Right to work states and breaks

[roadman65]

I was always wondering about what it means to be a "Right to Work State" and also which states make it mandatory for a state to give out breaks for long shifts.   I found out by searching that a "Right To Work" means that you do not have to join a union or pay dues to maintain employment.  Also I found interesting that most of the states that do not have break laws, seem to be the ones that are a "Right To Work State" which supports the common misconception that most people have about what a "Right To Work State" really is.

There is no federal ruling that employers must provide meal and short 10 minute breaks per shift especially full 6 to 8 hour shifts, so it is up to the individual states under the 10th Amendment to provide that.  22 states only do that and most seem to be the one's that are not a "Right To Work" type of labor thing.  Some like California, must pay you for your time away from the desk or the work area which many make you clock out for meals.

Anyway, is there something in the whole right to work laws that makes it where employers can do whatever they want regarding breaks even to the point of none even for a 10 hour shift?  Also I heard a rumor from someone claiming to be a lawyer in a bar I met saying that "Right to Work States" can actually allow an employer to fire an employee for any reason including dislike of wardrobe.  Plus Mr. David Siegel, a timeshare developer in Florida, is using that claim to employ non smokers only to his workplaces and enforcing that by making it a violation of company rules to be seen with any kind of tobacco products even on that individuals off and personal time away from work.  Does having rules to protect you from paying dues actually forfeit your right to have a simple coffee break?

[bandit957]

I was always wondering about what it means to be a "Right to Work State" and also which states make it mandatory for a state to give out breaks for long shifts.   I found out by searching that a "Right To Work" means that you do not have to join a union or pay dues to maintain employment.

"Right-to-work" really has nothing to do with mandatory union membership. Mandatory membership is already banned nationwide. What "right-to-work" does is prohibit workers from entering into union security agreements by allowing nonunion employees to get union benefits without paying the fees for them. In other words, it requires union workers to subsidize nonunion labor.

[empirestate]

"Right to work" is a misnomer for "right not to pay union dues". As mentioned, all Americans have the right not to join a union; however, in some states they can be compelled to pay a union for its role in securing those benefits that such workers enjoy. So-called "right to work" states are the other kind.

The thing that your lawyer friend was talking about isn't "right to work" at all, but rather "at-will employment". Hopefully his field is not labor law.

[corco]

Right, and Montana is the only state in the country that does not allow at-will employment. This is a relic from when Montana was pretty much controlled by unions. In Montana, this means that when you take a job you serve a probationary period (usually six months), during which time you can be fired for any reason. After that point, the employer cannot fire you if the employer violated its own policies or if the discharge is not for "good cause." Functionally, this just raises the bar for documentation prior to a termination, and it's assumed that if you get fired in Montana the first thing you do is file arbitration/suit to get your settlement check if one is not offered to you at termination, so employers don't have to go to court to document what "good cause" is.

I'd say, generally, you'll find that the stronger the labor laws are in a state, the more powerful unions are/have been in the recent past, as unions (like them or not) typically serve as the major power advocates for tougher labor laws. I'd assume that's why there's some correlation between "right to work" states and states with weak labor laws.

[bandit957]

Right, and Montana is the only state in the country that does not allow at-will employment.

Hopefully other states will follow Montana's lead.

I'm pretty sure Kentucky didn't allow it when I had my first job. Sadly, these protections were gone within a few years.

[hbelkins]

Right, and Montana is the only state in the country that does not allow at-will employment.

Hopefully other states will follow Montana's lead.

I'm pretty sure Kentucky didn't allow it when I had my first job. Sadly, these protections were gone within a few years.

Kentucky has always been an "at-will" state where private employers are concerned, at least for the entirety of my lifetime (53 years).

[jeffandnicole]

Right, and Montana is the only state in the country that does not allow at-will employment.

Hopefully other states will follow Montana's lead.

I'm pretty sure Kentucky didn't allow it when I had my first job. Sadly, these protections were gone within a few years.

"This is a relic from when Montana was pretty much controlled by unions."

That seems to indicate it's not other states following Montana's lead, but rather Montana following the other 49 states lead.

[slorydn1]

NC is a "right to work" state.

My experience  has been that an employer may fire you for pretty much any reason they feel like. That said, if you challenge it with the employment security commission the employer "may" be on the hook to the state for your unemployment benefits.

I found out the hard way as a very young (21 y/o)  assistant manager at well known national pizza chain:

My store manager was on maternity leave and it was left up to me to fire a habitually late employee. She was late a couple of times early on and I "only" verbally warned her that she needed to be on time for work. The next time she was late I wrote her up. The next time she was late the other assistant manager who was on duty didn't take action (after all she was "only 15 minutes late" that time). The next time she was late I called someone else in and sent her home (effectively suspending her for that day) but we were really busy that night so I didn't take the time to write her up. 3 days later she was late again and I wrote her up and terminated her after consulting with my store manager. In the write up I stated that she was being terminated for being late for work by at least 15 minutes 6 times in the past x number of weeks (I want to say it was 2 weeks but hey it was almost 25 years ago, lol).

