NationStates Jolt Archive

So today, I got into a battle with my manager about breaks. I am a bartender at a chain restaurant. Corporate policy dictates that the bartender must be behind the bar at all times. Corporate also forbids eating in view of customers, meaning I can't have food behind the bar.

I am usually scheduled from 10:45 untill 5 or 5:30, but usually cannot clock out untill 6 or 7 due to the time it takes to swap over. This means I am working a minimum of 6.25 hours, but usually more.

According to MA law, you must get a half hour meal break after 6 hours of work.

So I was in back, stuffing down a meal. The bar manager came up and snarkily asked "Who's watching the bar". I get asked that every time I eat. I can see the bar from where I am sitting, and (as usual) answered "I am. I can see it from here.". Today, she said "That isn't good enough". Battle ensues, where I finally say "Fuck it then. I'm eating at the bar and if I get yelled at for that, find a new bartender." The general manager heard this. He came up and talked to me, agreeing that I should have time to eat, saying I could take about 10 minutes and that would be fine (still doesn't comply with the law, but it's better than nothing).

So...how does your place of work handle meal breaks? Does your state or federal government require that you get a break? Should they? Is it unfair to expect a person to go 6+ hours without any sort of break or meal? Should Sarky continue to tell his manager it isn't his fault she Can't Understand Normal Thinking?

So...how does your place of work handle meal breaks?

Being a sound techie, it's totally up to my discretion. Obviously it's not a good idea to do it in the middle of a sound check or something, but there are no set rules.

Thank you for not threatening to aid in the enforcement of an unjust and illegitimate law that your employer is under no proper obligation to obey.

Thank you for not threatening to aid in the enforcement of an unjust and illegitimate law that your employer is under no proper obligation to obey.

I'm interested, how do you differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate laws?

I'm interested, how do you differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate laws?

if it equals A.

Thank you for not threatening to aid in the enforcement of an unjust and illegitimate law that your employer is under no proper obligation to obey.

Huh?

if it equals A.

Ah, I see I haven't familiarised myself adequately with etc... :p

eh, i'm at a desk all day doing web development and DTP/graphic stuff at a small company. i tend to eat at said desk. technically we have an hour, but i usually take more like 10 or 20 minutes to go get my lunch, and work while i eat it. we're relaxed enough that that means i can come in/leave 40 minutes late/early, which is more important to me than a lunch break.

when i was at mcdonald's they insisted we had our food breaks every 6 hours (iirc), on the dot. i would always say i'd have something that wasn't already made in the hot bin, meaning i'd have to make my own burger... which (if the manager wasn't watching) would usually be a quadruple decker, dozen slices of cheese, bacon, and anything else i could squeeze on, monstrosity :p

Thank you for not threatening to aid in the enforcement of an unjust and illegitimate law that your employer is under no proper obligation to obey.

yeah...why should my employers be legally obligated to treat me like a fucking person. How dare I demand something so outrageous as a meal every fucking 6 hours. God I'm needy and demanding.

I'm interested, how do you differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate laws?

Just type some random shit and include the word 'legitimate' in it somewhere, no matter whether the context can support it. If you accidentally manage to type il- before it, you're discussing an illegitimate law, if not - it's a legitimate one.

normally the bar manager should fill in for you for 10-15 minutes so you can eat. sounds like he is slacking off in his job and not rotating his guys out. also if you take a 15 minute break you've only performed 6 hours of work and not required to be given 30 minutes.

I own a bar and can tell you that the place you work for is bullshit. They should be giving you breaks following the law. I have a semi-large bar so its not a big deal to have one go on break as we have two bartenders at a time most nights. Thurs- Sat its three or more. If it is during the day when only one is scheduled the manager gives the bartender a break. Hell if im around I will even step in and take care of things for a bit. People have to have their breaks. What the hell is your employer thinking?

when i was at mcdonald's they insisted we had our food breaks every 6 hours (iirc), on the dot. i would always say i'd have something that wasn't already made in the hot bin, meaning i'd have to make my own burger... which (if the manager wasn't watching) would usually be a quadruple decker, dozen slices of cheese, bacon, and anything else i could squeeze on, monstrosity :p

I fired two cooks that thought it was ok to abuse the 1 meal on the house rule by cooking steaks for themselves every day. The one meal on the house came from a specific menu in order to keep employee meal costs down. It didn't include steak....

people out here with no job and hence no break and you bitching about your job that has breaks.

never mind us .. we'll be moving along.



I was kidding.. somewhat. I know Sar meant no harm. *still pissed*

people out here with no job and hence no break and you bitching about your job that has breaks.

never mind us .. we'll be moving along.



I was kidding.. somewhat. I know Sar meant no harm. *still pissed*

I know employers out there are using the sad job market to milk their employees. I don't personally think its right. I always figure happy employees are more productive. Breaks are a big part of the work day. Gives employees time to make phone calls, eat and relax.

I own a bar and can tell you that the place you work for is bullshit. They should be giving you breaks following the law. I have a semi-large bar so its not a big deal to have one go on break as we have two bartenders at a time most nights. Thurs- Sat its three or more. If it is during the day when only one is scheduled the manager gives the bartender a break. Hell if im around I will even step in and take care of things for a bit. People have to have their breaks. What the hell is your employer thinking?

the general manager did take his side. sounds to me like the bar manger was trying to avoid his duties.

the general manager did take his side. sounds to me like the bar manger was trying to avoid his duties.

