California Laws on Meals and Breaks - Report Example

California Laws on Meals and Breaks College: In California, the law of break and lunch has sparked a heated controversy in it application within the state. The laws were established as a strategy to safeguard the rights of the employees and to protect them from aggressive employees who pursue profit at the expense of their workers. However, there is still high level of violation of the law as indicated by regular cases concerning the issue. There is evidence that many employers are unwilling to implement the law and the majority of the employees are unaware of their rights. This essay seeks to evaluate the barriers that continue to persist, and the challenges that the government has faced while implementing the law. Consequently, the essay will provide a strategy through which the break and lunch laws can be effectively implemented. California Laws on Meals and Breaks The employee rights are factors that have become critically important within the contemporary work environment. The Labor laws in different countries stipulate specific responsibilities that an employer must comply with during ordinary work days. In California, Labor laws provide specific work standards that must be applied in both private and public employment sector. The meals and Break laws is one of the important laws that have sparked a lot of attention in the recent past. This law requires employers provide the employees with 30 minutes break after every 5 hours of work. In the recent past, there is evidence that many organizations violate this law and are unwilling to provide this free time to the employees. Besides, some organizations provide these breaks at irregular time while others attach strict conditions regarding the utilization of this period. Therefore, it has become increasingly important to determine how the law should be implemented within the work environment and the role that the employees should play in contributing to the implementation of this law. Evidently, the government needs to support this work policy to reduce the various violation instances in the country. California’s breaks and meals laws provide employers with a framework on how to organize the working and rest period for their employees. According to the law, employers are required to provide their workers with 30 minutes break after every five working hours from the start time if the total working period exceeds 6 hours. Organizations that provide less than 6 working hours are exempted to this law as the government considers this working period considerably short (State of California Department of Industrial Relationship, 2012). The implication is that if the workers have to work for more than ten hours, they must be awarded more than two breaks as a resting period (Chartier, 2013). The law strictly requires that the five hours rule be adhered as part as obedience to the law. During the break, the employees are free to use this time for their personal duties rather than work. They are not limited to stay within the work premises and may leave to go to other places. However, they must return as soon as this break period is over to continue with their day work (Conaghan, Fischl & Klare, 2004). Therefore, the law puts both the employer and the employee at a strict time limitation that prescribes both the break period and working hours. However, the law provides exceptions when the 30 minutes period can be exempted under special conditions. The law requires that there is a mutual consent between the employer and the employee that the 30 minutes period be eliminated. In this case, the employer is required to pay the employee an amount equal to hour wage according normal pay rates (Werhane, Radin & Bowie, 2003). This is more common when employees prefer that the employees work full time without breaking. This exception was specifically designed for companies that are sensitive to working time and may incur losses due to such long break periods (United States of Labor, 2014). For instance, in the banking sector, the company may lose their customer loyalty if they provide this break when there are long queues. Therefore, the law provides flexibility through which organizations can avoid meals and breaks to facilitate organizational performance. This has become a more preferable approach for many employers who feel that losing 30 working minutes can be costly or may have negative consequences for the organization (Weiss & Schmidt, 2008). Paying for this exception to the law was one way to avoid instances when employers compel their workers to work for more than five hours without any compensation. The law provides instances when the organization can be sued for violation of the law. One common case is when organizations fail to provide the break as soon as the five working hours are over. This is common as more organizations provide the meal break past the 5 hours period required by the law. Next, there are instances when the organizations completely deny the employees the break and include it as an extension of the working hours (Kiger, 2008). In other circumstances, the management may compel the employees to remain within the work premises during the break period as company law. All these period are termed as violations to the law and the court has indicated that any organization that violates this period must compensate the workers a salary equal to the hourly rate. This has become a point of controversy when some organizations that violates the law but fail to pay the employee (Hepple, 2005). In this case, the employees have a right to make a wage claim and sue the organization in the California court of law. The increase in the legal claims has become an important point of interest as the court daily receives employee complaints from different organizations. The California Labor Laws have evolved due to the commitment of the government to ensure conducive working environment for all the workers. The break and meals labor laws were born