Patterico's Pontifications

12/23/2005

No Lunch Break for You!

Filed under: Law — Patterico @ 8:52 am



After reading this, I feel impelled to say: I work through lunch all the time. How many million is that worth?

15 Responses to “No Lunch Break for You!”

  1. More judicial looting of corporations — socialism acting out in the legal realm. Class actions for real injury are one thing, but $172 million for normal business practice, found actionable ex post facto?

    This can’t go on. God help these opportunistic attorneys if someone figures out how to file a class action against them! Jillions, I tell you!

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 12/23/2005 @ 9:13 am

  2. [snark]

    How dare those filthy peons ask for their little “lunch break!” To the stocks with the lot of them!

    [/snark]

    Tillman (1cf529) — 12/23/2005 @ 9:24 am

  3. In my industry (ready mixed concrete production), the business cycle doesn’t stop for lunch. I can eat while I work (and even, occassionally, comment on Patterico), but there’s no shutting down the plant for thirty minutes so I can eat.

    Dana (3e4784) — 12/23/2005 @ 9:56 am

  4. We as a society and as lawyers in particular spend a lot of time considering how our legal system has changed and we end up with verdicts like the McDonald’s coffee case or this case. But at some point I think verdicts like this are a reflection of a significant change in the basic educational and common sense levels of our jury pools.

    As a bankruptcy attorney, I see people who are in financial distress. It amazes me how many of them (maybe 1-2%) actually believe that the answer to their financial problems is winning the lottery. A larger percentage of people I see (15-25%) have very little financial knowledge and don’t understand things like interest and collateral. Probably half or more have never made a budget and don’t come close to living on a budget. Of course, I am seeing an unusual subset of people, but I suspect they make up an inordinate amount of the jury pools in our courts.

    DRJ (15ed57) — 12/23/2005 @ 11:53 am

  5. Well, winning the lottery would certainly be the answer to my financial problems! 🙂

    Dana (a9eb8b) — 12/23/2005 @ 5:23 pm

  6. The day I feel sorry for WalMart … . Has there ever been an enterprise more exploitative of its workers? Or one more predatory against its competitors and customers? I do not shop at WalMart. They have nothing that I cannot find elsewhere with better quality and service. I will pay a little more somewhere else but, as an example, WalMart’s Chinese made $8.00 wrench is something I will be afraid to use whereas Sears’ American made $20.00 wrench will last a lifetime. I will be very happy to see WalMart go out of business. Or does anybody think that the Walton family actually uses the trash they sell?

    nk (57e995) — 12/23/2005 @ 7:09 pm

  7. It’s tough to drink a five-gallon jug of Tropicana on a half-hour lunch break.

    Pat Patterson (5b3946) — 12/23/2005 @ 9:03 pm

  8. I’m an hourly worker (Pressman for the Los Angeles Times) and often go without a lunch break. But, my company does allow us to go home early, if we finish printing our allotment of newspapers. Tonight we went home two hours early, and I was at home sipping on a beer while still on the clock.

    It’s a trade off, so sometimes we need to be flexible.

    Merry Christmas, can I say that here?

    Eddie

    Edward Padgett (c72f8b) — 12/23/2005 @ 10:03 pm

  9. nk wrote:

    The day I feel sorry for WalMart … . Has there ever been an enterprise more exploitative of its workers? Or one more predatory against its competitors and customers? I do not shop at WalMart. They have nothing that I cannot find elsewhere with better quality and service. I will pay a little more somewhere else but, as an example, WalMart’s Chinese made $8.00 wrench is something I will be afraid to use whereas Sears’ American made $20.00 wrench will last a lifetime. I will be very happy to see WalMart go out of business. Or does anybody think that the Walton family actually uses the trash they sell?

    Well, nk, maybe you’ll pay a little more for something somewhere else, but some people don’t have that little more to pay. The fact is that WalMart, by charging lower prices, contributes to greater real wealth for its shoppers.

    Something like 100,000,000 pass through the doors of WalMart stores every week. Apparently a lot of people don’t find WalMart such a bad place to shop.

    Dana (a071ac) — 12/24/2005 @ 6:34 am

  10. Lawsuits like the one mentioned in the article fall under the auspices of the law of unintended consequences.

    The government stepped in to make labor laws in the absence of good judgment of employers and managers. While many of the machines developed over the 20th century could work endlessly over 8, 10, 24 hours, etc., people could not. Those of us who have the luxury of sitting at a desk (including myself) can usually pace ourselves. For instance, it is not difficult for me to walk away from my desk for a few minutes when I get tired of working on something. People on assembly lines did not have the freedom to pick and choose break times. While I grant that the early unionization efforts had merit for trying to improve the health and safety of the workforce, I think the effort went too far, especially taking into account the socialist labor laws enacted by the federal government in that time.

    Labor laws in the U.S. tend to be very pro-labor (and not necessarily in a positive way). Regulations mandate two 15 minute breaks and at least a half-hour unpaid lunch for certain classes of hourly workers. These mandates take some operational control away from the employers and managers, especially considering the threat of fines for non-compliance. When the people in charge are not allowed to think independently, bad policies arise. For instance, at one time I worked at Home Depot in a management capacity. Managers had to monitor timecard reports carefully to ensure workers took a lunch break no later than 6 hours after clocking in. It did not matter whether or not the employee wanted to take a lunch at all, he must clock out for at least half an hour, or he could be punished.