He did and he didn't. He was still cutting short the break time. Which is not a good idea in my book.

I know employers out there are using the sad job market to milk their employees. I don't personally think its right. I always figure happy employees are more productive. Breaks are a big part of the work day. Gives employees time to make phone calls, eat and relax.


Ofcourse. I was jut being poe'd for the under employed and non empolyed.

He did and he didn't. He was still cutting short the break time. Which is not a good idea in my book.

only by 5 minutes and i have a feeling that's tied more into tell them ten they will take 15 mentality.

I'm interested, how do you differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate laws?

Let L stand for legitimacy and E for the ethical soundness of the law.

The equation we get then is: L=k/E.

Therefore, the legitimacy is inversely proportional to the ethical soundness of the law, provided k≠0.

As for greed and death he'd rather jump country every year or two to avoid paying a tax. He's not thrifty.. and he goes beyond tight. He's just flat out greedy.

As for greed and death he'd rather jump country every year or two to avoid paying a tax. He's not thrifty.. and he goes beyond tight. He's just flat out greedy.

If I make enough that i can afford hiding it in the Swiss banks I might sty in one place. but yeah I don't think I have ever denied my nature.

If I make enough that i can afford hiding it in the Swiss banks I might sty in one place. but yeah I don't think I have ever denied my nature.


never said you denied it.

If I make enough that i can afford hiding it in the Swiss banks I might sty in one place. but yeah I don't think I have ever denied my nature.

You are young ..and you have limited knowlege of tax codes (who doesnt tho? it's by all accounts fucking screwed for everyone)... unless you get your shit together , you aint going no where .. you will get served. If you aren't a big time money holder you gonna get served. You best take easy street and avoid pissing off the IRS.

You are young ..and you have limited knowlege of tax codes (who doesnt tho? it's by all accounts fucking screwed for everyone)... unless you get your shit together , you aint going no where .. you will get served. If you aren't a big time money holder you gonna get served. You best take easy street and avoid pissing off the IRS.

which is why i said If i can make enough. the swiss to help you evade Taxes for free now do they. Its a cost benefit ratio. if Taxes cost X and hiding the income cost Y then I should only hide the income if Y<X and maybe multiply Y by the chance of getting caught.

Remind your employer of that scene where Charlton Heston feeds the wretched slaves of Egypt and they manage to build the pyramids or something in half the time.

Most places I have worked have strict rules for the 15 min break per 3hrs and half hour lunches per 6hrs. Simply because it would be more hassle to deal with lawsuits, I imagine. The place I work now is on split shift, so it usually isn't an issue, though if it is, we tack time for missed breaks and lunches onto the end of the time we actually work.

So today, I got into a battle with my manager about breaks. I am a bartender at a chain restaurant. Corporate policy dictates that the bartender must be behind the bar at all times. Corporate also forbids eating in view of customers, meaning I can't have food behind the bar.

I am usually scheduled from 10:45 untill 5 or 5:30, but usually cannot clock out untill 6 or 7 due to the time it takes to swap over. This means I am working a minimum of 6.25 hours, but usually more.

According to MA law, you must get a half hour meal break after 6 hours of work.

So I was in back, stuffing down a meal. The bar manager came up and snarkily asked "Who's watching the bar". I get asked that every time I eat. I can see the bar from where I am sitting, and (as usual) answered "I am. I can see it from here.". Today, she said "That isn't good enough". Battle ensues, where I finally say "Fuck it then. I'm eating at the bar and if I get yelled at for that, find a new bartender." The general manager heard this. He came up and talked to me, agreeing that I should have time to eat, saying I could take about 10 minutes and that would be fine (still doesn't comply with the law, but it's better than nothing).

So...how does your place of work handle meal breaks? Does your state or federal government require that you get a break? Should they? Is it unfair to expect a person to go 6+ hours without any sort of break or meal? Should Sarky continue to tell his manager it isn't his fault she Can't Understand Normal Thinking?

I work at fuckin Burger King in Omaha, Nebraska and get better breaks than you. You're getting screwed.

Now that the general manager did [a portion of] the right thing and stated in front of the bar manager that you are allowed to take a break to eat, you should make a rule of doing so, so you won't have that fight again. It is the law, and it is your right, so fuck the bar manager who is too much of an asshole to cover for the employee for a few minutes. That's just bullshit.

And I feel your pain. When I get work at all, I'm an office worker. That's a minimum 7 hour day -- 8 hours minus lunch and breaks. Many employers try to pad it out to a full 8 hours on the clock by making me come in earlier and/or leave later to "make up for" my lunch. And a lot more employers actually try to bully me into not taking lunch at all. I'm surprised their idea of a "coffee break" isn't to give me a coffee can to piss in under my desk, too. (very obscure tv reference) Some employers -- true princes/princesses among human beings -- make me come in at 8:30 and leave at 5:30 or later AND try to pressure me into not taking a lunch break, too -- a good 9 - 10 hours of non-stop work, for which they only pay for 7 if I'm salaried -- because that unpaid lunch break every day is factored into the salary, even if I don't take the break.

Gods, I hate people. Penny-pinching, nickel-and-dime bullshit scum.

Now that the general manager did [a portion of] the right thing and stated in front of the bar manager that you are allowed to take a break to eat, you should make a rule of doing so, so you won't have that fight again. It is the law, and it is your right, so fuck the bar manager who is too much of an asshole to cover for the employee for a few minutes. That's just bullshit.