out of the problems of long working hours that came to be associated with modern organizations (Farmer, 2013). Specifically, they were considered important for employees who worked within the manual labor sector whose health is affected by the long working periods. Employees who work for long hours and are paid low wages are more likely to suffer from complex illnesses including fatigue. The lack of labor laws governing working hours was an opportunity for the employers to exploit the employees and their own benefit. Like other labor laws, this law has been faced with a lot of controversy in the recent past. Majority of organizations have criticized the government’s intention to directly influence how organizations utilize their hired labor. The managers feel that the organizations have put barriers to the ability of organizations to effectively optimize the productivity of the labor factor (Friedman, 2011). Therefore, they have quested for more freedom, requesting the government to limit their interference in the labor sector. However, the government has expressed the need to maintain order and represent the worker’s right within the constitution. One of the issues that have come up in the contemporary business environment is the role of the employer in ensuring that the 30 minutes break is applied within the work environment. A question that arises is whether the employer has the right to order the workers to stop their duties during the break time or to compel them to attend the meals. In various occasions, the court has had to handle this issue within organizations which seem not to observe this law. In various occasions, it appears that some employees continue to work during this period and the organizations do not provide any compensation for such periods wasted on job (Mintz, 2012). Therefore, it has become a complex task for the government to establish whether an organization abides to this law or whether the workers opt to ignore this break period (Jaillet, 2015). Therefore, some law makers have suggested that the law makes this break compulsory to ensure that it is easy to monitor organizations that violate the law. On the other hand, the law appears to support the idea that the employer has no right to order the workers to attend the break since the utilization of this period is usually under the workers discretion. As long as the employer provides this break, they have no control of what the employee decides to do with the period. In a recent case, Brinker international was sued for failing to ensure that their employees had their breaks and lunches during the working period. This is an example of many cases that have come against organizations who fail to ensure that their workers adhere to the California Labor Laws (Dearen, 2012). However, the California Supreme court brought to light a new aspect of the matter. The Supreme Court, after investigation, established that Brinker International complied to the law and had provided the required breaks to the employees. In the ruling, the Supreme Court stated that although the organization was obliged to provide uninterrupted break hours to the workers, they were not obliged to order their employees to adhere (California Supreme Court, 2012). Therefore, the Brinker international employee worked willingly and that they were at liberty to ignore the breaks provided by the organization. This ruling attracted a lot of criticism as analysts point out the ruling as unjust and as a way of ensuring the language of the law is followed without considering its implications. However, there is evidence that the law on lunch break has become a big challenge for many organizations. In the modern business organization, competition has become inevitable and organizations are looking for strategies to optimize labor productivity and to reduce the expenses. Therefore, organizations intend to ensure that each working minute is put into important use to ensure that they achieve profits (Hudson, 2007). For instance, in the restaurant industry competition has pushed organizations to reduce the number of workers and to increase the number of working hours. As a result, organizations are compelling their employees to work for long periods without the require break periods. On the other hand, the employees are unwilling to pay the employees for the breaks as required by the law, as this would minimize their profits (Deschenaux, 2012). Therefore, employees who work in such organizations are forced to adhere to strict time tables. While the law has expressly stated the labor working hours, there is evidence that more organizations prefer to defy the law to chase their targets (Arthurs, 2011). Therefore, the law has remained mere paper plans whose intentions have yet to be realized. Coupled with the complexity of establishing organizations that violate labor laws, the meal and break laws have become empty rhetoric in California. From a close analysis, there are a number of issues that have undermined the implementation of this law. First, majority of the employees do not understand the labor and hence rarely know their employment rights. Therefore, they are unaware when their rights are infringed and majority of them will remain quiet when such incidences occur. Besides, there is evidence that workers are becoming are worried to pursue their rights in court. The workers feel that they are a higher risk of losing their employment when they pursue their rights on breaks and lunch hours. Therefore, they prefer to remain silent when their rights are infringed and depend on the government to investigate such matters (Thomas, 2010). Consequently, it has become a difficult task on the part of the government to bring to book organizations that violate the California working hour laws (Martucci & Zheng, 2006). However, organizations that are socially responsible have shown immense commitment to abide to the law by ensuring that their employees have ample rest during their working hours. Such organizations comply to