Hurwitz Co., 145 F. Supp. 29, 13 W.H.
Cases (E.D. Pa. 1956))
(b) Where no permission to leave premises. It is not necessary that
an employee be permitted to leave the premises if he is otherwise
completely freed from duties during the meal period.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/breaks.htm
http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/Title...29CFR785.19.htm

Case could be filed with your state labor board or attorney general.

Posted by: lowkey16

Quote:

Originally Posted by holaDude

that is correct, but it is a state of GA law. we have the poster hanging in our back office...also a state requirement. and i'm sure most states have some sort of law like this...GA's is based on how many hours your shift is

Posted by: fusiclover

How is there no truth to what I said? Requirement to each your lunch on the floor is a violation of Federal labor laws, even as you stated. As is it a violation of the majority of state labor laws to have to work through your lunch time.

You and I have said the same thing, you just said it in detail.

Posted by: JP Whoregan

Here's what you do:

1. Go to your employer and tell them that you are withdrawing your consent to have mandatory "working lunches," effective IMMEDIATELY.

2. Inform him that you WILL be taking a 30 minute daily, off-clock, break for lunch.

3. Inform him that if your employment is terminated as result, or if there is ANY retaliation or reprisal of ANY sort for your decision, that you will be filing a complaint with both the federal and state labor boards, and will initiate an investigation of your employer's labor practices.

4. Inform him that, in the case of any of the above, you will also take the story to your local news station, and inform them of the situation. He can then answer to reporters and a camera as to why he feels it necessary to violate your rights as an employee. Try to get your hands on a copy of this "agreement". I'd be interested to see what it says...

Talk to some of your other fellow employees and see how they feel about the situation. One employee going to the news is a "story"; 4 employees going to the news will be an investigation.

Posted by: holaDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusiclover

How is there no truth to what I said? Requirement to each your lunch on the floor is a violation of Federal labor laws, even as you stated. As is it a violation of the majority of state labor laws to have to work through your lunch time.

You and I have said the same thing, you just said it in detail.

Sorry guess I wasn't thinking clearly or thinking of someone else's post. I meant that there is no federal law that states you are to be given a lunch time. That is a state law, but should one be provide with a lunch, then the federal law kicks in and requires one to be away from their workstation.

Posted by: CA

Does your union address this issue, if so(and they should) it's clear cut for cor anyway.

Posted by: Alfred_Neuman

when i worked for cingular, we'd just eat on the clock all the time. someone would go to mcds, get all of us food and eat at the tables in front or in the back (depending on how many people were in the store).

heck, we'd run over to 7-11 next door and get us smokes or drinks when it was slow and stuff.

Posted by: dannyjoe1982

I would hope any rep that eats at the desk on the floor would be sacked on the spot.