And I feel your pain. When I get work at all, I'm an office worker. That's a minimum 7 hour day -- 8 hours minus lunch and breaks. Many employers try to pad it out to a full 8 hours on the clock by making me come in earlier and/or leave later to "make up for" my lunch. And a lot more employers actually try to bully me into not taking lunch at all. I'm surprised their idea of a "coffee break" isn't to give me a coffee can to piss in under my desk, too. (very obscure tv reference) Some employers -- true princes/princesses among human beings -- make me come in at 8:30 and leave at 5:30 or later AND try to pressure me into not taking a lunch break, too -- a good 9 - 10 hours of non-stop work, for which they only pay for 7 if I'm salaried -- because that unpaid lunch break every day is factored into the salary, even if I don't take the break.

Gods, I hate people. Penny-pinching, nickel-and-dime bullshit scum.


I like these ideas.

I like these ideas.
Which ideas? The ones about Sarkhaan standing up for his rights now that he's been given leverage by the general manager? Or the ones about what scumsucking pisswits most white collar employers are (miserable little turds in suits every single one of which is either begging for fed bailout money right now or else getting ready to beg for a job as a greeter at Walmart)? Or the ones about how much I hate them?

yeah...why should my employers be legally obligated to treat me like a fucking person. How dare I demand something so outrageous as a meal every fucking 6 hours. God I'm needy and demanding.

He has the right to treat you however he wants, because it's his property and you're free to not go there if you don't like it.

He has the right to treat you however he wants, because it's his property and you're free to not go there if you don't like it.

Yeah, but as a human being, you have the right to a 30 minute lunch break, that's not asking much.

I'm not big on workers benefits, but a 30 min. lunch break seems quite reasonable.

Yeah, but as a human being, you have the right to a 30 minute lunch break,
No, you don't.

I'm not big on workers benefits, but a 30 min. lunch break seems quite reasonable.
I happen to agree. That's not the point. If your employer is fine with it, that's one thing. But if not, tough shit for you; if it bothers you that much you're always free to not work there. It's his property, not yours.

Trolls don't deserve lunch breaks because feeding them is bad.

So today, I got into a battle with my manager about breaks. I am a bartender at a chain restaurant. Corporate policy dictates that the bartender must be behind the bar at all times. Corporate also forbids eating in view of customers, meaning I can't have food behind the bar.

I am usually scheduled from 10:45 untill 5 or 5:30, but usually cannot clock out untill 6 or 7 due to the time it takes to swap over. This means I am working a minimum of 6.25 hours, but usually more.

According to MA law, you must get a half hour meal break after 6 hours of work.

So I was in back, stuffing down a meal. The bar manager came up and snarkily asked "Who's watching the bar". I get asked that every time I eat. I can see the bar from where I am sitting, and (as usual) answered "I am. I can see it from here.". Today, she said "That isn't good enough". Battle ensues, where I finally say "Fuck it then. I'm eating at the bar and if I get yelled at for that, find a new bartender." The general manager heard this. He came up and talked to me, agreeing that I should have time to eat, saying I could take about 10 minutes and that would be fine (still doesn't comply with the law, but it's better than nothing).

So...how does your place of work handle meal breaks? Does your state or federal government require that you get a break? Should they? Is it unfair to expect a person to go 6+ hours without any sort of break or meal? Should Sarky continue to tell his manager it isn't his fault she Can't Understand Normal Thinking?

One of these is legally hung somewhere visible at your workplace, likely a bathroom or breakroom:

http://www.mass.gov/Cago/docs/Workplace/wagehourposter_2008.pdf

It's clear as day. If they are persistent in this behaviour, then by all means, file a fair wage and hours complaint with the state Attorney General's office. I deal with them frequently, and believe me, they will come down on your employer's nuts like three tons of bricks.

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagohomepage&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Cago

It's his property, not yours.

We've already established across numerous threads why this claim of yours is completely false in all conceivable ways. You might as well claim the sky is purple for all the truth you'll speak.

Which ideas? The ones about Sarkhaan standing up for his rights now that he's been given leverage by the general manager? Or the ones about what scumsucking pisswits most white collar employers are (miserable little turds in suits every single one of which is either begging for fed bailout money right now or else getting ready to beg for a job as a greeter at Walmart)? Or the ones about how much I hate them?

the one where i get as much work as i can out of them and pay them the least.

the one where i get as much work as i can out of them and pay them the least.

I'm guessing you're 15.

the one where i get as much work as i can out of them and pay them the least.
No, see, that's the proof of the pisswittedness. What you actually get from that kind of penny ante bullshit is high staff turnover. I've worked for offices that had up to 80% employee turnover every single year. And all THAT gives you is a staff of perpetual trainees who spend most of their time just memorizing how to use the postage meter and the phone system through a haze of anger. They never get to the point where they are at maximum productivity. So in fact, you get LESS work that way than you would by treating your employees fairly and with respect so they can just settle down and take ownership of their jobs instead of trying to figure out how to get through the day without killing you.

Moral of the story: It never pays to be a bastard.

Or the ones about what scumsucking pisswits most white collar employers are (miserable little turds in suits every single one of which is either begging for fed bailout money right now or else getting ready to beg for a job as a greeter at Walmart)?

You do realise you are applying this description to roughly 60% of the population of the US...

the one where i get as much work as i can out of them and pay them the least.

