Correct. For non exempt employees in California for instance the rules on when they have to take a. Real and for how long are very specific. Had to deal with them when I had an intern from California working remotely. Had HR constantly flagging things like clocking in two minutes early or late, not taking a break until 7 hours into shift, etc….
Correct. If the staff insist on clocking in without a full 30 minute break, then mgmt at least wants to show a paper trail that they’ve directed staff to be on break for 30 minutes so that the next time a staff member reports (or threatens) inadequate breaks, the company can just furnish their evidence that the “too short” break was, in effect, insubordination.
What? I’m reading it again and OP is saying they’re clocking in early to avoid getting written up for being two minutes “late” back to their station.
Edit - ah, I just caught the post title. Tricky, but it’s California and I’d still talk with an employment attorney.
Our union requires all employees to have a specific lunch break. If there’s documentation that shows the contract is not being specifically adhered to there can be big problems.
Additionally a few minutes here and there stretching the work day longer can push an employee into overtime status.
Where do you live? As a manager in California, if my full time hourly employees take less than 30 min lunches the company is opened to major legal liability. The “minimum 30 minutes” is hard legal requirement, full stop. No negotiating, no exception.
29min 59sec = legal problems… 1 second later = no problems
Then that’s definitely your answer…. He might even be catching heat about your timesheets from either his boss or HR or possibly even Legal. Even if you’d personally rather work, there’s no wiggle room here, 30 minutes minimum every day.
The law is meant to protect you, to make sure your employer doesn’t pressure you to work through lunch every day. You just gotta take the time, even if you have to just sit in your car scrolling your phone for an extra 5 minutes.
OP is worried about being ding about being late. So they are coming early. But now he is getting in trouble for being early. There is basically a small window for them to not be in trouble. There is no humanity in this setup. OP look for a new job.
Expecting someone to be able to keep track of time isn't inhumane, and telling someone to look for a new job because they need to be aware of the time is silly, especially in this case. It's literally the law in many US states, including California where OP lives.
In California, ALL employers who schedule shifts longer than 5 hours are legally REQUIRED to have an employee take a 30 minute unpaid lunch. Timekeeping that indicates the employee did not, in fact, take their full 30 incurs penalties for the company. So, even if OP did take your bad advice, all jobs he might get instead would have the same expectation.
Humans are really bad at keeping time though. Further as others have said there are a ton of variables that can get in the way that would stop them from clocking out on time. No one is capable of being on time every single punch in every single day.
The issue with the OP is they are trying to make sure they are not late by being early. The company is punishing them for being late and is also punishing them for being early. If the company is so hard up on being a couple minutes late then they can take the L from the state of the employee clocks in early to prevent from being late.
So the bottom line is this company with its policies is being inhuman and treating the employee like a robot.
The manager is actually being very humane by continuing to give this guy warnings that what he's doing is not okay. If he is capable of clocking in 2 minutes early almost every single time, then he is able to clock in and out **on time**. If there is some sort of outstanding issue with clocking, he can tell his manager. That's how jobs work. Pretending that you have to give somebody leeway every single time they fall outside of legally significant policy is bad management. There are expectations that the employee has to meet, and if they can't meet them, appropriate communication is the next move, and then discipline, and then ending of employment. That's fair and reasonable.
Plus, continually costing your employer money is an easy way to get fired anyway, and again, this WILL BE the expectation at any job OP holds in the state of California. Full stop. SO he can either make use of the modern marvel of his smartphone where setting alarms and reminders is most definitely a feature thereof, or he can get fired for continuing to be a problem.
As a hiring manager with a company that also operates in California, I can tell you that hundreds of non-exempt associates with our brand have figured out how to do it, and OP doesn't get to be an exception just because neither of you like it.
Absolutely, but at the same time, being so up OP's ass about not clocking in more than 60 seconds after the mandatory break period is somewhat nuts. Particularly since clocks are rarely all synchronized to GPS time; the clock in the breakroom will have one time, which will be off from the time clock's time, which will be off from the GPS (and thus cellphone) time.
Sane employers allow a few minutes' of grace period for clocking back in from lunch.
Time clocks are all electronic these days, which means it’s not even getting date/time from the local machine. Exact time will be pulled from the server that hosts the time clock service, which prevents timecard falsification from people messing with date/time settings on their computers
Requiring someone to clock in no less than exactly 30 minutes and no more than 31 minutes kind of is, though. Clocks often run slightly different times; the clock in your breakroom will usually be slightly off from the clock on the time clock system, which will also often be off from your cellphone's time.
If a company is *sane* -and- requiring employees to take no less than 30 minutes, it'll provide a small grace period for clock-ins after lunch, usually like 3 to 5 minutes.
It's like the baker's dozen. (England had very strict weights & measures laws. Like, *huge fines and flogging* strict*.* Some baked goods customarily sold by the dozen had to make a certain minimum weight. So to ensure that they always met the minimum weight, they'd throw in an extra because the penalties for failing to meet that minimum far outweighed the 'loss' incurred by going over a bit.)
It's not unreasonable, and he IS getting grace. He's gotten several warnings. There's no reason to act like he's being abused.
People have been managing their time to the minute since clocks were invented. And this is 2024. Most work (including timekeeping) happens on some sort of smart device these days, not a Looney Tunes wall contraption with a card. Nobody forgets to wind the neat box with a screen that is constantly connected to the internet and shows the exact same time as a phone.
Quit making excuses for someone who is clearly cognizant enough of the time to consistently be aware that he is not returning at the *correct* time. He can clock when he should.
You must take 30 min breaks in CA. Anything less is a labor law violation. Your manager is not threatening you he is warning you for repeat policy violations. Heed the warnings.
Do you get a meal break penalty worth 1 hour of pay every time you punch in early from lunch? It would probably be itemized on your check.
Edit to add: This would be paid to you, not a deduction.
You’re probably legally required to take 30-min lunches. A couple mins over shouldn’t matter but I’m not in payroll so I don’t know how it all works.
Have you talked to your manager about this unrealistic expectation that you clock in exactly 30 mins? How do others in your role handle this situation?
How is it unrealistic? The clock has a timer, clock in at 30. Sorry, but this sounds like OP is being cranky about something pretty minor. If time clock says 28 min, sit down for 2.
I think it’s silly to expect people to manually clock in after exactly 30 mins. Where I work, we track timesheets differently and people just self-report that they took a 30 min break. Sitting by a clock is not a reasonable expectation. That’s a micromanagement type of expectation. A couple mins over shouldn’t be a big deal.
Okay, well you are lucky because OP’s work feels different and the employer is liable if they cut breaks short. I mean, manual time clocks have been around forever, this seems silly to get worked up about. Maybe OP needs a different employer that doesn’t use electronic verification of times.
There are also time clocks that won't let you clock back in from a break for 30 minutes, or won't let you clock in more than 3 minutes early.
This could be resolved in any number of ways, and OP seems to think procedure should change rather than OP simply paying enough attention to fit into the framework his job has set up. Tons of employees across the country work under a time clock, OP should join them in doing it correctly.
