Are There Disadvantages To Forcing Employees To Take Meal And Rest Breaks?

Workers in California are entitled to meal breaks of at least 30 minutes if they work for more than five hours, unless they voluntarily waive that right and work for a total of six hours or less, explains a lawyer. Such laws ensure workers do not suffer personally injurious consequences from overwork, such as fatigue. California also requires that employers offer rest breaks at a rate of ten minutes for each four hours worked. Recently the California Supreme Court has been asked to determine whether employers are required to make employees take these meal and rest breaks.

While the law is clear that employees cannot simply decide to work a 7 ½-hour shift and go home, and while the law works to protect employee's rights to rest and eat on the job, there are some questions as to exactly what the rules require of employers.

However, there are some people—including potentially some members of the court—who feel that imposing this requirement would be overly burdensome and not truly protective of workers’ rights. Justice Kennard, for instance, raised the question of whether it was practical to require large employers to monitor the break time of hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of employees. Kennard also expressed concern about the implication of the proposed rule in certain professions, such as an employer pulling a nurse off duty as she was trying to save a life so that she could take a break. Another Justice, Marvin Baxter, raised the objection that it would not be fair to fire an employee who chose not to take a break.

In 2008 when reform of the laws was suggested to make them less stringent on breaks, the Los Angeles Times indicated that employers believed the required meal and break rules raised costs and darkened the business climate. While Democrats flatly rejected proposals for change, saying they did not want to roll-back employee labor rights, the position of both businesses and proponents for change indicate that the rules already drive costs up to a level that is worrisome for some. If employers were now required to monitor and enforce break time, these costs could increase exponentially.

Based on a ruling in Murphy v. Kenneth Cole, employees may receive payment for the one-hour they are entitled to in the form of a "premium wage" equal to their overtime rate. United Parcel Service v. Superior Court established that employees could receive up to two penalties per day if multiple breaks were missed.

Because employees have recourse already if they are denied breaks they desire, it raises questions as to why steps should be taken to impose a new requirement on employers that might be difficult for employers to fulfill and potentially abusive of the rights of and have personally injurious consequences for California workers who might want to work through lunch, explain a lawyer in the state.

By: Larry Drexel

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Larry Drexel is a Public Relations manager. To obtain free, informative books or articles he suggests visiting California personal injury lawyer.