All that will get you is a revolving door of sunk training costs as employee after employee spends your money to learn the job, only to leave when they realize what a prick you are. An employee should be treated like an investment; you as the employer are going to lose money in the short term bringing a new employee up to speed, so you want to be able to hold on to that employee as long as possible to maximize the return on your investment.

I work in an office. We get 2 paid 15 minute breaks, for morning & afternoon tea and an unpaid 1 hour lunchbreak.

your manager is dumb: if s/he's so worried about someone watching the bar... why doesn't the manager do it for the 15 minutes you're eating???

I mean - isn't that "no brainer" territory???

I work in an office. We get 2 paid 15 minute breaks, for morning & afternoon tea and an unpaid 1 hour lunchbreak.
Legally, we get that in the US, too, but the bosses still try to con/bully the employees out of taking those breaks (edit: though we call them coffee breaks ;)). Some will even threaten to fire an employee for taking his/her legally mandated breaks. They back right the fuck down when you rub their nose in the law, though. Mostly, the worker ends up either intimidated into not standing up for themselves and quitting sooner rather than later, or else taking their breaks in defiance and quitting later rather than sooner.

All that will get you is a revolving door of sunk training costs as employee after employee spends your money to learn the job, only to leave when they realize what a prick you are. An employee should be treated like an investment; you as the employer are going to lose money in the short term bringing a new employee up to speed, so you want to be able to hold on to that employee as long as possible to maximize the return on your investment.

i wont let them leave.... security guards with tazers pointed at them will keep them at their desk.

your manager is dumb: if s/he's so worried about someone watching the bar... why doesn't the manager do it for the 15 minutes you're eating???

I mean - isn't that "no brainer" territory???

That's because she's a right bitch.

i wont let them leave.... security guards with tazers pointed at them will keep them at their desk.
I guess you're not as in love with my idea about trolls not getting meal breaks.

I guess you're not as in love with my idea about trolls not getting meal breaks.

i get mine IVed in.

i get mine IVed in.
Maybe it's just because I detest office work with an abiding hatred but I'm still having to look for an office job right now and that has put me in a bad mood, but for whatever reason I really don't find you charming tonight. I'm going to pretend you're not here, if you don't mind.

Legally, we get that in the US, too, but the bosses still try to con/bully the employees out of taking those breaks (edit: though we call them coffee breaks ;)). Some will even threaten to fire an employee for taking his/her legally mandated breaks. They back right the fuck down when you rub their nose in the law, though. Mostly, the worker ends up either intimidated into not standing up for themselves and quitting sooner rather than later, or else taking their breaks in defiance and quitting later rather than sooner.

Where I work we're encouraged to take our breaks. I'm sure it's the other way round in some other workplaces.

We've already established across numerous threads why this claim of yours is completely false in all conceivable ways. You might as well claim the sky is purple for all the truth you'll speak.

No, "we" haven't.

You have attempted to, but all such attempts have failed miserably--as they must, since it is impossible to correctly and conclusively establish to be false that which is actually true.

No, "we" haven't.

You have attempted to, but all such attempts have failed miserably--as they must, since it is impossible to correctly and conclusively establish to be false that which is actually true.

What are you talking about? In the majority of states (I wanted to say "all" but I'm not entirely sure) you are required to give your employees a 30-min. break per 6 hours worked. If Burger King does it, all places should do it.

No, "we" haven't.

You have attempted to, but all such attempts have failed miserably--as they must, since it is impossible to correctly and conclusively establish to be false that which is actually true.

Given that I have offered intelligent, reasoned arguments, and you have offered "A=A", I'd say it is fair to say that yes, we have.

Where I work we're encouraged to take our breaks. I'm sure it's the other way round in some other workplaces.
Oh, I've had bosses like that, too (I change jobs a lot) -- you know, normal people. I'm just bitching about how things are with bad bosses. Bad bosses will try to get away with whatever they can, laws be damned, because ultimately, they don't really respect other people.

Oh, I've had bosses like that, too (I change jobs a lot) -- you know, normal people. I'm just bitching about how things are with bad bosses. Bad bosses will try to get away with whatever they can, laws be damned, because ultimately, they don't really respect other people.

Yeah, at the BK lounge, they are pretty adamant that we take breaks every 6 hrs. Hell, they'll send us home if it's really quiet.

What are you talking about? In the majority of states (I wanted to say "all" but I'm not entirely sure) you are required to give your employees a 30-min. break per 6 hours worked.

Yes, and those laws are illegitimate and unjust because they are violations of sacred natural private property rights, and so employers are under no proper obligation to abide by them; and those who are complicit in the creation and enforcement of such unjust and illegitimate laws are the REAL criminals, of the worst sort.

Given that I have offered intelligent, reasoned arguments,
Check your premises.

and you have offered "A=A",
Check your premises.

Yes, and those laws are illegitimate and unjust because they are violations of sacred natural private property rights, and so employers are under no proper obligation to abide by them; and those who are complicit in the creation and enforcement of such unjust and illegitimate laws are the REAL criminals, of the worst sort.

Oh man, here comes the "sacred natural private property rights" horseshit again. It's the debating equivalent of jumping the shark.

At the office where I work besides uni I'm paid by the hour but the boss is nice enough to always count our lunch break as work time, i.e. we don't have to "clock out" or anything. We usually take maybe 20 minutes or so to eat lunch at the crappy cafeteria downstairs, the whole office together.
There are no coffee breaks. I think those are unusual in offices in general, in my experience.

Check your premises.


Check your premises.

