California court says employers don't have to assure workers of lunch break.

The story is not about whether workers have lunch breaks. It is about whether businesses must force employees to take the lunch break to which they are entitled.

Unanimous court opinions are often about unexceptional points of law—in this case, what federal labor statute requires of businesses.

It's not usually about right and wrong... 90% of what high courts do is statuatory interpretation.

So if someone ought to be blamed here, it's probably congress.

a number of times I worked through lunch when a deadline had to be met. Somebody bought me lunch and I ate while working. However, I was given Comp time for it and just went home early that day. If I was not given the Comp time, they would have had to pay me, as a Non-Exempt employee, overtime for working over those 40 hours.

Are they eliminating OT if an employer makes their staff not get a lunch break?

re: Are they eliminating OT if an employer makes their staff not get a lunch break?

Federal labor law is 40 hours=40 hours=40 hours... whether an employee opts to skip lunch or not.

I have had an employer that did exactly what was proposed in this case -- they would not allow an employee to skip lunch and would order you to go. The reason was not concern for how rested employees were, it was because if employees skipped lunch they would go over 40 hours and the company would have to pay overtime. (Which they were not inclined to do.)

In any event, I do not doubt that many businesses subtly pressure employees to skip lunch. Businesses do all sorts of rotten things. The question is what the statute requires businesses to do. Congress has the authority to say, "You must require everyone to take the lunch break to which they are entitled under this law" and that would be that.

There are some liberals on the California Supreme Court... it probably wasn't a tough case in terms of law.

it basically says that the employer is not responsible for making sure the employees take their breaks. They can work through lunch if they want, but they cannot be forced to take lunch or be forced to work through it.

The headline is a bit misleading.

This is a state law. That is why it was before the CA Supreme court instead of federal court.

Legislature, not congress

when and if I want to take a lunch break. I don't need my employer to police me.

This ruling says that employers cannot force employees to take a break.

I don't know of too many people that you would have to force to take a break, but whatever.

I do however trade that time for longer morning and afternoon breaks to smoke a cig in my car in a relaxed and non-rushed fashion. . . when I'm working for others, which has been a while I admit.

They are suppose to be supervising and directing "their" employees.

There was no requirement that the workers taking a required break from work must eat food during the break.

Yet another reactionary anti-worker decision by the courts.