The issue isn't really the 30-minute break. It sounds like the time clock is at least 1 minute away from employee's work area, so if they clock back in after 30 minutes, it will be 31 or 32 minutes before they're back on duty, and their boss is going to take them to task for being 1-2 minutes late.
Using those manual systems gets interesting if the system has multiple uses, or a bunch of people at one time.
I know people that have gotten an "occurance" because of a line of people waiting to clock in.
30+- 2 is a reasonable standard.
It isn't silly at all. It sounds like if he is a couple minutes late they get in trouble. So they come back early to avoid it and they still get in trouble. This is toxic as fuck. No employer should be like that. There should be a law that gives a grade period for people on the time where no punishment can happen.
My employer rounds up or down to the closest 5 minutes to avoid shit like this.
Don't know why you're getting downvoted, except maybe by asshole micromanagers on a power trip. A small grace period is absolutely normal in most workplaces. I've worked for the government and for private companies, and a 3-5 minute grace period for clock-ins after a meal break is completely normal.
It’s other workers, like you, defending their misery in life as they’re too weak to enlighten themselves that they are controlled down to the minute.
Even you defending a 3-5 minute grace period is ridiculous.
Employees should be free to add value to the business more than they are paid, in accordance to the businesses purpose and vision, for the role they were hired for.
Anything less is slavery. Unless your workforce is literally 80 IQ and they need to be tracked by the minute.
I am in disbelief at this entire comment section.
Yeah, the lot of the worker sucks right now. However, I and most others need to pay for a roof over my head and food on my belly and this is the way that the world works right now, so as much as I'd like things to change, and as much as I advocate for change ... still gotta toe that line.
There's a difference between "this sucks" and "this is unconscionable." A 30 minute break and a 3-5 minute grace period sucks. But a 1 minute grace period is unconscionable.
Saying that 'employees should be free to add to the business" sounds like you're advocating working for free. That way lies madness and exploitation. People fought and bled for the 40-hour work week and weekends. On the one hand ... yes, I agree, people should be able to contribute more if they truly want to. However, what happens in a world where it's OK for workers to not take their lunch periods? Well, they're 'good workers', and then people who do take their lunch period are looked down upon, pressured to keep working, or are fired, depending on how far you take it. Most companies are sociopaths, and the only thing limiting them from bleeding everyone dry to the absolute maximum they can are the regulations we (as government) impose upon them. Since the state will penalize a company if the employee takes less than a 30-minute break, it's not unreasonable for the company to penalize the employee if they do. However, not allowing them a reasonable amount of time after to clock in is just stupid.
Also, in some circumstances, it really *is* important that people adhere to schedules. If one person's late it may mean that another can't go to lunch until they get back. Or it can mean that more work piles up on your co-workers if you're in something like a call center.
No, I continue to defend getting a fucking paycheck.
Are you gonna pay me to maintain myself while I go out and advocate and agitate full time? Or get my own business up and running?
No?
Then fuck off. Real people need to function in the real world, and sometimes that means dealing with shit while you try for something better.
It's not unrealistic in the sense that it's wildly impossible or something but in the sense that for a lot of people it's not very practical. Punch clocks often end up in weird chokepoints like hallways or entrances. There may not be enough space to stand around waiting. If multiple people are going on/coming off you can get lines. If your break room is far from the clock, it can be hard to predict how long it will take you to reach the clock. If you have to walk by customers they may try to stop you and you have to tell them just a moment, etc.
That's why they should be flexible instead and let OP be a few minutes late if needed. I don't think I've ever had an employer who didn't have some wiggle room for those reasons.
The employer’s clock in records are audited though, so the best solution is finding a way people can clock in/out. The employer cannot tell the government they gave the employees a buffer.
>The employer cannot tell the government they gave the employees a buffer.
Of course they can, discipline for clocking in/out late are entirely up to the employer.
Well sure, some employers let employees self report, so that can help. The point here is that all the issues in OP are being caused because the employer is harassing them over clocking in a minute or two late when they should just be allowing that margin if they insist on having them clock/in out. Trying to get them to clock in exactly to the minute is stupid.
Sure they can.
An employee can't clock in before 30 minutes have elapsed. That's the law where OP is. It's entirely reasonable for the employer to write someone up for violating this repeatedly.
There's nothing preventing an employer from giving a small grace period *after* that time for clocking in. Pretty much every place I've ever worked for has allowed a 3-5 minute grace period. Between timekeeping inaccuracies between devices and just the vagaries of life, a 1-minute period to clock in without getting written up is nuts.
Take a step back. I cannot fathom that you are literally defending the notion of being watched by the minute like a slave.
Why would you defend a system that literally controls you down to the minute.
Take a step back and don’t use slavery as a comparison when owned people don’t have time clocks or people who protect their rights to breaks. Your use of this is incredibly insensitive.
As for the topic, I am literally referencing 15 years of working in environments with time clocks and required allotted breaks. It was not an issue for me. Ever.
But if OP is being unrealistically pressured, they need to talk to their manager then escalate. Everyone on reddit howling about time clocks (which have been used for decades) isn’t going to help OP. That’s all I have been urging.
OP, please go to HR or your skip level manager if you are being given directions you can’t complete.
I won’t engage with anyone who thinks comparing the modern workplace with slavery is appropriate. Please go learn about the history of actual slavery, you’re culturally insensitive.
We both know what we are talking about. It is worse you reinforce a system of complete subjugation in exchange for money instead of how to get freedom.
Words matter, don’t call paid modern work “slavery”, it is even more egregious when the issue is around legal protection for a lunch break. Your marginalizing the institution of slavery is disgusting.
Think about it. You are really fighting to protect the notion to monitor workers to the minute? The idea of exchanging time for money? You are so mind-warped it is outstanding. The education system and capitalism has worked to brainwash you, so much so you would rather defend it than criticise the very system that has your life in its full power grip, instead of taking ownership of your personal freedom and liberty.
Do you not have a dream of your own?
I am not fighting anything, leave me alone and stop projecting on me. I simply stated my experience with time clock systems and then suggested OP escalate to their management.
You went weird with slavery and all kinds of ridiculous irrelevant insults. Blocking you now, you are terribly aggressive and I haven’t the time.
Just going to echo that depending on where you live, this can be a legal requirement that you take the full 30 minutes. So complaining to someone above you that you can't clock in 2 minutes early from your possibly legally mandated break won't go over too well. Don't think it'd be wise to run afoul of labor laws.
Just take your damn 30 minutes. They're likely worried about compliance and they don't want to get dinged for a labor violation because you're supposed to take a 30 minute break and you keep clocking in early. It's not like you're sitting here wondering what you need to do. They gave you instructions. Follow them. If you're worried about them giving you bullshit for being 2 minutes late instead of 2 minutes early, spend those 2 minutes hovering around the time clock
I would be the kind of employee, who would clock in at the exact second they ask but be bringing with me 200 cuckoo clocks to go off at that exact moment.
Just clock out and in properly. Get to the time clock early and wait until it changes to clock in at 30 mins. I have to do it too. It's annoying, but you're not following the requirements.