Is that your new "A=A" argument? My premise is that you have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate the tiniest bit of truth in anything you've ever said, except to say it's true because it's true. I'm sorry, but that doesn't even begin to resemble an intelligent thought.

Is that your new "A=A" argument? My premise is that you have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate the tiniest bit of truth in anything you've ever said, except to say it's true because it's true.

That's why you need to check your premises--they're in error.

Yes, and those laws are illegitimate and unjust because they are violations of sacred natural private property rights, and so employers are under no proper obligation to abide by them; and those who are complicit in the creation and enforcement of such unjust and illegitimate laws are the REAL criminals, of the worst sort.

Sacred natural private property rights?

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm an economic conservative. I think private property, capitalism, all that is awesome.

But the employee is a special thing, as they are fellow human beings. Just giving them a simple 30-min. lunch break will not destroy the company, in fact, it will keep employee morale up, and boost productivity.

Employers are not obligated to be friends with their employees, but they must give them the opportunities to fulfill basic needs such as hunger and fatigue.

Did your great-grandfather own the infamous Triangle Factory that burned down during the age of immigrants. Did he pass on those same tenets to you? Would you also agree that employees don't deserve proper escape routes in case of emergency?

At the office where I work besides uni I'm paid by the hour but the boss is nice enough to always count our lunch break as work time, i.e. we don't have to "clock out" or anything. We usually take maybe 20 minutes or so to eat lunch at the crappy cafeteria downstairs, the whole office together.
There are no coffee breaks. I think those are unusual in offices in general, in my experience.

Nice of your boss to pay you during lunch.

That's why you need to check your premises--they're in error.

Be more specific. Which premises of mine are in error, how are they in error, and prove they are in error. Preferably without resorting to non-arguments like "A=A". Use actual intellect.

At the office where I work besides uni I'm paid by the hour but the boss is nice enough to always count our lunch break as work time, i.e. we don't have to "clock out" or anything. We usually take maybe 20 minutes or so to eat lunch at the crappy cafeteria downstairs, the whole office together.
There are no coffee breaks. I think those are unusual in offices in general, in my experience.
They used to be more formal. Apparently, once upon a time, it was not okay to drink coffee and eat snacks at your desk while working. You were expected to take a break and move away from any place where you could spill coffee on your work. Nowadays, office workers like me are swilling coffee all day long. There'd be no point in taking a break to do that. But two fifteen-minute breaks are still in the rule book. Most people don't take them. Some take them regularly and go take a walk or make personal calls, etc. I take them irregularly, only when I want to actually leave the office for a bit.

Be more specific. Which premises of mine are in error, how are they in error, and prove they are in error. Preferably without resorting to non-arguments like "A=A". Use actual intellect.

I don't know man, that request might have erroneous premises for some unspecified reason.

But the employee is a special thing, as they are fellow human beings. Just giving them a simple 30-min. lunch break will not destroy the company,
Irrelevant. This is a moral issue. His property, his rules. His employees are free to not work there if they don't like it.

Nothing ever justifies the violation of individual rights.

And no, no rights of the employees are being violated, since they voluntarily accept whatever restrictions the employer wishes to place on them when they agree to employment, and they're free to not accept the offer of employment if they don't like them. Perhaps that results in a less-than-ideal situation for them, but tough shit. Their desire to avoid a tough decision is not a justification for violating individual rights.

Be more specific. Which premises of mine are in error, how are they in error, and prove they are in error. Preferably without resorting to non-arguments like "A=A". Use actual intellect.
You're kidding right? I mean, if you're not kidding, then you're just being cruel.

I don't know man, that request might have erroneous premises for some unspecified reason.

No, he's just going to rely on dumb "A=A" points because he can't actually defend his position using real arguments.

I don't know man, that request might have erroneous premises for some unspecified reason.
I can think of one erroneous premise right off the bat, but I won't say it. Instead, I'll just say that I do not understand why some people insist on feeding this troll.

Irrelevant. This is a moral issue. His property, his rules. His employees are free to not work there if they don't like it.

Nothing ever justifies the violation of individual rights.

And no, no rights of the employees are being violated, since they voluntarily accept whatever restrictions the employer wishes to place on them when they agree to employment, and they're free to not accept the offer of employment if they don't like them. Perhaps that results in a less-than-ideal situation for them, but tough shit. Their desire to avoid a tough decision is not a justification for violating individual rights.

Contradict more. You said it yourself, nothing ever justifies the violation of individual rights. By that same argument, just because they accept an employment contract does not mean they can have their individual rights violated.

It's not about just the employer. It's about everyone.

Nice of your boss to pay you during lunch.
Yeah. They've always been doing that because they figured we were getting little enough as it was. :P

They used to be more formal. Apparently, once upon a time, it was not okay to drink coffee and eat snacks at your desk while working. You were expected to take a break and move away from any place where you could spill coffee on your work. Nowadays, office workers like me are swilling coffee all day long. There'd be no point in taking a break to do that. But two fifteen-minute breaks are still in the rule book. Most people don't take them. Some take them regularly and go take a walk or make personal calls, etc. I take them irregularly, only when I want to actually leave the office for a bit.
You know, I was just about to go back and edit my post because I realized that I think for most regular office workers (i.e. not on an hourly wage but an actual salary) it's indeed as you say - they have one or two 15-minute breaks in their contracts but if they take them is their own choice.

No, he's just going to rely on dumb "A=A" points because he can't actually defend his position using real arguments.

