of course.
it's tough times right now.
hard work should be rewarded verbally or some other way.
at this point it is only for my conscience that i try to help.
won't it be great to keep those other employees, and not just keep them, but keep them happy and proud?
ahhh---all this carpel tunnel like pain in my hands. stone bruises on my feet. this kind of job should be well-rewarded. the whole thing about the breaks may seem small if you're not the one with the pressure to work and perform and magically survive through it all.
the cumulative toll is what i'm talking about, as well as the integrity of the company.
in not guaranteeing and protecting and enforcing legally protected breaks for all employees, great earth . . . well
i'm sure you see my point.
in terms of labor struggles etc, all i ask for is a legal minimum, harassment free work zone and legally protected breaks for all employees. that's very little to ask. very doable.
and hey, at this point, i'm virtually out of your hair.
the fact remains that i care for you and your employees and know what goes on.
i want the best of course and want the connection to be clear.
it occurred to me that high turnover might be the desire of the company. if so, no breaks, harassment, under staffing, and no cleaning crew would be the way to chase someone like myself out.
too many days scrubbing on my hands and knees for what, scratch. the pride of a clean work zone, sure, but the sense of positive community, free from divisiveness and negativity and respectful of each employee's dignity and humanity could have been more.
i am still full admiration and love obviously, otherwise, i wouldn't even be writing this, and waking up in the middle of the night concerned that you have misperceived my good will.
hopefully everything will be in tiptop shape for those who remain.
i love email.
isn't it beautiful that we can have this dialog? in another era it wouldn't have been possible.
good luck. i hope to hear good reports from my many friends, you included.
let me know if you noah or david ever get a grasp on the penalty for un-taken breaks issue. this debt i view to be legitimate for every so used employee. i feel honored to bring this up bc basically i can save you hassel in the future, help protect future employees, and instill some reverence for the law and its gravity.
mary
In
California, an employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than thirty minutes, except that if the total work period per day of the employee is no more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee. A second meal period of not less than thirty minutes is required if an employee works more than ten hours per day, except that if the total hours worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and employee only if the first meal period was not waived.
Labor Code Section 512.
Unless the employee is relieved of
all duty during his or her thirty minute meal period, the meal period shall be considered an "on duty" meal period that is counted as
hours worked which must be compensated at the employee’s
regular rate of pay. An "on duty" meal period shall be permitted
only when the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty and when by written agreement between the employer and employee an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed to. The written agreement must state that the employee may, in writing, revoke the agreement at any time.
IWC Orders 1 –15, Section 11,
Order 16, Section 10. The test of whether the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty is an objective one. An employer and employee may not agree to an on-duty meal period unless, based on objective criteria, any employee would be prevented from being relieved of all duty based on the necessary job duties. Some examples of jobs that fit this category are a sole worker in a coffee kiosk, a sole worker in an all-night convenience store, and a security guard stationed alone at a remote site.
If the employer requires the employee to remain at the work site or facility during the meal period, the meal period must be paid. This is true even where the employee is relieved of all work duties during the meal period. Bono Enterprises, In. v. Bradshaw (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 968.
If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period in accordance with an applicable
IWC Order, the employer must pay one additional hour of pay at the employee’s
regular rate of pay for each workday that the meal period is not provided.
IWC Orders and
Labor Code Section 226.7 This additional hour is not counted as
hours worked for purposes of overtime calculations.
If an employer fails to provide an employee a rest period in accordance with an applicable IWC Order, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of pay for each workday that the rest period is not provided. Labor Code Section 226.7 Thus, if an employer does not provide all of the rest periods required in a workday, the employee is entitled to one additional hour of pay for that workday, not one additional hour of pay for each rest period that was not provided during that workday. The rest period is defined as a "net" ten minutes, which means that the rest period begins when the employee reaches an area away from the work area that is appropriate for rest. Employers are required to provide suitable resting facilities that shall be available for employees during working hours in an area separate from the toilet rooms.