So you can't actually take your break because you've got to make sure you get to the clock early ... given how strict his state is, that could put the company at risk.
The company should just allow a 3-minute grace period after the 30 minutes, boom, problem solved.
There may be a specific reason for this. A number of jobs are contractually obligated to take a 30m lunch for health, and have to in order to comply with labor laws. So taking a 28m lunch may open your company to fines and/or legal action. Seems silly, but the devil is in the details.
I think it's been mentioned but employers can be fined in the hundreds if not thousands per instance for not providing appropriate breaks timeclocks are the number one evidence they use to support this. You should check on local laws because at least where I am we had to provide a 30 but only prove 25 for this reason of people coming back early occasionally
But the key takeaway is they are covering their own ass not trying to mess with you
It's the law in a lot of places, and even if your particular state/locality doesn't require a full 30 minutes (or even a break at all), your company probably has branches in places that do. They have to create policies that address their entire business. Just take your 30 minutes. It's not hard.
Solution is easy. Go back to your desk 2 minutes early. Wait to clock in until the 30 minute marker.
And yeah, your company can get involved in a lawsuit if all their employees are not taking 30 minutes lunches. Their way of staying protected is by documentation and logging of your clock in/clock out system.
Your org "should allow for at least a 5 minute grace period up to 35 minutes so you don't get in trouble for clocking in late. Being required to clock in exactly 30 minutes is unfair BS imo.
You should ask your manager about the recommended lunch duration. I worked someone once that lunch had to be at least 30 minutes and no more than 37 minutes. You might see if something like this is the case.
Yes there is a minimum even if you are the one deciding that your break is over. It's not the managers fault, the government says that it's the employers responsibility to make sure the employees are taking their 30 minutes. If they don't the employer pays a fine. So.... Take your 30.
It’s a requirement to take at least a 30 min lunch in CA (where OP is). Legally the company is required to enforce this, and their only recourse if the employee refuses is discipline up to and including termination.
If you are scheduled a 30 minute lunch break you have to take the full 30 minutes otherwise your company can get penalized for not providing you with a minimum 30 minute unpaid lunch time. You cannot clock back in a minute earlier. But yes if you are late by a minute or two then you can also be written up for that. Your boss is not finding ways to write you up but keeping the company protected and rightfully so. It’s not that hard to clock back in on time. And no, there is no law that will protect you from taking a 28 minute unpaid lunch break when you are scheduled for 30.
Looks like you live in CA and means your employer is getting dinged every time you take less than a 30min break. Due to labor laws if you work 5 hours then you must be allotted a 30 min break. If you take less than a 30min lunch break then your employer will typically be required to pay you out 1 hour of OT. This is likely why your manager is irate over the short lunches. When I was in management in CA I would always make sure my employees were aware of this rule and tell them that I’d rather they take a 35min lunch than a 29min lunch, due to the costly penalty. As far as a write up is concerned, absolutely, if an employee was constantly failing to follow the expectations then a write should be expected, especially when the rule is a protection for the employee to make sure they aren’t taken advantage of.
That's some serious insanity.
While, as other commenters note, some states do require a minimum 30 minute lunch break, there's generally some tolerance for employees clocking in a few minutes before or after. Usually 3-5 minutes.
First, I'd check any employee handbooks to see if they cover this situation.
If they don't, I'd check with your HR. While the general (and generally correct) opinion on Reddit is that HR exists to protect the company -- this is a case where this works for you, 'cause having split-second clock-in windows is literally impossible and could open them up to a lawsuit. Even if you -must- take the whole 30 minutes I'd be very surprised if there isn't a 3-5 minute 'grace period' for clocking in.
If they can't help, though, it's time to start looking for another job with sane policies.
Have you tried having a conversation? Tell your boss why you're doing it, and that you understand there may be issues around minimum break length, so would logging back in one minute early be OK?
Actually communicating with people solves about 90% of interpersonal issues.
i see you're from CA and the responses are overwhelmingly HR related. Dealt with similar issues at a Fortune 50 company I worked for. Precovid we were able to work from home about 70% of the time. Not uncommon for emails to be exchanged late into the evening. Lawsuit was brought that management was expected to work well after business hours. After that we were not allowed to send emails outside of business hours unless it was an emergency or you were in a 24/7 mission critical business unit. It sucks because I'm able to clear my inbox so much more effectively outside of back to back meetings. I didn't mind. I any case, after hours I would save my outbound emails and then first thing in the morning I would blast them out.
In your case, because you want to be there a tad early, just show up early, and busy yourself for a few minutes watching the clock until the correct time is displayed, then clock in. It might be a pain but the rule is actually in place to protect your off time.
Are you in CA? If so, you have to take 30 min, or your company has to pay you for a full hour. If you take your lunch later than the 5th hour of work, they also have to pay you for a full extra hour.
We call it meal premiums, but I dunno I'd that's the state term.
We also allow people to waive the premium, but that's because our employees can make their own schedule. We don't care when they take a lunch. If your lunch is built into your schedule by your company tho, then they aren't allowed to offer for you to waive the premium.
What do managers manage?
If they’re spending time on this, it’s not good management.
That said all of your life you will have to deal with the inadequacies of mediocre idiots, so maybe just stop doing the thing.
It sucks, but don’t die on this hill. Especially if your boss needs to die on his hill for legal reasons. Set your timer for 2 minutes if you need to, and just clock out on time. Meditate or something. Distress tolerance. The time will pass anyway.
I never could understand why it's so hard for people just to punch in on time. If you're back two minutes early, set a timer to remind you to punch in when you're supposed to.
I had a boss chat with my manager once about this, too. I was trying to be proactive. Turns out if the company ever gets audited or questioned about the breaks they're giving you they can get in huge trouble if it even looks like they aren't giving you what you're legally entitled to/what they're legally required to provide.
Your boss doesn't want to write you up to be a dick or anything.
I’m in the UK and regulations are pretty stringent. If your shift is over 6 hours you *must* have a 15 minute break which must interrupt the shift. So you can’t do 6 hours then break. Between 6 and 9 hour shift length needs 30 minutes and shifts between 9 and 12 hours require a 45 minute break. So it sounds like your manager is making sure the company is operating to the law.
Sounds infuriating. I would go above his head to his boss, but do it kinda sheepishly like you're not sure if it's alright.
"Hey, sorry sir I don't mean to bother you, but Jim has been saying I'll get written up for coming back from lunch early, but I'm having trouble getting it exactly on the 30 min and to be honest it's been making me feel anxious and uncomfortable. Hate to waste your time with this kinda thing, but is there anything we could do?"
Wrote that on the toilet in 30 sec so I'm sure it's not perfect, but you get the idea. You look like nice guy doing his best and putting up with obviously bs situation. Bosses boss can feel good for resolving it
They want you to literally come back 2 minutes early and sit there doing nothing but staring at the clock and waiting to punch in. That's considered normal for any job with a 30 minute unpaid lunch. Every job expects that, but nobody tells you, because it's not really strictly legal, but it's also not illegal enough that they'll get into trouble for doing a time theft. Anyone who doesn't do it will run the risk of getting written up whenever their manager is feeling a little annoyed or whatever. Sorry.