True, true.

I like arguing w/the troll, honestly. Makes me feel good. Eventually I will grow weary of it and chuck it in the gutter, like some cheap crackwhore.

It's not about just the employer. It's about everyone.

This is wrong, check your premises. I can see that they have committed a fatal error, and shall now close, try pressing ctrl + alt + delete.

This is wrong, check your premises. I can see that they have committed a fatal error, and shall now close, try press ctrl + alt + delete.

Shit...BSODed. Looks like I'll have to reboot.

This is wrong, check your premises. I can see that they have committed a fatal error, and shall now close, try press ctrl + alt + delete.

No, because A = B. You are wrong.

Contradict more. You said it yourself, nothing ever justifies the violation of individual rights. By that same argument, just because they accept an employment contract does not mean they can have their individual rights violated.
They're not, or were you not paying attention to my entire post?

Yeah. They've always been doing that because they figured we were getting little enough as it was. :P


You know, I was just about to go back and edit my post because I realized that I think for most regular office workers (i.e. not on an hourly wage but an actual salary) it's indeed as you say - they have one or two 15-minute breaks in their contracts but if they take them is their own choice.
When my mom first started working, back in the 60s, the breaks were so formalized that in the big NYC office buildings, an actual coffee and donuts cart would come around the offices. It would be licensed by the landlords and run by some deli or coffeeshop, and they would come around promptly for the morning breaks and again for the afternoon ones, and sell coffee and donuts/danishes. Literally a cart, like in a dimsum restaurant, going from floor to floor. I remember them from when I was little and would go to work with her. Everybody took their breaks and all at the same time. Those cart guys made good money.

check your premises
Am I the only one whom that plural gives the urge to walk around the apartment and check if all the doors are closed?
Because it does.

*twitch*

When my mom first started working, back in the 60s, the breaks were so formalized that in the big NYC office buildings, an actual coffee and donuts cart would come around the offices. It would be licensed by the landlords and run by some deli or coffeeshop, and they would come around promptly for the morning breaks and again for the afternoon ones, and sell coffee and donuts/danishes. Literally a cart, like in a dimsum restaurant, going from floor to floor. I remember them from when I was little and would go to work with her. Everybody took their breaks and all at the same time. Those cart guys made good money.
That would be awesome. We always have to run to the bakery around the corner to get stuff for the coffee to wash down.

It's never lupus.

Except for that one time. Man, was that an exciting episode!

It's never lupus.

Except for that one time. Man, was that an exciting episode!

...

Did my avatar just break the vicious premise cycle?!

Go me!

Yeah. They've always been doing that because they figured we were getting little enough as it was. :P


You know, I was just about to go back and edit my post because I realized that I think for most regular office workers (i.e. not on an hourly wage but an actual salary) it's indeed as you say - they have one or two 15-minute breaks in their contracts but if they take them is their own choice.
Also, on a separate note, I think this varies from state to state, but I know that in Massachusetts, even an hourly paid worker is allowed the two breaks without having to go off the clock, provided they are working a full day. I know this because I'm usually a temp worker, and in this has been mentioned to me several times by my bosses at the agencies, reminding me that, under Mass law, I'm allowed the 15-minute breaks if I want them, and I don't have to record them on my time sheets.

They're not, or were you not paying attention to my entire post?

Yes, I read your entire post, and you said nothing can violate rights. But you said that employees not receiving the right to a meal is not a violation of rights. That is false, as that is a human right stated in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Therefore, your assertion that the denial of a meal break to workers is not a violation of rights is false, thus meaning that the employees are entitled to that 30 min. break.

...

Did my avatar just break the vicious premise cycle?!

Go me!

No, you didn't, the cycle is infinite. I suggest you re-evaluate your premises, they have committed various illegal operations.

...

Did my avatar just break the vicious premise cycle?!

Go me!
Every time I look at your avatar, I become convinced that it's so totally lupus.

Also, on a separate note, I think this varies from state to state, but I know that in Massachusetts, even an hourly paid worker is allowed the two breaks without having to go off the clock, provided they are working a full day. I know this because I'm usually a temp worker, and in this has been mentioned to me several times by my bosses at the agencies, reminding me that, under Mass law, I'm allowed the 15-minute breaks if I want them, and I don't have to record them on my time sheets.
Yeah, I wondered if it was the same across the board as well. In my state of Nebraska, the law is a 30-min. break for every 6 hours worked, if the employee wants them.

No, you didn't, the cycle is infinite.
Oh poop.

re-evaluate your premises
Now it just sounds like the housing crash.

Every time I look at your avatar, I become convinced that it's so totally lupus.
As it should be. http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/sleep.gif

Yeah, I wondered if it was the same across the board as well. In my state of Nebraska, the law is a 30-min. break for every 6 hours worked, if the employee wants them.
In Mass, the rule is a .30 minute - 1 hour lunch break AND two optional 15-minute breaks within each 8-hour period worked.

Yes, I read your entire post, and you said nothing can violate rights. But you said that employees not receiving the right to a meal is not a violation of rights. That is false, as that is a human right stated in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Irrelevant; that is not the source of an individual's rights.

Irrelevant; that is not the source of an individual's rights.

What is the source? Does it go well in burgers?

Irrelevant; that is not the source of an individual's rights.

Then, praytell, what is the source of an individual's rights?

The Declaration of Independence? Pursuit of happiness includes a lunch break, I find it quite satisfying.

