So where I work, some people work 8 hours and get paid 8 hours (eg 9-5 with a paid lunch break). While others have to work 8.5 hours and only get paid 8 hours (eg 9-5:30 with an unpaid lunch break). We are all the same rank in the company, all get the same benefits (aka none), all paid hourly. Yet some of us get paid for lunch while others don't. I don't see how that's legal.
Whether or not you lunch break is paid, it's not at all uncommon for supervisors to interrupt your break to talk to you about work tasks, or even to require you to leave your lunch to help them with something. To me, that seems illegal. If my break is unpaid, I'm legally required to be relieved of all work duties. Which I would think includes being on-call for whatever work bullshit supervisors want to yap about, and especially being forced to do work during your lunch break.
I'm wondering if I have a case against my employer for wage theft. If they're paying some people for lunch, everyone should be getting paid for lunch. And if we aren't being relieved of all work responsibilities, then lunch is not actually a break. It's not right that I have to work longer to get paid the same amount, especially when they interrupt our lunches.
This has been going on for years. If they were forced to actually pay us for all that extra time it would be overtime pay since it puts us well over 40 hours a week, so it's a substantial amount of money for myself and my co-workers.
I understand that employers aren't legally required to pay you for your lunch break. The crux here is that 1) some people are already being paid for their lunches, while others aren't, and you can't have it both ways. Either lunch is paid or unpaid. And 2) we are expected to be available to our supervisors during lunch.
I can't find a legal advice subreddit geared toward labor laws, so if anyone knows of one please let me know!
Thanks for reading 🙂