requirements for doing your work efficiently cannot be considered out of work, including transport.
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
1130 points (98.5% liked)
memes
16587 readers
2759 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sleep?
An american joke i am too european to understand
German law also requires you to take a half hour break in the middle of a >6h work day.
It's more about reducing fatigue and minimising workplace accidents than workers rights.
It hurts how true this is. 🥲
Classic Europeans on the Internet trying to make fun of [bad thing that happens in the US] without realising it also happens in Europe
If you work between 6 to 9 hours a day, you are entitled to a 30-minute break after no later than 6 hours. If you work more than 9 hours a day, the break is extended to 45 minutes. Labour law prohibits taking the break at the end of the day’s work in order to leave earlier.
As soon as your daily working time reaches 6 hours immediately, you must have a break of at least 20 minutes consecutive
The break is granted:
- Either immediately after 6 hours of work[, or]
- before this 6-hour period is completed
Employers can say when employees take rest breaks during work time as long as:
- the break is taken in one go somewhere in the middle of the day (not at the beginning or end)
- workers are allowed to spend it away from their desk or workstation (ie away from where they actually work)
American states set their own labour laws, but the ones of the state where I live (Oregon) are actually far more generous than comparable ones in Europe. I am entitled by law during an eight-hour working day to one 30-minute lunch break (not paid) and two additional 10-minute breaks (counts as time worked and is paid). Meaning I get 50 minutes of breaks in a day and the employer has to pay me during 20 minutes of those breaks. My employment contract actually gives me a 1-hour lunch break in addition to the two 10-minute breaks, which isn't required by law but is not uncommon.
France goes even harder saying you aren't even allowed to eat at your desk
Thats also in germany
Lunch breaks are required by law, but they are not required to pay you when you take them. So when you work an 8 hour day, you are actually working an 8.5 hour day (8:30 - 17:00) with your .5 hour break at some point in the middle. The joke is basically the guy asking to work 8 hours straight and leave at 16:30 instead of 17:00 and management tossing him out a window.
I don't think so. Finnish labour laws at least specify breaks, paid and unpaid, can not be at the start or the end of the day. It wouldn't be a break otherwise.
Also you need to be here 15 minutes early, dressed and at the time clock.
And no you have to leave on time in case someone needs you. We have core hours.
In a lot of states it’s illegal for workers to work too many consecutive hours without a break, especially if it’s a physical labor job. Your employer may legally not be able to allow this.
Though sometimes they are just petty and inflexible.
And that's actually a good thing because once you allow this it's easy for employers to pressure you into "voluntarily" not taking a break, because "it's so busy right now" or whatever.
load more comments
(9 replies)
They used to only have you be at work for 8 hours, and paid you for your lunch break. Then companies got greedy and realized they could squeeze it extra time for free by not paying for your lunch break and extending the work day. Wages didn't rise to compensate for that stolen time
load more comments
(12 replies)
In California, when you take your lunch is also mandated by the law. So even if your employer was okay with the idea, you still have to take it before your 5th working hour.
Yep. While negotiating our last CBA I brought this up as an option. The union told me we're not even allowed to voluntarily wave our lunch break.
Well then it's not yours. And it should be paid. If the labour regulations say you have to take an unpaid break, the labour regulations are bad.
Step back and think about why that regulation exists to begin with. No one said it's perfect but it's better than what was.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Breaks are unpaid because that was another way to minimize what workers have to be paid.
Businesses always look for ways to pay their employees less and only change practices when forced.
Without strong unions and support from politicians things tend to get worse and worse.
Too bad that we have neither.
Reminder: the traditional "9 to 5" workday that is considered "full time" includes lunch. If you're not getting paid for it or are working 8 to 5 or whatever, you're getting swindled.
You might say it's "normal" now, but it only becomes normalized because workers fail to hold the line.
It keeps eroding away. I've had skilled jobs where the expectation was 8-5 without any breaks at all. "If you need to eat, you can do it at your desk while you're working."
That's why they make it 9-5:30
but it only becomes normalized because ~~workers fail to hold the line.~~ the rich business owners in charge have been busting unions and brainwashing people with anti-union propaganda for decades.
Unions have been attempted more times than they've succeeded, not because of workers failing, but because powerful people have power and will do whatever dirty tactics they can to keep it.
Because unions stopped shooting back and bombing. Because when cops and Pinkertons shoot strikers the state turns a blind eye.
Unions have been attempted more times than they’ve succeeded
I get what you mean, but I can't resist the urge to point out that that's basically a truism. The number of successes must be greater or equal than the number of attempts by definition, since a success without an attempt is not possible.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I’m a salaried software developer. My first job was 8-5 with a lunch break that we had to take. I asked if I could take it at the start or the end of the day and was told, “No.” So my coworkers and I started playing board games 3-4 times a week during our lunch break in one of the offices. Mainly legacy games like Gloomhaven and Pandemic Legacy. The VP loved showing off the board game room to the interviewees to show that we like to have fun there.