Then, praytell, what is the source of an individual's rights?

The Declaration of Independence? Pursuit of happiness includes a lunch break, I find it quite satisfying.

Nope. No document is the source of rights. Rights are natural, and inherent in one's existence; they are not something some piece of paper or government fiat can grant, revoke, expand, reduce, or otherwise alter in any way. The only variable is the extent to which the government in power over a given locality respect those rights--which is the extent to which that government is legitimate.

Nope. No document is the source of rights. Rights are natural, and inherent in one's existence; they are not something some piece of paper or government fiat can grant, revoke, expand, reduce, or otherwise alter in any way. The only variable is the extent to which the government in power over a given locality respect those rights--which is the extent to which that government is legitimate.

Then I say that those rights cannot be revoked by a contract of employment. Lunch breaks are rights.

Then I say that those rights cannot be revoked by a contract of employment.
They're not. Your rights can't be taken from you without your consent, since they're yours--but since they're yours, you can choose to give them up if you wish, which is what you're doing if you accept terms of employment that require it--and they're not being taken from you from force since you're free to refuse the employment offer; you're giving them up of your own free will.

Lunch breaks are rights.
No, they're not.

My industry is exempt from a lot of the break laws and has its own set. So my work day is ten to twelve hours long and usually for a flat rate (though to be honest, when they pull that I think they're breaking the law with my tacit consent...we shouldn't put up with it, but we want in...). I don't get breaks, I'm on the entire time. I only get a half hour lunch, and it's usually a working lunch (though generally just 'fire watch,' which is fine). The plus side of that is that it's provided. On top of that there is almost always (and if there isn't, there is a lot of bitching) a craft services table that I can hit up during lulls. When I work union jobs I tend to get the overtime if the day goes long. If not, I tend to get screwed. I also don't sit down the entire time except lunch.

Rights are natural, and inherent in one's existence
Inherent how?

And which rights?

And how are rights inherent to existence not inalienable?

They're not. Your rights can't be taken from you without your consent, since they're yours--but since they're yours, you can choose to give them up if you wish, which is what you're doing if you accept terms of employment that require it--and they're not being taken from you from force since you're free to refuse the employment offer; you're giving them up of your own free will.


Alright, I've grown tired of explaining to troll that his arguments contradict themselves and A = A and what not, so...

(Tosses troll into gutter like some cheap crackwhore)

Now I'm all itchy.

They're not. Your rights can't be taken from you without your consent, since they're yours--but since they're yours, you can choose to give them up if you wish, which is what you're doing if you accept terms of employment that require it--and they're not being taken from you from force since you're free to refuse the employment offer; you're giving them up of your own free will.


No, they're not.
You seem to be thinking of slaves, not employees. Totally different thing. Big difference.

You seem to be thinking of slaves, not employees. Totally different thing. Big difference.

with a well written contract and laws properly enforced they could be the same.

They're not. Your rights can't be taken from you without your consent, since they're yours--but since they're yours, you can choose to give them up if you wish, which is what you're doing if you accept terms of employment that require it--and they're not being taken from you from force since you're free to refuse the employment offer; you're giving them up of your own free will.
Following this logic, surely employers give up their rights to treat you any way they want by agreeing to employee treatment laws?

Wow...that sucks. I start work at 12:00, get a 15 minute break at 2:00. A 45 minute lunch at 4:00, and another 15 minute break at 6:15. Before leaving at 8.

Following this logic, surely employers give up their rights to treat you any way they want by agreeing to employee treatment laws?

No, that can't be, as your argument is based in fact and sound logic.

I fired two cooks that thought it was ok to abuse the 1 meal on the house rule by cooking steaks for themselves every day. The one meal on the house came from a specific menu in order to keep employee meal costs down. It didn't include steak....

ah it was McDonald's, so i didn't give a shit. they can afford it
edit: it wasn't a paid break either

Following this logic, surely employers give up their rights to treat you any way they want by agreeing to employee treatment laws?

They never agreed to them. These laws were imposed upon them by the collective, without their consent.

Alright, I've grown tired of explaining to troll that his arguments contradict themselves

I don't understand why you call me a "troll," just because I'm honest and earnest.

But no, my arguments don't contradict themselves. Perhaps the strawmen you build contradict themselves, but the arguments I'm actually making don't.

And how are rights inherent to existence not inalienable?

I possess them, as my property, from the moment I am born. I think the problem here stems from two different senses of the word "inherent", in which case it's my fault for not being more clear. They are not "inherent" in the sense that they are metaphysically inseparable from me, but rather in the sense that my initial possession of them stems from the mere fact of my existence.

You seem to be thinking of slaves, not employees. Totally different thing. Big difference.

No, I'm not.

Slaves don't have a choice who to work for, or indeed whether to work at all.

Employees do.

They never agreed to them. These laws were imposed upon them by the collective, without their consent.
How can you argue this, yet not also argue that the employee never agreed to be treated in any way the employer sees fit?

The employee never agreed to anything, nor signed anything, saying that they could be treated in any way the employer chose. Your argument rests upon tacit consent, and if an employee can legitimately tacitly agree to be treated in any way the employer sees fit, then an employer can legitimately tacitly agree to abide by labour laws.

You can't have it both ways.

Slaves don't have a choice who to work for, or indeed whether to work at all.

Employees do.
Again, if you hold such an argument, then you're also committed to holding that employers have a choice where to site their businesses; it's their fault, their choice, if they start a business in a land with labour laws.