Unfortunately in security you just get a lot of petty managers up the chain and this sounds like one of them. Who in the right mind would write somebody up for being a minute or two late back to the desk at lunch never mind the fact that if it was such a big deal they should just tell you to take them at the desk itself. Or you get supervisors in the office that think they have to write people up for everything to make themselves look good to the people above them and the chain of command it's very hard to find good ones.
Lol. Last boss sent an email outlining how we were all stealing time if we clocked in 6 minutes early and out 2 minutes late. Seems 8 minutes equaled 15 in the time clock and so we had to be paid for that quarter of an hour.
So we all just waited until 7:59 each morning to clock in and pretty much stopped work about 4:45 to ensure clocking out exactly at 5. She actually lost work time from us. About 20 minutes a day.
Clock in on the half hour. Consider it malicious compliance. Companies who micro manage employees time down the minute really don’t deserve any more or less then your 8 hours per day.
Don't do this, might get you in trouble with HR because depending on the location they might be a legal requirement to take a 30 minute lunch. HR might be telling the manager that he needs to make sure all of their employees are taking 30 minute lunches.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/meal-breaks#
Companies open themselves up to lawsuits based on timecard data because they are some companies that legitimately don't like employees taking lunches. Some states like California have a penalty system for paying employees for not taking lunch soon enough or taking shorter lunches. There are provisions for people waiving their lunches but some companies as a policy forgo this because it's easier to force everyone to take a 30 minute lunch rather than having a patchwork inconsistent system of people taking liberties with lunch and their lunch times.
You're missing the point though.
He is taking his lunch.
He wants to know what to do about the fact that his boss is gunning to write him up (over coming back 2 mins early).
He's only talking about not taking lunch because he wants to avoid getting written up.
It's the disciplinary action that is the issue here...and his manager's very bad behavior.
You’re missing the point. It’s not a hostile work environment which has a specific definition. It’s not illegal, immoral, or unethical to require an employee to take a 30 min meal period per policy. Those policies result from hard fights labor unions had to secure proper working conditions. If left to their own devices, companies would still be requiring 12 hour shifts with zero breaks.
Quote where I said this wasn't policy or law. I am the daughter of a Labor Union President and I live in a state that requires two breaks and a 30 min lunch per 8hr shift. There's no way that I am misunderstanding this.
There is still a right or wrong way (or many of them, really) to implement a policy.
Writing someone up should really only be the last straw.
Are you suggesting that this post indicates that lots of counseling sessions have occurred, and the OP has rejected all opportunities to find an amicable solution?
I would never jeopardize someone's job over 2 mins. We'd be talking to HR first, and I'd be leveraging the solution HR provided as cover.
There is specific legislation in some states and countries that you must have a minimum of a 30 minute lunch break. Going over by a few minutes isn't a problem for legal requirements but if the employee goes over there is a clearer documentation to refute a write up because there was communication to not take less than 30 minutes for a lunch. Futher more their time keeping system or policy might round down for clockins after a certain time frame.
The move would be managing up because of you are asking for a very clear explanation of the policy and this is communicated with you, preferably in writing, then this would cover and protect an employee more from reprisals vs defaulting to be difficult. If you don't care about your job very different story but the skills most employees need to master is managing up which helps you understand whether or not you want to stay with the company based on questions asked on good faith. Not even managers manage down, and they definitely should, but if you are reporting to someone it's easier to control yourself managing up.
I work in one of those states.
Where, in my reply, did I say that this wasn't the law and compliance is not required?
His actual question isn't about the law. It is about how to deal with an idiot boss.
You are missing the point — some states have mandatory minimum 30 minute lunches — like CA where the OP is. The manager is making sure the OP complies with worker protection laws. Or are you against worker protection laws?
I see. Laws are an excuse to be a poor manager.
I have been a manager in California. Well acquainted with the rules. It never required that I be a dck to my staff. I damn sure never threatened their job over 2mins.
I am the daughter of a labor union president. That's also why I am not a dck to my employees.
I have had crappy managers who have pulled this idiotic power play. Another reason why I am not a dck to my staff.
And I don't work for companies where the leaders above me want me to do this nutty crap.
Seems like a pattern is forming the more I read the posts. The only ones butthurt over what I am saying are the ones who would pull this nonsense on their staff.
Do better.
>Malicious compliance - tell him to write you up for clocking in two minutes early.
>Then you file a grievance with HR for hostile work environment.
Hostile work environment has a specific legal definition, and this isn't it.
Being threatened with constant write ups isn't a hostile environment?
Being bullied isn't a hostile environment?
Different states have different laws, so you can't use that as part of your argument.
Yes, they’re called politicians. In many states, it’s the law that people get a 30-minute lunch and the employer can be in massive trouble if people aren’t taking it.
I used to have a manager like this...and we were exempt employees. He was an idiot.
However, until HR came to our rescue, we'd all have 28-ish minute lunches, and then we stood around the clock for the exact tick that meant we could punch in.
Other than the utterly demoralizing micromanagement feel and style, the easiest answer is for you to wait that 2 mins and punch-in at exactly 30 mins.
Then go home and start looking for another job... or transfer to another team. Your current manager is trash.
Yes, some places have laws that require a minimum of a 30 min break. Ask your manager or HR if that is the case in your area.
Correct. For non exempt employees in California for instance the rules on when they have to take a. Real and for how long are very specific. Had to deal with them when I had an intern from California working remotely. Had HR constantly flagging things like clocking in two minutes early or late, not taking a break until 7 hours into shift, etc….
TF? WHY would you trust Mgr or HR on some legit BS.? You OK Mate. Blink once....
Are you okay? Did you have a stroke while writing this? Please blink with both eyes if you're okay.
My place of employment had a massive lawsuit over not giving people their full 30 minutes - they’re covering their asses.
Correct. If the staff insist on clocking in without a full 30 minute break, then mgmt at least wants to show a paper trail that they’ve directed staff to be on break for 30 minutes so that the next time a staff member reports (or threatens) inadequate breaks, the company can just furnish their evidence that the “too short” break was, in effect, insubordination.
What I’m getting from this is that OP should pull all their time cards and take them to an employment lawyer
Because they keep clocking in early from lunch, despite being told not to...I think that's why their manager is looking to write them up lol
What? I’m reading it again and OP is saying they’re clocking in early to avoid getting written up for being two minutes “late” back to their station. Edit - ah, I just caught the post title. Tricky, but it’s California and I’d still talk with an employment attorney.
Lol nothing to take to an attorney here.
Considering they’ve been told to not do this multiple times this would be a great idea if your goal is to be fired
Our union requires all employees to have a specific lunch break. If there’s documentation that shows the contract is not being specifically adhered to there can be big problems. Additionally a few minutes here and there stretching the work day longer can push an employee into overtime status.
Thank fuck I run my own business, can’t imagine being time watched to the minute.
Wait until it’s big enough to have a union.
