Discussion Topic: In the Real World: Scenario for Discussion

The Brinker Restaurant Group, owners of restaurant franchises such as Chili's® Grill and Bar and Maggiano's® Little Italy, was sued by its employees for not providing adequate meal and rest breaks. According to California Labor Code 512 and Wage Order no. 5, employees must be provided with rest periods — specifically, a 30-minute meal break — every 5 hours that they work. After 10 hours of consecutive work, the employee must be given a second meal break. The California Supreme Court ruled that the rest breaks had to be offered, but the employer did not have to ensure that the employee actually rested.

What do you think? Should employers ensure that employees on breaks do not perform any work? Why or why not?

Can you just make response each posted below # 1 to 2?

1. From: Tyler Cugino posted Jul 12, 2018 9:22 PM

This is a very interesting discussion topic. The idea of requiring companies to give meal and rest breaks after a certain amount of time worked is a common practice across the country. I feel that during these rest and meal breaks the employee should be free to do whatever they want but not required to do anything. I feel this is reasonable because this meal break normally is not paid meaning the employee technically is not working. This would be just like if the employee was home and off of work. With this in mind, the employee has the right to do whatever he or she pleases on their own time. In conclusion, the employees has the right to do whatever he/she wants and the employer has no right to to ensure the employee is not working when on break.

2. From: Christina Watson posted Jul 13, 2018 12:38 PM

Hello Professor and class,

Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964 was enacted to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. It generally applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments. Title VII established the EEOC to enforce the law. The resulting succession of numerous lawsuits have helped define workplace protections and forced companies to change unfair policies and practices. When Title VII was first passed, it’s focus was people who were not hired because of their gender, race or other characteristics. However, over time, the focus has shifted from getting hired without discrimination to fairness in promotions and job placement (Lytle, 2014). The right of employees to be free from discrimination in their compensation is protected under several federal laws, including the following enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: The Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

“FLSA guidelines define maximum hours, minimum age, pay rates, and mandatory break times. This part of the FLSA is an outgrowth of the industrial environment of the early 20th century, when no such guidelines existed” (Landin & Schirmer, 2017). Many employers provide employees with a rest or lunch break, whether paid or unpaid. This common practice is not required everywhere, however: The federal wage and hour law, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), doesn't require employers to provide lunch or rest breaks. Some states have stepped into the breach to require such breaks, but others have not. If you do get lunch or rest breaks, your employer doesn't have to pay you for that time unless:

• your state's law requires paid rest breaks
• you must work through your break, or
• your break lasts 20 minutes or less; generally, shorter breaks are considered part of your work day and must be paid.

The State of Illinois which I reside has a statute that requires at least a 20 minutes rest, no later than 5 hours after the start of the work period, to employees who work 7 ½ hours or more. There are exclusions to the statute, for example companies with a collective bargaining unit (unionized) (United States Department of Labor, 2018). Several states require employers to allow younger workers to take lunch or rest breaks. In states that require breaks for adult workers, the rules for minors are sometimes stricter. Some states require employers to provide a 30-minute lunch break to employees who work at least seven and a half hours; while minors are entitled to a 30-minute break once they work five hours. Some states have special break rules for all minors (employees who are not yet 18 years old), while others have special break rules only for minors who are 15 or younger. Although employers are not obligated to determine how an employee chooses to spend their rest breaks, unless the employee is required to work due to circumstances that may arise during their break.

I believe these rest breaks are necessary for the well-being of employees and should be provided. Employees can feel stressed, tired/exhaustion, along with many other work-related issues in which a break can help relieve these feelings and allow the employee to refresh. I believe that employees who are not allowed to rest can become a safety concern. Tired or stressed employees are more likely to make mistakes or become injured on the job.

References

Landin, J. & Schirmer, P. (2017). Payroll Accounting.

Lytle, T. (2014). Title VII Changed the Face of the American Workplace. SHRM. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/pag...

The United States Department of Labor. (n.d.). FLSA Hours Worked Advisor. Retrieved from https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/flsa/hoursworked...

The United States Department of Labor. (2018). Wage and Hour Division (WHD). Retrieved from https://www.dol.gov/whd/state/meal.htm#Illinois