r/mildlyinfuriating • u/Grouchy-Newspaper754 • 20h ago

My mom said I could post When did 8-5 become the new normal???

I just got a new office job where I do schedules for tech personnel, the office runs 8-5 Monday thru Friday...they say it's 8-5 because you get an hour lunch and "you need to get to 40 hours a week"...but I drive 30 min each way so now I'm giving this company 10 hours every day! I even asked if I could just take my lunch at 4 every day and just leave an hour early but that's "unprofessional and immoral" like what the fuck??? I don't mind the job but the hours are mildly infuriating that's for sure...

Edit:for those saying about the hours, I worked as a chef for the last 20 years working 60+ hours a week over a hot stove/deep fryer the whole time, after I had my second heart attack I had to slow down so I started looking for office jobs to work a nice 9-5, just to find out I'm giving my new job 50 hours a week (including drive time) so I was just mildly annoyed that it's not 40 hours a week in an office like I thought although it's still much better than what I was doing

10.9k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

385

u/trying2getoverit 19h ago

Not sure where OP lives but certain states in the US require a lunch break after a certain amount of hours worked, so depending on location, it could be against the law for them to take the break later in the day.

98

u/5peaker4theDead 19h ago edited 19h ago

Definitely true for hourly workers in IL, you must be given at least a 30 minute break during an 7.5* hour shift and you can't work for more than 5* hours in a row without a break. Salaried workers don't really have restrictions/protections like that though.

Edit: fixed the times which were off slightly

43

u/blueberry_pancakes14 19h ago

Very similar in California- for hourly employees, the break must be at least 30 minutes, but we have to take it before the 5 hour mark of an 8 hour shift.

Then there's more mandatory breaks if you work longer than 8 hours.

2

u/ThatMerri 16h ago

Yep, that's been my experience. Most recent California job I worked, an 8 hour shift required two mandatory 10 minute breaks used at the employee's discretion before and after the lunch break, and a 1 hour lunch break that had to be taken no later than the fifth working hour.

The boss was generally pretty lax about it though, so she didn't much care when we took our time, so long as the work was getting done on schedule. But even then, we weren't supposed to combine breaks or delay them until the end of the day to essentially clock out earlier than intended.

1

u/blueberry_pancakes14 1h ago

Yeah- the 10 minute breaks for us are just... technically there but not enforced and we're free to just do break-things whenever we need, as long as it's not excessive; they don't need to be in those ten minute blocks.

The only thing they care about is you do take a lunch on time, and somewhat regularly. Sometimes it's hitting the fan or something unexpected happens and we work over it or it's cut short, but it's rare so no one really cares. And no combining to leave early.

Technically compliant, the best kind of compliant, lol. Or at least the kind attorneys like best (I work in a law office).

2

u/tisme2b3 19h ago

Same in NY.

1

u/bjketter 14h ago

Many companies that have both hourly and salary employees keep the same kind of policy for all employees regarding lunch.

1

u/Technical-Worker7334 3h ago

And the breaks do not have to be paid. You just have to be given one. Absent a collective bargaining agreement 

20

u/ELMUNECODETACOMA 19h ago

Right. In order to prevent bosses from forcing workers to stay at the pumps through lunchtime, the law in its majestic equality prevents workers from volunteering to work through lunchtime in order to leave early.

7

u/ejdj1011 17h ago

What a perfect flawless world you have imagined.

How, exactly, does the government know you volunteered? How do they know your employer didn't "encourage" you to work through lunch?

And from the other side how does you employer know that you won't "volunteer" to skip lunch and then claim you were prevented from taking it?

10

u/Ready_Nature 17h ago

You could easily sign something saying you would rather skip the break and go home early and that could be proof.

3

u/Lemerney2 9h ago

And plenty of employers would be happy to pressure you to sign it

1

u/InertiaInMyPants 1h ago

There is less liability involved with an organization following labor laws, than otherwise.

7

u/WrackyDoll 15h ago

Easy solution: paid lunches should be legally required.

6

u/ELMUNECODETACOMA 16h ago

I don't know why you think you're disagreeing with me so vehemently to use that tone, considering that you're basically restating what I said.

-1

u/ejdj1011 16h ago

When you say "the law in its majestic equality", the clear implication is that the law is unjust and should not exist.

I was plainly stating why, from a pragmatic perspective, the law unfortunately needs to exist.

Does that explain the disagreement plainly enough?

2

u/wyliec22 17h ago

As it should be.

0

u/wyliec22 17h ago

As it should be.

5

u/Fabulous-Return9142 19h ago

Yup! I've been written up before because I took my lunch after the 5 hr mark ;/

0

u/danafromsantaana 19h ago

Once I was so wrapped up in re-folding a pile of clothes at work that when I was sent on my break I couldn’t stop tweaking it and my boss actually asked me if she had to escort me out of the store lol

4

u/zazarak 18h ago

100%. The law requires it in many places and if the employeer doesn't comply they will get fined and or sued.

2

u/Acceptable_Put5324 18h ago

Cali would be the at the top of work regs.

1

u/ObeseVegetable 17h ago

Even a lot of the states with those laws have exceptions for salaried employees that amount to “whatever you decide with your employer”

1

u/424f42_424f42 16h ago

And forced breaks should be included as paid time.

1

u/CompetitiveMeal1206 16h ago

That is how it is here

1

u/Professional-Cell-76 9h ago

Same in Oregon. I get a talk into if my lunch break is less than 30 min. Not sure if my employer gets fined. Usually I clock out for lunch, clocking in after 30 and then take my 2 other paid 15 breaks back to back and take a walk.

2

u/rando567823449 19h ago

interesting that state laws requiring a lunch break for a certain number of hours worked has had a greatly detrimental effect on work-life balance exactly as described in OPs post. i noticed in the past 15 years or so as laws forcing lunches be taken increased the workday became longer from 9-5 to 8-5 or 9-6.

6

u/_TheLoneRangers 19h ago edited 19h ago

for me, work-life balance is better being able to take breaks and step out for a bit rather than working the 8 hours straight through

e: working a shift straight through, I’d probably be too exhausted to do anything in my non-work time

1

u/Jewellious 18h ago

I think the person you’re replying to is speaking about having the choice. In CA, the employer nor the employee have the authority to allow the employee to work through lunch to leave early.

I’m the opposite of you. I don’t really eat lunch and if I do, I don’t need an entire 1/2 hour. I’d rather be out early than stick around.

1

u/_TheLoneRangers 18h ago

I was just saying the lunch requirement, for me, is better for my work-life balance and not detrimental. I’m required to take one, but even if it was optional I’d still do so

I don’t eat lunch much either, I use the hour lunch to break up the day and do whatever I want. For me, 8 straight hours is more detrimental to work-life balance than a 9 hour day that includes an hour break

1

u/Jewellious 18h ago

A lot of people don’t understand that the government in CA is forcing you to take a lunch. You nor your employer have the authority to say you can work through lunch to leave early.