No, it isn't because you are getting the lunch break within your 8 hour block. Running lunches first for openers is a pretty standard practice.
mpk10122 points3y ago
Okay, I understand that.
... but why is it that when I go 5 hours without a meal in the beginning of my shift I meal violate? But if I go 5 hours at the end of my shift I don’t? Just wondering lol
thatsmysharpie6 points3y ago
Because the rule is a meal taken before your fifth hour, not a lunch break every five hours, unless you’re working a 10+ hour shift.
It confused me because I’ve gotten in trouble for breaking my fifth on the back half of my shift when I worked for other companies, but that’s how my manager explained it to me.
[deleted] [OP]1 points3y ago
[deleted]
DavidXO9091 points3y ago
You’re gonna get ot past the 8 hours. I think you get another lunch at 12 hours I think
mpk10122 points3y ago
Interesting...
[deleted] [OP]1 points3y ago
[deleted]
DavidXO9093 points3y ago
So with ur lunch, anything past 8 and a half hours should be time and a half
colonade172 points3y ago
Not a violation. The requirement is that you get a meal at some point during your shift, CA law doesn't say much about when that meal must take place. Starbucks policy is less strict than CA law so CA law governs.
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large- scale community websites for the good of humanity. Without ads, without tracking, without greed.