She figuratively beat me upside the head with the two written warnings with the ESC and we had to pay for her unemployment. Apparently copies of the schedule and her payroll records showing that she failed to clock in on time (including not at all the day I sent her home before she could clock in) along with the 2 written warnings were not good enough.

Needless to say, my store manager and area supervisor were not happy because that got deducted straight from their bonus checks for the 10 months Miss Cantbeontime sat at home and collected money for doing nothing.

Every place I have worked since moving to NC in 1991 has been required to give us an UNPAID lunch break during an 8 (or more) hour shift. Many of those places also gave either 2 10 minute or 1 15 minute paid break(s) during the shift. When I worked at the hospital we were given a 30 minute lunch and were scheduled 8.5 hours (7am to 3:30pm, for example) so that they still got 8 hours of work out of us. My current employer has the 8 hour employees scheduled for 9 hours (8am to 5pm) and a full hour lunch-but they still get that 8 hours of work out of them.

We 12 hour employees are only scheduled for 12 hours (6am to 6pm for example) but we must take an hour lunch so we only get paid for 11 hours. That's ok in our long week (4 days) we still get our 40 hours (actually 44). In our short week we only get 33 and we have to burn 7 hours of comp time to get to 40.

[bandit957]

Kentucky has always been an "at-will" state where private employers are concerned, at least for the entirety of my lifetime (53 years).

Maybe this was legally true, but up until the mid-'90s, there was a general understanding that if you got fired, your boss better be prepared to explain why. In those days, we didn't worship corporations and random rich guys.

[Avalanchez71]

Right to work = Right to fire.

[kkt]

Right to work = Right to fire.

No, those are often found together but they're not the same thing.  Right to work = need not pay union dues, greatly weakening the ability of unions to speak for workers.  Right to fire = can terminate an employee at any time for any reason except protected groups, race, sex, national origin, religion, etc.

[roadman65]

I was wondering why Dana, some big mouth bitch, on the radio, was so happy that Missouri lately passed the "Right to Work" law.  She was talking about about how good that law is for people and she said something about the unions in her rants.   

Unions are usually strong supporters of  the Democratic Party and, of course, this lady is part of the Hannity, Limbaugh, Bortz club and we all know what party they represent.  However, this gal Dana is more critical and more blunt than the Limbaugh and Hannity are.  Bortz, well, she is the same as he was very hateful in his talk and she herself even says "Disagree with me and I can be a bitch!"

[kkt]

Breaks in Washington State, for typical hourly employees: 

In a 4-hour work period, employees must take a 15-minute paid break.  May not be skipped and allowed to leave early.  The break may be taken at the work desk so they're on call, but if they do work they start a new 15-minute break when whatever work calls them away is over.

In a 5-hour work period, employees must take an unpaid meal break of at least 30 minutes.  The meal break divides the work periods so that if both the remaining work periods are less than 4 hours, the meal break is the only break.  If the remaining work periods are 4 hours or more, they get paid breaks in the middle of them.

[jeffandnicole]

Every place I have worked since moving to NC in 1991 has been required to give us an UNPAID lunch break during an 8 (or more) hour shift. Many of those places also gave either 2 10 minute or 1 15 minute paid break(s) during the shift. When I worked at the hospital we were given a 30 minute lunch and were scheduled 8.5 hours (7am to 3:30pm, for example) so that they still got 8 hours of work out of us. My current employer has the 8 hour employees scheduled for 9 hours (8am to 5pm) and a full hour lunch-but they still get that 8 hours of work out of them.

We 12 hour employees are only scheduled for 12 hours (6am to 6pm for example) but we must take an hour lunch so we only get paid for 11 hours. That's ok in our long week (4 days) we still get our 40 hours (actually 44). In our short week we only get 33 and we have to burn 7 hours of comp time to get to 40.

This is typically how it's done.  It's rare for a lunch break to be paid time.  And it's rare for a 15 minute break to be unpaid time.  In theory, you could be required to work thru your 15 minute break.  But since the lunch time is unpaid, your employer cannot require you to work thru it.  Again, in theory.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/breaks.htm

[bandit957]

My lunch breaks when I worked at the public library in the '90s were always unpaid. But the library was sorely underfunded - and it still is, because it had to defend itself in a frivolous lawsuit.

I remember how back then we were #120 out of all 120 counties in the state for per capita library funding. I remember all the cheering that broke out in the office when the library director announced we moved up to #119. "We finally passed Martin County!" he declared.

[hbelkins]

Kentucky has always been an "at-will" state where private employers are concerned, at least for the entirety of my lifetime (53 years).

Maybe this was legally true, but up until the mid-'90s, there was a general understanding that if you got fired, your boss better be prepared to explain why. In those days, we didn't worship corporations and random rich guys.

Not anyplace that I ever worked, unless the person who was fired subsequently filed for unemployment. I worked for an employer from 1987-95 who terminated several people while I worked there. Each of them was fired for cause. Several of them filed for unemployment. My employer challenged those filings, which meant he had to go and explain why the employee was fired, that it wasn't a layoff, and thus they should not be eligible for unemployment.

[bugo]

At one of my previous jobs, we didn't get breaks at all. One day I worked 16 hours without a break because the overnight person didn't bother to show up.

