PDA

View Full Version : Required breaks?


CSRA Landscaping
05-15-2003, 11:11 AM
What am I, as an employer, required to provide in the way of breaks for a full day's work?

crawdad
05-15-2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by CSRA Landscaping
What am I, as an employer, required to provide in the way of breaks for a full day's work?
Just tell them boys, "I gave you a break when I hired you!"
Crawdad

CSRA Landscaping
05-15-2003, 04:01 PM
Hehe ... I actually did some more digging and found what I was looking for. Here's (http://hr.sc.edu/hr/wrkghrs.htm) the link.

Green in Idaho
05-15-2003, 04:14 PM
Nice.

Keep in mind that reference is about the FLSA a federal law saying breaks are not required. Your state may have a specific law about it more strict than the federal laws.

Seek your State Dept of Labor.

rodfather
05-15-2003, 05:32 PM
BREAK???

What the hell is a break? There will be plenty of time to rest once winter comes around. But only a little time cause then it's time to put on the plows.:D

drobson
05-15-2003, 10:29 PM
I agree, check with your state.

In MA the employer is required to give a 15 minute paid break for any employee working over I think 3 1/2 hours.

It's also required to give 2 15 minute paid breaks for anyone working over 7 1/2 hours.

And a 30 minute unpaid lunch for anyone working over 6 1/2 hours.

These state laws over ride the federal laws and you can get into deep #%$^ with the State Dept of Labor if there are any complaints about not following them.

One more: If you call in an employee when they are not scheduled to work, you have to pay them a minimum of 3 hours, even if they only work for 15 minutes.

LAWNGODFATHER
05-15-2003, 11:13 PM
I thought federal superseded state?

Here in MO every 4 hours 15 min they get a 15 minute break, but I don't fall under that.

Also if working more than 7 hours they are require to have a paid/unpaid 1/2 hour lunch break.

drobson
05-15-2003, 11:40 PM
LGF, I believe it is state that over rides the federal, but only if the state rules are tougher. As with most things, MA is tougher than the federal laws.

I will check this out to make sure, but at my "other" job we have run into this because we have offices in more than one state and have had to amend company policy on things when we have opened other offices or bought out other companies.

For instance, we purchased a company in CA. We had to change a bunch of payroll and benefit policies of our office in MA because the CA state laws were tougher. Of course we didn't have to, but in order to keep the entire company with the same policies we had to adopt some from another state. And of course the federal laws were much more lenient.

But again, I want to double check to make sure I have not completely messed up my point....

LAWNGODFATHER
05-16-2003, 12:25 AM
Actually I think you are supposed to go with the tougher of the 2.

Got Grass?
05-16-2003, 03:02 PM
I thought federal superseded state?
Yes, Federal law must be followed by all states. but a state may add onto federal law making it stronger.

The same thing down the chain. Federal, state, county, city/town.

Example (not reality but eventually may be:) ): County law states you cannot smoke unless there is a separate enclosed smoking section. The state makes a law stating you cannot smoke in any restaurant or bar. The county must adapt it's self to follow that law.
The county could add on to the law making it illegal to smoke in all county parks. Then the town can come in & bans smoking anywhere in the entire town.

All tho it would be legal in the state to smoke, it would still be illegal in the town & you would be paying that damn fine.

Thank god that day isnt here.... :dizzy:

A law may have an opt in clause, such as the neighborhood nodification law for pesticides in the state. Or various other laws that usually come with extra $ for the countys that opt in. or can take away funding for ones that dont. Such as the federal speed or dwi limit. If a state chooses not to opt in they loose major federal funding so most places choose to opt in even tho some specific lawd may not be "required" to follow.

Got Grass?
05-16-2003, 03:16 PM
Of course that is only if the lower jurisdiction law does not take away federal constitutional rights such as the right to bear arms.
A lower jurisdiction may make it illegal to actually discharge a firearm tho.
Simply because a jurisdiction may have laws down in code you must still follow state laws. Such as a county may not have murder written down being illegal in their laws it is still illegal & you will follow the consequences of the state & possibly be put to death.

Bad examples but I think you get the point.