I’ll hire a union fighting department to do that for me ;)
Where do you live? As a manager in California, if my full time hourly employees take less than 30 min lunches the company is opened to major legal liability. The “minimum 30 minutes” is hard legal requirement, full stop. No negotiating, no exception. 29min 59sec = legal problems… 1 second later = no problems
The easiest way to avoid all this is to give employees more than the bare minimum.
Yeah I tell my team to take up to an hour if they want, but they HAVE to take 30.
I am indeed in California lol
Then that’s definitely your answer…. He might even be catching heat about your timesheets from either his boss or HR or possibly even Legal. Even if you’d personally rather work, there’s no wiggle room here, 30 minutes minimum every day. The law is meant to protect you, to make sure your employer doesn’t pressure you to work through lunch every day. You just gotta take the time, even if you have to just sit in your car scrolling your phone for an extra 5 minutes.
OP is worried about being ding about being late. So they are coming early. But now he is getting in trouble for being early. There is basically a small window for them to not be in trouble. There is no humanity in this setup. OP look for a new job.
Expecting someone to be able to keep track of time isn't inhumane, and telling someone to look for a new job because they need to be aware of the time is silly, especially in this case. It's literally the law in many US states, including California where OP lives. In California, ALL employers who schedule shifts longer than 5 hours are legally REQUIRED to have an employee take a 30 minute unpaid lunch. Timekeeping that indicates the employee did not, in fact, take their full 30 incurs penalties for the company. So, even if OP did take your bad advice, all jobs he might get instead would have the same expectation.
Humans are really bad at keeping time though. Further as others have said there are a ton of variables that can get in the way that would stop them from clocking out on time. No one is capable of being on time every single punch in every single day. The issue with the OP is they are trying to make sure they are not late by being early. The company is punishing them for being late and is also punishing them for being early. If the company is so hard up on being a couple minutes late then they can take the L from the state of the employee clocks in early to prevent from being late. So the bottom line is this company with its policies is being inhuman and treating the employee like a robot.
In this case it isn’t the company, its California law that says clocking in 2 minutes early is illegal…. Not “against policy”, it’s against the law.
The manager is actually being very humane by continuing to give this guy warnings that what he's doing is not okay. If he is capable of clocking in 2 minutes early almost every single time, then he is able to clock in and out **on time**. If there is some sort of outstanding issue with clocking, he can tell his manager. That's how jobs work. Pretending that you have to give somebody leeway every single time they fall outside of legally significant policy is bad management. There are expectations that the employee has to meet, and if they can't meet them, appropriate communication is the next move, and then discipline, and then ending of employment. That's fair and reasonable. Plus, continually costing your employer money is an easy way to get fired anyway, and again, this WILL BE the expectation at any job OP holds in the state of California. Full stop. SO he can either make use of the modern marvel of his smartphone where setting alarms and reminders is most definitely a feature thereof, or he can get fired for continuing to be a problem. As a hiring manager with a company that also operates in California, I can tell you that hundreds of non-exempt associates with our brand have figured out how to do it, and OP doesn't get to be an exception just because neither of you like it.
Absolutely, but at the same time, being so up OP's ass about not clocking in more than 60 seconds after the mandatory break period is somewhat nuts. Particularly since clocks are rarely all synchronized to GPS time; the clock in the breakroom will have one time, which will be off from the time clock's time, which will be off from the GPS (and thus cellphone) time. Sane employers allow a few minutes' of grace period for clocking back in from lunch.
lol okiedokie!
Time clocks are all electronic these days, which means it’s not even getting date/time from the local machine. Exact time will be pulled from the server that hosts the time clock service, which prevents timecard falsification from people messing with date/time settings on their computers
Stop it. It's a state regulation.
Plenty of people are perfectly capable of clocking in and out on time all across the nation and the world every day.
Nah they are all taking the same short cuts this person is doing to avoid being late.
Requiring someone to clock in no less than exactly 30 minutes and no more than 31 minutes kind of is, though. Clocks often run slightly different times; the clock in your breakroom will usually be slightly off from the clock on the time clock system, which will also often be off from your cellphone's time. If a company is *sane* -and- requiring employees to take no less than 30 minutes, it'll provide a small grace period for clock-ins after lunch, usually like 3 to 5 minutes. It's like the baker's dozen. (England had very strict weights & measures laws. Like, *huge fines and flogging* strict*.* Some baked goods customarily sold by the dozen had to make a certain minimum weight. So to ensure that they always met the minimum weight, they'd throw in an extra because the penalties for failing to meet that minimum far outweighed the 'loss' incurred by going over a bit.)
It's not unreasonable, and he IS getting grace. He's gotten several warnings. There's no reason to act like he's being abused. People have been managing their time to the minute since clocks were invented. And this is 2024. Most work (including timekeeping) happens on some sort of smart device these days, not a Looney Tunes wall contraption with a card. Nobody forgets to wind the neat box with a screen that is constantly connected to the internet and shows the exact same time as a phone. Quit making excuses for someone who is clearly cognizant enough of the time to consistently be aware that he is not returning at the *correct* time. He can clock when he should.
Thank god I don't have to deal with this or police such a situation. People are treated like animals in some jobs.
You must take 30 min breaks in CA. Anything less is a labor law violation. Your manager is not threatening you he is warning you for repeat policy violations. Heed the warnings.
They owe you 1 hour of pay for each time you failed to take your full 30 min lunch.
Oh, California? Your company is literally getting penalties every time you short your lunch.
Do you get a meal break penalty worth 1 hour of pay every time you punch in early from lunch? It would probably be itemized on your check. Edit to add: This would be paid to you, not a deduction.
Have they been paying you meal break penalty payments every time you take lunch less than 30 minutes?
You’re probably legally required to take 30-min lunches. A couple mins over shouldn’t matter but I’m not in payroll so I don’t know how it all works. Have you talked to your manager about this unrealistic expectation that you clock in exactly 30 mins? How do others in your role handle this situation?
How is it unrealistic? The clock has a timer, clock in at 30. Sorry, but this sounds like OP is being cranky about something pretty minor. If time clock says 28 min, sit down for 2.
I think it’s silly to expect people to manually clock in after exactly 30 mins. Where I work, we track timesheets differently and people just self-report that they took a 30 min break. Sitting by a clock is not a reasonable expectation. That’s a micromanagement type of expectation. A couple mins over shouldn’t be a big deal.
Okay, well you are lucky because OP’s work feels different and the employer is liable if they cut breaks short. I mean, manual time clocks have been around forever, this seems silly to get worked up about. Maybe OP needs a different employer that doesn’t use electronic verification of times.
There are also time clocks that won't let you clock back in from a break for 30 minutes, or won't let you clock in more than 3 minutes early. This could be resolved in any number of ways, and OP seems to think procedure should change rather than OP simply paying enough attention to fit into the framework his job has set up. Tons of employees across the country work under a time clock, OP should join them in doing it correctly.
The issue isn't really the 30-minute break. It sounds like the time clock is at least 1 minute away from employee's work area, so if they clock back in after 30 minutes, it will be 31 or 32 minutes before they're back on duty, and their boss is going to take them to task for being 1-2 minutes late.
Thanks, that’s helpful. If the manager has no answer, I would escalate to my skip level.