I do miss that job sometimes because it was just raw programming. I was programming or writing SQL queries for over 30 hours a week. No AppSec, no lengthy review process, no bullshit (except the pay, which was ok for Mississippi).
When I worked for a big game studio, we had a clan, as did many of the other big studios in the country. Every lunch we'd join the same servers. Battlefield, TF2, StarCraft... good times. Well, good lunch times.
load more comments
(2 replies)
But then you phone them at 14:00 and they've already left
My entire career, I got a one-hour lunch, and two, paid, ten-minute breaks.
I know some will say you'd rather not because that's just more time at work, but with a one-hour lunch you can leave work, that's the whole point. It's a real break. One hour is enough time to go to a restaurant, or you can eat at work, and take a short walk. Half-an-hour is barely enough to time to eat and use the bathroom.
I guess what I'm saying is unionize.
load more comments
(6 replies)
There's all kinds of legal murk with this.
If you don't get a break and you make a mistake that injures or kills you or someone else, the employer is responsible.
If you "don't get" a break, either by force or voluntarily (the reason actually doesn't matter), then many places consider that to be.... For lack of a better description (my brain can't think of one right now): bad working conditions, and illegal.
Even if you voluntarily skip you break/lunch, the thin line between that being fine, or a problem for the company, is whether you want to hire a lawyer and make it a problem or not.
That's liability that they don't want.
I guarantee they couldn't give any less of a shit whether you take your lunch/breaks or not, except for the fact that it could affect them.
I'm thankful for this, because bluntly, otherwise, they just wouldn't give you a break at all. They would put it on the books as you working a 9 hour shift, and taking your lunch at the end of the day, but tell you that you are on an 8 hour shift that has no breaks. Since they can't cover their ass like that, you get an unpaid lunch.
The unpaid part was the compromise to get the legislation passed so they don't subject workers to inhumane conditions. Remember that the government is largely comprised of, or paid for by, businesses and business owners. So if it isn't, at the very least "fair" to business owners, it's not going to pass.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Wait, there's jobs where people don't get payed for their lunch break? I thought that was a scary myth.
Almost all jobs in America...
My god. You poor souls. Its illegal to do that here. Even the most demanding "squeeze every minute out of the worker" jobs don't do that. 30 min out of your 8 hours is reserved for lunch and lunch is payed for by the employer (the food as well), by law. 8 hour shift effectively comes out to a maximum of 7.5 hours of actual work.
Yeah it used to be like that here, too. But billionaires have been attacking union power for decades to the point they were able to pull this bullshit
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yep, I work for a fortune 500 and I have to clock out for lunch.
Don’t you feel fortunate? /s
To quote the bird from the Flintstones "It's a living". Honestly I don't hate my job, bored and annoyed with some stuff, but they treat us plebs with a fair amount of decency, plus they pay us decently compared to the rest of the industry.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Canada here, my lunch routine includes hitting up my digital "punch clock" (I work remote, but we have an app thing), then setting a timer to remind myself that my lunch is ending when I have about 2 minutes left on the clock. I then go and "enjoy" my lunch, and when my timer alerts, trudge back to my computer and press the "lunch is over" button.
To be fair, of the last 4 jobs I've worked, plus my current workplace, this is the only one that actually had a punch clock of any sort or variety. The rest just trusted that I took my lunch for an appropriate amount of time and took the normal amount off of my worked hours for the day.
My favorite workplace of the above set, paid me a set salary every payday, regardless of if I was in office, on vacation, sick, working partial days some days, or whatever. I'd always collect the same amount at regular intervals. They didn't bother with all the micromanagement and complexity of counting the seconds on/off shift.... Which is both good and bad, since that basically negates any overtime, but in all other circumstances, works in my favor. To be clear, OT/after hours/extra time working was rare, and not really something that happened.
I work IT support, so it definitely happened, it was just so rare that I couldn't cite any specific circumstances when it happened.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Seriously though, I really hate that managers hate employees leaving early. Just how controlling do you want to be? Employees are not kids.
I lead small teams doing construction/remodel type work.
It gets real screwy when people start leaving at different times. Those who take lunch end up stuck with extra clean up or fixing last minute issues that pop up.
It also sucks when the office folk leave early and we're stuck in the field with questions or issues that they need to decide on.
Once in a while, it doesn't matter, but every day of people working slightly different schedules gets annoying.
For independent work, yeah its ridiculous people are forced to work specific hours for no reason.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Check your local laws. In many states, there is no requirement that you take a lunch. There is no federal requirement for that either.
I’ve had employers tell me that that I legally had to clock out for a certain amount of time, but that’s bullshit. It might be company policy but it’s not a law.
Also, this applies to teens working too. The laws are bad. Found this out when Subway was making my 16 yr old niece work 9-12 hour shifts with no lunch break.
In California, you can only waive it if you work less than 6 hours. Otherwise, you need to take a lunch before the 5th hour hits. For overtime, you get a second (you can waive, they cant) meal period after your 10th hour.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Still got to leave early, I'll call that a win.
Not eating lunch and taking a break is bad for your health and potentially undermines your productivity. It's a bad idea all around.
view more: next ›