[kkt]

At one of my previous jobs, we didn't get breaks at all. One day I worked 16 hours without a break because the overnight person didn't bother to show up.

See, that should not happen, and that's what a nonunion state gets you.

(Okay, maybe if you're a firefighter, cop, or ER doc, but not on an ordinary job.)

[roadman65]

Every place I have worked since moving to NC in 1991 has been required to give us an UNPAID lunch break during an 8 (or more) hour shift. Many of those places also gave either 2 10 minute or 1 15 minute paid break(s) during the shift. When I worked at the hospital we were given a 30 minute lunch and were scheduled 8.5 hours (7am to 3:30pm, for example) so that they still got 8 hours of work out of us. My current employer has the 8 hour employees scheduled for 9 hours (8am to 5pm) and a full hour lunch-but they still get that 8 hours of work out of them.

We 12 hour employees are only scheduled for 12 hours (6am to 6pm for example) but we must take an hour lunch so we only get paid for 11 hours. That's ok in our long week (4 days) we still get our 40 hours (actually 44). In our short week we only get 33 and we have to burn 7 hours of comp time to get to 40.

This is typically how it's done.  It's rare for a lunch break to be paid time.  And it's rare for a 15 minute break to be unpaid time.  In theory, you could be required to work thru your 15 minute break.  But since the lunch time is unpaid, your employer cannot require you to work thru it.  Again, in theory.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/breaks.htm

From what I read California must pay you for your meal breaks.  Of course the law states that you are to get time and a half and yet some companies do not pay it either.  Some will break it up to make their paperwork look good by lets say you work two complete overtime hours, they will pay you one this week and post the second hour for next weeks wages which is also illegal!  However both are done in disregards everyday!

Just like equal pay is written on the wage act posters in your company's breakroom, but are companies really paying equal pay for women as men? I do not think so and neither did Obama when running for his current job.

[hbelkins]

See, that should not happen, and that's what a nonunion state gets you.

Even if you're not in a "nonunion state," whatever that means -- it's NOT a synonym for right-to-work state -- it doesn't matter if your workplace isn't unionized.

I'm pretty sure Kentucky labor law requires meal breaks.

[Duke87]

"Right-to-work" really has nothing to do with mandatory union membership. Mandatory membership is already banned nationwide. What "right-to-work" does is prohibit workers from entering into union security agreements by allowing nonunion employees to get union benefits without paying the fees for them. In other words, it requires union workers to subsidize nonunion labor.

Functionally speaking, though, if you are paying dues to a union, and represented by it, you are for all intents and purposes a member whether you have officially joined or not. So mandatory union membership being illegal is rather meaningless.

[kkt]

See, that should not happen, and that's what a nonunion state gets you.

Even if you're not in a "nonunion state," whatever that means -- it's NOT a synonym for right-to-work state -- it doesn't matter if your workplace isn't unionized.

I'm pretty sure Kentucky labor law requires meal breaks.

The law probably does require meal breaks, but the states where the unions have been gutted tend not to have strong enforcement of their labor laws.

[bandit957]

See, that should not happen, and that's what a nonunion state gets you.

Even if you're not in a "nonunion state," whatever that means -- it's NOT a synonym for right-to-work state -- it doesn't matter if your workplace isn't unionized.

I'm pretty sure Kentucky labor law requires meal breaks.

The law probably does require meal breaks, but the states where the unions have been gutted tend not to have strong enforcement of their labor laws.

Kentucky is not a so-called "right-to-work" state yet - and might not ever be, because "right-to-work" is very unpopular in Kentucky. A few counties recently passed their own "right-to-work" laws, but Campbell isn't one of them (despite its history of union-busting).

Kentucky labor law probably does require meal breaks, but I don't think it has to be paid. When I worked at the library, I often squandered much of my break by going to the gas station to buy beverages, since the soft drink machine in the lounge only had Diet Coke (since they wouldn't replace the regular Coke that was used up much faster).

[slorydn1]

Just thinking back to when I was a teenager in Illinois. My first job was as a bagger at Dominick's (store#117 in Schaumburg). Part time summer only that first year and I HAD to join the union and pay dues (UFCW local 1540).

Down here in NC pretty much the only union people are the Carolina Panthers and Charlotte Hornets players, LOL.

[lordsutch]

Functionally speaking, though, if you are paying dues to a union, and represented by it, you are for all intents and purposes a member whether you have officially joined or not. So mandatory union membership being illegal is rather meaningless.

Technically, there's a distinction between agency fees and union dues; if working in a union-represented job, you can be compelled to pay an agency fee for the union's negotiation of your salary and work conditions, but you are not obliged to help subsidize any other activities of the union by joining and paying union dues (such as its political activities).

Nonetheless most unions have found sufficiently creative approaches to their accounting to ensure that the agency fee represents the vast majority of the union dues, so the incentives for not joining the union are minimal (and likely largely ideological, i.e. due to a disagreement with the union or its leadership, or collective bargaining in general) compared to the selective incentives union members get that agency-fee-payers are denied (access to discounts, affinity retailing, etc.).