    Of course, the big-box retailers have not done themselves many favors. They funded their growth plans with public offerings. Sometimes that is just short of making a deal with the devil. In order to maintain or improve shareholder value, the retailers must operate in a way that Wall Street believes will increase the stock value/price. A big part of the Wall Street success formula for a retailer involves expansion, expansion, expansion. Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and other retailers have expanded beyond their capability to hire and develop good managers. This leaves the stores vulnerable. The large number of locations also makes it difficult for responsible people to monitor the activities of the individual outlets.

    Of course, there are smart lawyers who recognized the vulnerabilities of the retailers. Home Depot got hit with a class action lawsuit claiming that the company discriminated against hiring women into management roles. (Frankly, the 70 plus hour work weeks in retail management can put a BIG damper on the concept of working and raising a family.) Wal-Mart is facing a similar law suit. The lawyers filing the suits are playing the lottery, but they have much better odds that buying a Powerball ticket. The retailers realize that they could spend a lot of money on these lawsuits and still lose. (Remember that the labor laws are not particularly favorable toward them.) They pay off the suits in a manner similar to extortion just because it is cheaper to do so.

    It is sad that the system is manipulated in this way. I do not think that a lawsuit like this improves the working environment for the hourly workers, nor does the money won in these suits truly enrich the workers. A big slice goes to the law firm, and a crumb goes to each of the class members.

    Steve (7d7719) — 12/24/2005 @ 8:37 am

  11. Great observations by Dana and Steve, et al. Unfortunately one of the major problems I’ve seen, at least in the airline industry, and which others in my family have observed even more so in retailing, is that many people end up in management who simply should not be there. Or at the very least they should be taught to be managers or mentored properly before assuming the role of a manager.

    It is often the case that one who is particularly skilled at his or her particular craft in their current position, ends up in management due to their demonstrated competence in their field and their seniority. There is nothing inherently wrong in promoting from within, it fact it’s a great way to treat your workers, but if at that point the “Peter Principle” takes effect then proglems inevitably follow. Neither they nor their subordinates end up very happy or professionally satsified.

    My argument would be that throughout American business today we are sorely in need of professional training and mentoring at all levels but arguably most accutely at the lower to middle management level. This “no lunch suit” is, in addition to a legal lottery (for the law firms), a symptom of poor management selection and training.

    Steve accurately makes the same observation with his comment:

    Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and other retailers have expanded beyond their capability to hire and develop good managers. This leaves the stores vulnerable.

    Steve could not be more correct. As a professional trainer, I would also argue that the same rapid expansion tends to result in self-defeating cuts in training even at the basic worker level, never mind the lower to mid management level. Combine this with a general lack of development of communications and “people skills” and the result is a foregone conclusion.

    Take a look at Costco if you want to see the opposite trend.

    [CEO Jim] Sinegal admits that “paying high wages [to his employees] is contrary to conventional wisdom.”

    And conventional wisdom in this case comes from Wall Street. Analysts seem to be the only critics of Costco and Sinegal. They think the company could make even more money if it paid its workers less — like Wal-Mart does.

    Sinegal is unfazed by his critics. “Wall Street is in the business of making money between now and next Tuesday,” he said. “We’re in the business of building an organization, an institution that we hope will be here 50 years from now. And paying good wages and keeping your people working with you is very good business.”

    What Sinegal has proven is that a company doesn’t have to be ruthless. Being humane and ethical can also make you money.

    I’m not willing to go quite so far as nk, but consider Costco – satisfied and enthusiastic employees, high wages and excellent management – what a concept.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 12/24/2005 @ 10:25 am

  12. I used to work regular 10- to 12-hour days at my old job at a local newspaper owned by the Dog Trainer. When we complained about it, we were told we needed to learn to organize our time better. But how do you organize a really long school board meeting, after reporting and writing two stories by 5 p.m., better? Of course I doubt they treat the downtown reporters this way.

    darleene (d4ceb1) — 12/26/2005 @ 10:42 pm

  13. DRJ, why are you blaming the jury for this? If the law says that when you work for more than six hours you are entitled to a meal break and if Walmart hasn’t been complying with the law naturally Walmart is going to lose.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 12/27/2005 @ 11:26 am

  14. …many people end up in management who simply should not be there.

    A fate I escaped, the one time there was a risk of it happening, with a combination of callow inexperience and dunderheaded incompetence that even the inexperienced and incompetent managers over me couldn’t ignore.

    McGehee (5664e1) — 12/28/2005 @ 7:29 am

  15. This is in response to the #4 post about going bankrupt. My husband and I have been married for over 36 years. We have never even bought a lottery ticket. Most of that time we have had our own business. Many times we put in long hours to barely make a living. When we were first married we built our first house ourselves and for almost 10 years we had our own construction business. But then the 18% interest rates on mortgages came in to effect. So we had to change to something new.

    We never bought big personal items with our credit cards but we always seemed to have something we needed to help the business we were trying to build. We were continously estimating if we sold or did this much we’d earn this amount. Sometimes we did but enough times we didn’t and so we started to get behind.

    We never wanted to go bankrupt but it finally got to the point where it was our last hope. Now after bankruptcy we are still struggling but we feel positive that something good will still happen for us.

    Faith (d3973a) — 1/10/2007 @ 4:39 pm


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0841 secs.