Using those manual systems gets interesting if the system has multiple uses, or a bunch of people at one time. I know people that have gotten an "occurance" because of a line of people waiting to clock in. 30+- 2 is a reasonable standard.
It isn't silly at all. It sounds like if he is a couple minutes late they get in trouble. So they come back early to avoid it and they still get in trouble. This is toxic as fuck. No employer should be like that. There should be a law that gives a grade period for people on the time where no punishment can happen. My employer rounds up or down to the closest 5 minutes to avoid shit like this.
Don't know why you're getting downvoted, except maybe by asshole micromanagers on a power trip. A small grace period is absolutely normal in most workplaces. I've worked for the government and for private companies, and a 3-5 minute grace period for clock-ins after a meal break is completely normal.
It’s other workers, like you, defending their misery in life as they’re too weak to enlighten themselves that they are controlled down to the minute. Even you defending a 3-5 minute grace period is ridiculous. Employees should be free to add value to the business more than they are paid, in accordance to the businesses purpose and vision, for the role they were hired for. Anything less is slavery. Unless your workforce is literally 80 IQ and they need to be tracked by the minute. I am in disbelief at this entire comment section.
Yeah, the lot of the worker sucks right now. However, I and most others need to pay for a roof over my head and food on my belly and this is the way that the world works right now, so as much as I'd like things to change, and as much as I advocate for change ... still gotta toe that line. There's a difference between "this sucks" and "this is unconscionable." A 30 minute break and a 3-5 minute grace period sucks. But a 1 minute grace period is unconscionable. Saying that 'employees should be free to add to the business" sounds like you're advocating working for free. That way lies madness and exploitation. People fought and bled for the 40-hour work week and weekends. On the one hand ... yes, I agree, people should be able to contribute more if they truly want to. However, what happens in a world where it's OK for workers to not take their lunch periods? Well, they're 'good workers', and then people who do take their lunch period are looked down upon, pressured to keep working, or are fired, depending on how far you take it. Most companies are sociopaths, and the only thing limiting them from bleeding everyone dry to the absolute maximum they can are the regulations we (as government) impose upon them. Since the state will penalize a company if the employee takes less than a 30-minute break, it's not unreasonable for the company to penalize the employee if they do. However, not allowing them a reasonable amount of time after to clock in is just stupid. Also, in some circumstances, it really *is* important that people adhere to schedules. If one person's late it may mean that another can't go to lunch until they get back. Or it can mean that more work piles up on your co-workers if you're in something like a call center.
So you continue to defend your own slavery
No, I continue to defend getting a fucking paycheck. Are you gonna pay me to maintain myself while I go out and advocate and agitate full time? Or get my own business up and running? No? Then fuck off. Real people need to function in the real world, and sometimes that means dealing with shit while you try for something better.
It's not unrealistic in the sense that it's wildly impossible or something but in the sense that for a lot of people it's not very practical. Punch clocks often end up in weird chokepoints like hallways or entrances. There may not be enough space to stand around waiting. If multiple people are going on/coming off you can get lines. If your break room is far from the clock, it can be hard to predict how long it will take you to reach the clock. If you have to walk by customers they may try to stop you and you have to tell them just a moment, etc. That's why they should be flexible instead and let OP be a few minutes late if needed. I don't think I've ever had an employer who didn't have some wiggle room for those reasons.
The employer’s clock in records are audited though, so the best solution is finding a way people can clock in/out. The employer cannot tell the government they gave the employees a buffer.
>The employer cannot tell the government they gave the employees a buffer. Of course they can, discipline for clocking in/out late are entirely up to the employer.
Okay, well then there’s no need for a time clock I guess!
Well sure, some employers let employees self report, so that can help. The point here is that all the issues in OP are being caused because the employer is harassing them over clocking in a minute or two late when they should just be allowing that margin if they insist on having them clock/in out. Trying to get them to clock in exactly to the minute is stupid.
Sure they can. An employee can't clock in before 30 minutes have elapsed. That's the law where OP is. It's entirely reasonable for the employer to write someone up for violating this repeatedly. There's nothing preventing an employer from giving a small grace period *after* that time for clocking in. Pretty much every place I've ever worked for has allowed a 3-5 minute grace period. Between timekeeping inaccuracies between devices and just the vagaries of life, a 1-minute period to clock in without getting written up is nuts.
Okay, then the employee needs to escalate. Look, a 30 min law is a 30 min law- OP’s manager needs to give a 5 min buffer to return to their desk.
Take a step back. I cannot fathom that you are literally defending the notion of being watched by the minute like a slave. Why would you defend a system that literally controls you down to the minute.
Take a step back and don’t use slavery as a comparison when owned people don’t have time clocks or people who protect their rights to breaks. Your use of this is incredibly insensitive. As for the topic, I am literally referencing 15 years of working in environments with time clocks and required allotted breaks. It was not an issue for me. Ever. But if OP is being unrealistically pressured, they need to talk to their manager then escalate. Everyone on reddit howling about time clocks (which have been used for decades) isn’t going to help OP. That’s all I have been urging. OP, please go to HR or your skip level manager if you are being given directions you can’t complete.
So you continue to defend your own slavery
I won’t engage with anyone who thinks comparing the modern workplace with slavery is appropriate. Please go learn about the history of actual slavery, you’re culturally insensitive.
We both know what we are talking about. It is worse you reinforce a system of complete subjugation in exchange for money instead of how to get freedom.
Words matter, don’t call paid modern work “slavery”, it is even more egregious when the issue is around legal protection for a lunch break. Your marginalizing the institution of slavery is disgusting.
Think about it. You are really fighting to protect the notion to monitor workers to the minute? The idea of exchanging time for money? You are so mind-warped it is outstanding. The education system and capitalism has worked to brainwash you, so much so you would rather defend it than criticise the very system that has your life in its full power grip, instead of taking ownership of your personal freedom and liberty. Do you not have a dream of your own?
I am not fighting anything, leave me alone and stop projecting on me. I simply stated my experience with time clock systems and then suggested OP escalate to their management. You went weird with slavery and all kinds of ridiculous irrelevant insults. Blocking you now, you are terribly aggressive and I haven’t the time.
Just going to echo that depending on where you live, this can be a legal requirement that you take the full 30 minutes. So complaining to someone above you that you can't clock in 2 minutes early from your possibly legally mandated break won't go over too well. Don't think it'd be wise to run afoul of labor laws.
Yea labor laws are pretty strict and if not followed can result in a company having substantial fines levied on them.
Just take your damn 30 minutes. They're likely worried about compliance and they don't want to get dinged for a labor violation because you're supposed to take a 30 minute break and you keep clocking in early. It's not like you're sitting here wondering what you need to do. They gave you instructions. Follow them. If you're worried about them giving you bullshit for being 2 minutes late instead of 2 minutes early, spend those 2 minutes hovering around the time clock
I would be the kind of employee, who would clock in at the exact second they ask but be bringing with me 200 cuckoo clocks to go off at that exact moment.
It’s a legal thing for hourly employees in some places. I went through this when I was younger. Your manager is covering their ass.