labor laws as part of the corporate social responsibility strategies. From a management perspective, complying to labor laws is part of creating a good organizational image. From a critical point of view, the California Break and Lunch laws have not achieved the intended purpose. Organizations have opted to ignore these laws while others have taken advantage of the employees’ ignorance. Therefore, the government needs to evaluate the application of the law and to find strategies to ensure that it operates efficiently. To achieve effectiveness, the government must educate the employees on their rights to ensure that they understand their rights and the channels through which to follow them (Dunn, 2014). Secondly, there is need to work along with the organization and to help them understand the value of these laws and the way they contribute to social wellbeing. This prevents the conflict between the government and the organizations in the process of policy implementation. However, strict measures must be undertaken against organizations that continue to oppress the workers and to violate labor laws. Strict measures must be taken against organizations that fail to pay the workers when they fail to provide them with the break period. Strictness in the implementation of the law will compel the organizations to abide by the laws to avoid negative consequences (Husar, Katz & Smith, 2007). Besides, the law makers should clarify the role of human resource managers in implementing the law to avoid the controversies that come along while putting the law into practice. In conclusion, the violation of the California Labor laws is a sign of the lack of effectiveness in the implementation of the laws. In spite of the government’s efforts to regulate the working hours, there is evidence of laxity in the implementation of the law. Many organizations are violating the meals and break laws and taking advantage of the employees’ lack of knowledge. Therefore, there is need for the government to find new strategies to enforce the law. Organizations are finding it expensive to pay the workers extra money or even to give them the required uninterrupted break periods. Consequently, they are avoiding these duties while the employees have little understanding of their rights. Moreover, employees fear to lose their jobs as those who sue the employer are considered disloyal. From this perspective, it is crucial for the government to educate the workers and to support them in the court. The government must be more active by ensuring that they have strict measures against those companies that violate the labor laws. Lastly, the government must work along with the organizations to ensure that together they create a conducive working environment. The ability of the government to put into practice the labor laws will determine their efficiency in protecting the rights of the workers both in the private and public sector. References Arthurs, H. W. (2011). Labour law without the state?. University of Toronto Law Journal, 1-45. California Supreme Court Clarifies Meal and Rest Break Obligations. (2012). Venulex Legal Summaries, 1-4. Chartier, G., (2013). Waiting Time.Which Law Did You Break Today? pp. 78. U.S. Top of Form Conaghan, J., Fischl, R. M., & Klare, K. E. (2004). Labour law in an era of globalization: Transformative practices and possibilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bottom of Form Dearen, J., (2012). Employers Not Obligated To Ensure Workers Take Lunch Breaks: Court. Huff Post Business. Retrieved on April 30, 2015 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/lunch-breaks-employers_n_1421957.html Deschenaux, J. (2012). California Employers: Forced Meal Breaks Not Required. HR Magazine, 57(6), 28. Dunn, J. (2014). DOT says California lunch break law can apply to drivers. Overdrive, 54(4), 78. Farmer, D. J. (2013). California employment law: The complete survival guide to doing business in California. Oakland, CA: Employment Law Publishers. Friedman, S. (2011). Restoring the promise of American labor law. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Hepple, B. (2005). Labour laws and global trade. Bloomsbury Publishing. Hudson, A., (2007). California Supreme Court increases stakes for violations of meal and rest period rules. Retrieved on April 31, 2015, from http://www.nixonpeabody.com/117383 Husar, L. S., Katz, S. B., & Smith, A. K. (2007). Practical Compliance Strategies for California Employers After Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions. Employee Relations Law Journal, 33(3), 62-85. Jaillet, J. (2015). Penske asks Supreme Court to hear driver break case. Commercial Carrier Journal, 172(2), 16-17. Kiger, P. J. (2008). Give Em a Break... or Get Sued. Workforce Management, 87(14), 43-47. Martucci, W. C., & Zheng, L. (2006). Curbing multimillion-dollar meal-break lawsuits: A guide to state meal-break legislation. Employment Relations Today (Wiley), 33(2), 75-85. doi:10.1002/ert.20110 Mintz, H., (2012). California Supreme Court: Its not the bosss problem if employees work during breaks. San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved on April 30, 2015 from http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_20381344/workers-have-right-breaks-but-bosses-dont-have State of California Department of Industrial Relationship. (2012). Meal periods. Retrieved on April 30, 2015, from http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_ MealPeriods.htm Thomas, S., (2010). The Proactive Employer: Selected Readings on Compliance, Employment. United States. United States of Labor. (2014). Minimum Paid Rest Period Requirements Under State Law for Adult Employees in Private Sector. Retrieved on May 1, 2015 from http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/rest.htm Weiss, M., & Schmidt, M. (2008). Labour law and industrial relations in Germany. Kluwer law international. Werhane, P., Radin, J., & Bowie, E., (2003). Employment and Employee Rights. United States: Wiley-Blackwell. Read More