Say goodbye to breaks and lunch when working > 6 hours a day! Kentucky says just let the feds set the rules.

  • Mereo@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    4 months ago

    The United States workers need to copy the French! Unite and strike! Workers always have the power when they unite their forces.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      In the US the cops have a long history of killing striking workers.

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      The problem with that is the coordination, a general strike like is the flavor in europe requires a lot of prep and a lot of coordinating resources to keep everyone from losing their shirts during the struggle, imagine the problems trying to coordinate a general strike across the whole of Europe, sans language barriers for the most part, and you’ll begin to get a picture of what America’s working with on the labor solidarity front

    • honeybadger1417@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      77
      ·
      4 months ago

      I emailed my representative here in KY about this and his response was, “I don’t get lunch most days during Session.” JFC How about writing a bill to ensure representatives are allowed to take a lunch break, instead of supporting one that takes away everyone else’s right to one? What an asshole. By the way, his name is Daniel Fister, in case any other people stuck in this hellhole state want to look up his email address and let him know how you feel about how much of a twat he is.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        56
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I emailed my representative here in KY about this and his response was, “I don’t get lunch most days during Session.”

        Ask him how many bags of mulch, bags of cement mix, or flats of shingles he moves in an average day during session.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        In even-numbered years, sessions may not last more than 60 legislative days, and cannot extend beyond April 15. In odd-numbered years, sessions may not last more than 30 legislative days, and cannot extend beyond March 30.

        Wow the guy works a whole 30-60 days per year 🙄

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        4 months ago

        I emailed my representative here in KY about this and his response was, “I don’t get lunch most days during Session.”

        You’re also not doing physical labor out in the heat of the day.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      4 months ago

      The asshole who put forth the bill owns a landscaping company. His motivation is pretty clear.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      4 months ago

      If you’re not concerned about losing your job then you’d just quit once your boss takes away your lunch break.

      If you are concerned about losing your job (in debt, little savings, living paycheck to paycheck) you can’t risk playing games like this either. That’s why laws that protect employees are important: to prevent employers from taking advantage of the desperate.

  • gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    4 months ago

    Because republicans know they can do litterally anything and still get voted in as long as they shout “BUT THE WOKE” everyone now and then.

  • FarFarAway@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    4 months ago

    I feel like I spent to much time in the sun today…

    Why is nobody talking about this?

    It would also eliminate the need to pay time and a half overtime on the seventh consecutive day of work for people working at least 40 hours a week,

    Am I missing something here. Do these people get paid overtime if they work 7 days in a row, period, as long as they work 40 hours a week? Or does this mean if you work over 40 hours and 7 days in a row, you do not get your overtime pay for the 7th day, even if that puts you over 40 hours?

    While i understand many people dont work 7 days in a row, I’m unclear as to why eliminating overtime pay, in any capacity, isn’t a bigger part of this story. I understand breaks are important and it’s not right to take that away, for various reasons, but to eliminate any form of overtime pay is also a big WTF. Idk, this isn’t a thing in my state

    And then there’s this:

    The bill, if it becomes law, would require employers to pay workers while they are eating instead of giving them a break.

    Are they supposed to eat their sandwich while working? The break is only as long as the employee is actively eating? If there’s no break, how are they eating, at all?

    Idk. Not like its unusual for me to be dense, but these things really make no sense to me.

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      As to that second point, if it means that the employer has to pay during a lunch break (which is how it should be), then I’m all for it.

      The 8 hrs working plus unpaid lunch way we do it is bullshit.

      • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Y’all are reading into that too much. We have a similar clause in Texas, which is virtually our only protection in regards to breaks. To simplify: they are saying that if the employee is eating AND working, then you have to pay them. I’m not sure how they are wording it in Kentucky but here it’s along the lines of “you don’t have to give the peasants a break, but if you do and it is unpaid then it is illegal to request that they work”.

        It sounds stupid because they are literally saying “if you don’t pay them they can’t be forced to work”, but I’m really glad that protection is there or guarantee it would be abused even more than it likely already is.

        The practical effect is everyone just gets an unpaid lunch because asking people to work 8 hours with no break is ridiculous.

      • FarFarAway@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Yeah i always thought that was stupid. If thats what it means, I wonder if that means it will count towards the 8 hours you actually work? I wonder if companies would want to pay people for the extra hour vs losing an hour of productivity.

        Trading off breaks for going home an hour “early” actually sounds like an interesting proposition for office workers, for people that work outside or in a factory, not so much.

        • Cort@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          I think it’s saying: you don’t have to give your employees a lunch break, but if you do you have to pay them while they’re on break. To me it sounds like a way to convince all employers in the state to not give lunch breaks since they have to now pay employees during lunch.

  • wavebeam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 months ago

    I got my first job at a pizza place at the age of 15. On my first day, the owner really stressed to me that the law says i had to have breaks, but that they were from laws written for factory workers who couldn’t leave their post to go to the bathroom any time, so it’s okay if they don’t follow exact timelines for my breaks because i could use the bathroom outside of the break time.

    Fuck that guy.

  • credo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    eliminating work break rights rings

    I don’t know why it took me three read-throughs to understand that.

  • Twisted_Alien@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    Pennsylvania is the same. Employers are not legally required to give breaks during the work day but I’ve never worked or heard of anyone working that didn’t get a break.

  • bartolomeo@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    House Bill 500 would repeal current state legislation that requires employers to allow workers a lunch break for every three to five hours of work completed. The bill, if it becomes law, would require employers to pay workers while they are eating instead of giving them a break.

    I don’t get it, it is a paid lunch break or eat while you work? Or are those considered the same thing?

    • Killer_Tree@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      It sounds like lunch may be paid, but the time isn’t mandated. Waiting for a new lot to roll in? Scarf down a sandwich in 7 minutes, get paid for it, and get yer arse back on the line, peasant. You can eat your chips while bolting together widgets. (I have no idea, just a guess.)