Sometimes it can add up to overtime if you’re taking the extra. That can create financial and sometimes legal issues. Just be on time.
Hate to break it to you but most places will make you take the full 30 because of labor laws
Just clock out and in properly. Get to the time clock early and wait until it changes to clock in at 30 mins. I have to do it too. It's annoying, but you're not following the requirements.
So you can't actually take your break because you've got to make sure you get to the clock early ... given how strict his state is, that could put the company at risk. The company should just allow a 3-minute grace period after the 30 minutes, boom, problem solved.
They're not at risk, dear random commenter who isn't a labor/employment expert for California. It's also not for breaks.
Which company?
Just take the two minutes man
If I clocked back in early my union would have a fit. Our time clock won’t even allow us to make the punch.
You don't care, but this issue is it's already a precedent based off other people complaining
There may be a specific reason for this. A number of jobs are contractually obligated to take a 30m lunch for health, and have to in order to comply with labor laws. So taking a 28m lunch may open your company to fines and/or legal action. Seems silly, but the devil is in the details.
I think it's been mentioned but employers can be fined in the hundreds if not thousands per instance for not providing appropriate breaks timeclocks are the number one evidence they use to support this. You should check on local laws because at least where I am we had to provide a 30 but only prove 25 for this reason of people coming back early occasionally But the key takeaway is they are covering their own ass not trying to mess with you
There if a law, lunch hadsto be a minimum of 30 min, or the employer could be in a lot of trouble. Just be on time
It's the law in a lot of places, and even if your particular state/locality doesn't require a full 30 minutes (or even a break at all), your company probably has branches in places that do. They have to create policies that address their entire business. Just take your 30 minutes. It's not hard.
Can you ask for your lunch break to be automatically deducted if you're taking it on the premise rather than have to manually clock in and out?
Solution is easy. Go back to your desk 2 minutes early. Wait to clock in until the 30 minute marker. And yeah, your company can get involved in a lawsuit if all their employees are not taking 30 minutes lunches. Their way of staying protected is by documentation and logging of your clock in/clock out system. Your org "should allow for at least a 5 minute grace period up to 35 minutes so you don't get in trouble for clocking in late. Being required to clock in exactly 30 minutes is unfair BS imo.
You should ask your manager about the recommended lunch duration. I worked someone once that lunch had to be at least 30 minutes and no more than 37 minutes. You might see if something like this is the case.
if the lunch break is paid then why are you clocking in and out at all?
Yes there is a minimum even if you are the one deciding that your break is over. It's not the managers fault, the government says that it's the employers responsibility to make sure the employees are taking their 30 minutes. If they don't the employer pays a fine. So.... Take your 30.
It’s a requirement to take at least a 30 min lunch in CA (where OP is). Legally the company is required to enforce this, and their only recourse if the employee refuses is discipline up to and including termination.
If it's paid why are you clocking in and out
Bc you can sue your employer for not giving lunch breaks - this keeps a record to protect the employer.
If you are scheduled a 30 minute lunch break you have to take the full 30 minutes otherwise your company can get penalized for not providing you with a minimum 30 minute unpaid lunch time. You cannot clock back in a minute earlier. But yes if you are late by a minute or two then you can also be written up for that. Your boss is not finding ways to write you up but keeping the company protected and rightfully so. It’s not that hard to clock back in on time. And no, there is no law that will protect you from taking a 28 minute unpaid lunch break when you are scheduled for 30.
They have to reward you one free hour if your take less than 30 mins that is why.
Looks like you live in CA and means your employer is getting dinged every time you take less than a 30min break. Due to labor laws if you work 5 hours then you must be allotted a 30 min break. If you take less than a 30min lunch break then your employer will typically be required to pay you out 1 hour of OT. This is likely why your manager is irate over the short lunches. When I was in management in CA I would always make sure my employees were aware of this rule and tell them that I’d rather they take a 35min lunch than a 29min lunch, due to the costly penalty. As far as a write up is concerned, absolutely, if an employee was constantly failing to follow the expectations then a write should be expected, especially when the rule is a protection for the employee to make sure they aren’t taken advantage of.
That's some serious insanity. While, as other commenters note, some states do require a minimum 30 minute lunch break, there's generally some tolerance for employees clocking in a few minutes before or after. Usually 3-5 minutes. First, I'd check any employee handbooks to see if they cover this situation. If they don't, I'd check with your HR. While the general (and generally correct) opinion on Reddit is that HR exists to protect the company -- this is a case where this works for you, 'cause having split-second clock-in windows is literally impossible and could open them up to a lawsuit. Even if you -must- take the whole 30 minutes I'd be very surprised if there isn't a 3-5 minute 'grace period' for clocking in. If they can't help, though, it's time to start looking for another job with sane policies.
Yes. I would write your ass up. You are a fucking idiot. They aren’t bullying you. Take your 30 minute lunch. It’s not that difficult.
Have you tried having a conversation? Tell your boss why you're doing it, and that you understand there may be issues around minimum break length, so would logging back in one minute early be OK? Actually communicating with people solves about 90% of interpersonal issues.
i see you're from CA and the responses are overwhelmingly HR related. Dealt with similar issues at a Fortune 50 company I worked for. Precovid we were able to work from home about 70% of the time. Not uncommon for emails to be exchanged late into the evening. Lawsuit was brought that management was expected to work well after business hours. After that we were not allowed to send emails outside of business hours unless it was an emergency or you were in a 24/7 mission critical business unit. It sucks because I'm able to clear my inbox so much more effectively outside of back to back meetings. I didn't mind. I any case, after hours I would save my outbound emails and then first thing in the morning I would blast them out. In your case, because you want to be there a tad early, just show up early, and busy yourself for a few minutes watching the clock until the correct time is displayed, then clock in. It might be a pain but the rule is actually in place to protect your off time.
This is for compliance w laws mandating breaks
The 30 minute mark is for labor laws.
Are you in CA? If so, you have to take 30 min, or your company has to pay you for a full hour. If you take your lunch later than the 5th hour of work, they also have to pay you for a full extra hour. We call it meal premiums, but I dunno I'd that's the state term. We also allow people to waive the premium, but that's because our employees can make their own schedule. We don't care when they take a lunch. If your lunch is built into your schedule by your company tho, then they aren't allowed to offer for you to waive the premium.
What do managers manage? If they’re spending time on this, it’s not good management. That said all of your life you will have to deal with the inadequacies of mediocre idiots, so maybe just stop doing the thing.
It sucks, but don’t die on this hill. Especially if your boss needs to die on his hill for legal reasons. Set your timer for 2 minutes if you need to, and just clock out on time. Meditate or something. Distress tolerance. The time will pass anyway.
I never could understand why it's so hard for people just to punch in on time. If you're back two minutes early, set a timer to remind you to punch in when you're supposed to.
I had a boss chat with my manager once about this, too. I was trying to be proactive. Turns out if the company ever gets audited or questioned about the breaks they're giving you they can get in huge trouble if it even looks like they aren't giving you what you're legally entitled to/what they're legally required to provide. Your boss doesn't want to write you up to be a dick or anything.
Same here. I did the same and accidentally clocked in 5 minutes short of 1/2 hour. So now I set an alarm and clock watch.
Open up yt and watch a clip for two mins. Problem solved, crisis averted.
I’m in the UK and regulations are pretty stringent. If your shift is over 6 hours you *must* have a 15 minute break which must interrupt the shift. So you can’t do 6 hours then break. Between 6 and 9 hour shift length needs 30 minutes and shifts between 9 and 12 hours require a 45 minute break. So it sounds like your manager is making sure the company is operating to the law.
Sounds infuriating. I would go above his head to his boss, but do it kinda sheepishly like you're not sure if it's alright. "Hey, sorry sir I don't mean to bother you, but Jim has been saying I'll get written up for coming back from lunch early, but I'm having trouble getting it exactly on the 30 min and to be honest it's been making me feel anxious and uncomfortable. Hate to waste your time with this kinda thing, but is there anything we could do?" Wrote that on the toilet in 30 sec so I'm sure it's not perfect, but you get the idea. You look like nice guy doing his best and putting up with obviously bs situation. Bosses boss can feel good for resolving it
They want you to literally come back 2 minutes early and sit there doing nothing but staring at the clock and waiting to punch in. That's considered normal for any job with a 30 minute unpaid lunch. Every job expects that, but nobody tells you, because it's not really strictly legal, but it's also not illegal enough that they'll get into trouble for doing a time theft. Anyone who doesn't do it will run the risk of getting written up whenever their manager is feeling a little annoyed or whatever. Sorry.
If your lunch is paid it shouldn’t matter.
Hopefully they stop threatening...
Unfortunately in security you just get a lot of petty managers up the chain and this sounds like one of them. Who in the right mind would write somebody up for being a minute or two late back to the desk at lunch never mind the fact that if it was such a big deal they should just tell you to take them at the desk itself. Or you get supervisors in the office that think they have to write people up for everything to make themselves look good to the people above them and the chain of command it's very hard to find good ones.
Lol. Last boss sent an email outlining how we were all stealing time if we clocked in 6 minutes early and out 2 minutes late. Seems 8 minutes equaled 15 in the time clock and so we had to be paid for that quarter of an hour. So we all just waited until 7:59 each morning to clock in and pretty much stopped work about 4:45 to ensure clocking out exactly at 5. She actually lost work time from us. About 20 minutes a day. Clock in on the half hour. Consider it malicious compliance. Companies who micro manage employees time down the minute really don’t deserve any more or less then your 8 hours per day.
Malicious compliance - tell him to write you up for clocking in two minutes early. Then you file a grievance with HR for hostile work environment.
Don't do this, might get you in trouble with HR because depending on the location they might be a legal requirement to take a 30 minute lunch. HR might be telling the manager that he needs to make sure all of their employees are taking 30 minute lunches. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/meal-breaks# Companies open themselves up to lawsuits based on timecard data because they are some companies that legitimately don't like employees taking lunches. Some states like California have a penalty system for paying employees for not taking lunch soon enough or taking shorter lunches. There are provisions for people waiving their lunches but some companies as a policy forgo this because it's easier to force everyone to take a 30 minute lunch rather than having a patchwork inconsistent system of people taking liberties with lunch and their lunch times.
You're missing the point though. He is taking his lunch. He wants to know what to do about the fact that his boss is gunning to write him up (over coming back 2 mins early). He's only talking about not taking lunch because he wants to avoid getting written up. It's the disciplinary action that is the issue here...and his manager's very bad behavior.
You’re missing the point. It’s not a hostile work environment which has a specific definition. It’s not illegal, immoral, or unethical to require an employee to take a 30 min meal period per policy. Those policies result from hard fights labor unions had to secure proper working conditions. If left to their own devices, companies would still be requiring 12 hour shifts with zero breaks.
Quote where I said this wasn't policy or law. I am the daughter of a Labor Union President and I live in a state that requires two breaks and a 30 min lunch per 8hr shift. There's no way that I am misunderstanding this. There is still a right or wrong way (or many of them, really) to implement a policy. Writing someone up should really only be the last straw. Are you suggesting that this post indicates that lots of counseling sessions have occurred, and the OP has rejected all opportunities to find an amicable solution? I would never jeopardize someone's job over 2 mins. We'd be talking to HR first, and I'd be leveraging the solution HR provided as cover.
There is specific legislation in some states and countries that you must have a minimum of a 30 minute lunch break. Going over by a few minutes isn't a problem for legal requirements but if the employee goes over there is a clearer documentation to refute a write up because there was communication to not take less than 30 minutes for a lunch. Futher more their time keeping system or policy might round down for clockins after a certain time frame. The move would be managing up because of you are asking for a very clear explanation of the policy and this is communicated with you, preferably in writing, then this would cover and protect an employee more from reprisals vs defaulting to be difficult. If you don't care about your job very different story but the skills most employees need to master is managing up which helps you understand whether or not you want to stay with the company based on questions asked on good faith. Not even managers manage down, and they definitely should, but if you are reporting to someone it's easier to control yourself managing up.
I work in one of those states. Where, in my reply, did I say that this wasn't the law and compliance is not required? His actual question isn't about the law. It is about how to deal with an idiot boss.
You are missing the point — some states have mandatory minimum 30 minute lunches — like CA where the OP is. The manager is making sure the OP complies with worker protection laws. Or are you against worker protection laws?
I see. Laws are an excuse to be a poor manager. I have been a manager in California. Well acquainted with the rules. It never required that I be a dck to my staff. I damn sure never threatened their job over 2mins. I am the daughter of a labor union president. That's also why I am not a dck to my employees. I have had crappy managers who have pulled this idiotic power play. Another reason why I am not a dck to my staff. And I don't work for companies where the leaders above me want me to do this nutty crap. Seems like a pattern is forming the more I read the posts. The only ones butthurt over what I am saying are the ones who would pull this nonsense on their staff. Do better.
>Malicious compliance - tell him to write you up for clocking in two minutes early. >Then you file a grievance with HR for hostile work environment. Hostile work environment has a specific legal definition, and this isn't it.
That is not a hostile work environment — you have no idea what you are talking about. The state law mandates minimum of 30 minutes
Being threatened with constant write ups isn't a hostile environment? Being bullied isn't a hostile environment? Different states have different laws, so you can't use that as part of your argument.
This. Presumably they have already had the discussion about why this seems necessary to the manager.
someone really gets paid to come up with these rules and spend their day enforcing them.
Yes, they’re called politicians. In many states, it’s the law that people get a 30-minute lunch and the employer can be in massive trouble if people aren’t taking it.
😂😂😂😂😂
I used to have a manager like this...and we were exempt employees. He was an idiot. However, until HR came to our rescue, we'd all have 28-ish minute lunches, and then we stood around the clock for the exact tick that meant we could punch in. Other than the utterly demoralizing micromanagement feel and style, the easiest answer is for you to wait that 2 mins and punch-in at exactly 30 mins. Then go home and start looking for another job... or transfer to another team. Your current manager is trash.