Once more, you can't have it both ways.

The nice thing about being retired from my own business, the issue doesnt come up much.

So...how does your place of work handle meal breaks? Does your state or federal government require that you get a break? Should they? Is it unfair to expect a person to go 6+ hours without any sort of break or meal? Should Sarky continue to tell his manager it isn't his fault she Can't Understand Normal Thinking?
my manager is pretty lax about breaks. mainly because we work while we eat, so sometimes we can be 'on lunch' for about an hour or so... but again, we are working while eating.

How can you argue this, yet not also argue that the employee never agreed to be treated in any way the employer sees fit?
The employee agreed to accept the offer of employment (with all the terms attached), whereas the employer never agreed to let the collective impose their despicable terms on his sacred private property.

Again, if you hold such an argument, then you're also committed to holding that employers have a choice where to site their businesses; it's their fault, their choice, if they start a business in a land with labour laws.
The employer owns the property on which the business is situated, so he is entitled to make the rules for that property.

The government does not own the property on which the business is situated, so it is not entitled to make any rules that are binding on the person or entity that actually does own the property.

No, I'm not.

Slaves don't have a choice who to work for, or indeed whether to work at all.

Employees do.

Employees don't have the choice of "whether to work at all."

For the most part they are constrained by which companies have a position open and which will hire them. You are painting a choice of "crap-flavored water" and "water-flavored crap" as if it were a smorgasbord of choices.

Regardless, your 'argument' treated their rights no better than that of slaves, which is the point. You have no moral or ethical ground to stand on, nor a legal one either. You're arguing for an illegal, immoral fantasy which exists now only in your imagination.

The employee agreed to accept the offer of employment (with all the terms attached), whereas the employer never agreed to let the collective impose their despicable terms on his sacred private property.


Unless your in France.

The employer owns the property on which the business is situated, so he is entitled to make the rules for that property.

The government does not own the property on which the business is situated, so it is not entitled to make any rules that are binding on the person or entity that actually does

If we follow this line of reasoning, the employer can murder people as long as they are on his property, with his consent or not. Because, after all, he does make the rules on that property. Maybe in his book murder is ok?

Employees don't have the choice of "whether to work at all."
Yes, they do. That not working might put them in a situation they find undesirable does not change the fact that they have a choice. No one is threatening to take from them something that was theirs already if they refuse to work; which is why they are free men and not slaves.

The employee agreed to accept the offer of employment (with all the terms attached), whereas the employer never agreed to let the collective impose their despicable terms on his sacred private property.

Yes he did. Unless this business is operating illegally, its managers and owners agreed to the legal conditions of employment. It's also why they will pay little things like taxes along with a minimum wage.

The employer owns the property on which the business is situated, so he is entitled to make the rules for that property.

Nonsense. Employers only own the property if they are not leasing it. And regardless, employees are not property, and cannot be mistreated in many ways.

Again though, I am talking about the real world and not your magical fairy fantasyland.

If we follow this line of reasoning, the employer can murder people as long as they are on his property, with his consent or not.

Precisely. His property, his rules. Don't like the rules, don't go on the property.

The employee agreed to accept the offer of employment (with all the terms attached), whereas the employer never agreed to let the collective impose their despicable terms on his sacred private property.


The employer owns the property on which the business is situated, so he is entitled to make the rules for that property.

The government does not own the property on which the business is situated, so it is not entitled to make any rules that are binding on the person or entity that actually does own the property.

There is no sacred right to operate a business. If you wish to operate a business inside a society, then you have to accept that society's rules and regulations regarding the operation of a business. Otherwise, you are free to operate your business outside the confines of that society, with all the trappings that come with such a prospect. Namely, the protection of your property through the law rather than through force.

Yes he did. Unless this business is operating illegally, its managers and owners agreed to the legal conditions of employment.
Government has no legitimate authority to impose those conditions, precisely because it does not own the property on which the land is situated.

Precisely. His property, his rules. Don't like the rules, don't go on the property.

For that matter, the government has no right to intrude on any crimes that occur on his property, whether perpetrated against him or not, as it is his property, and if he wants his rules of not being robbed or murdered enforced, he has to enforce them himself.

There is no sacred right to operate a business.
Yes, there is.
If you wish to operate a business inside a society
There is no such thing as "society."

Yes, they do. That not working might put them in a situation they find undesirable does not change the fact that they have a choice.

A choice between "die of malnutrition" and "work" is not a valid or acceptable choice to any reasonable person. We have an ingrained survival instinct, and so only suicidal people will "choose" to die rather than be employed. Most people do not "choose" to work at all simply for fun and profit.

No one is threatening to take from them something that was theirs already if they refuse to work; which is why they are free men and not slaves.

Pure sophistry. This is why you're called a troll. That and your phrases like "sacred private property rights" and "A=A" and "your premises are wrong" strain the suspension of disbelief. You can't possibly believe everything you vomit up here - no one could.

Yes, there is.


There is no such thing as "society."

These are not arguments. These imbecilic one-liners are yet another reason people think you are a troll. They have no purpose other than to illicit more negative responses.

Employees don't have the choice of "whether to work at all."


As an aside, there are plenty of employees that dont have to work and certainly have a choice wether to work at all. Retirees,empty nester housewives, the bored wealthy, people from two income homes where the second salary is just "fun" money are just a few examples.

Yes, there is.

There is no such thing as "society."

These are not valid arguments.

Government has no legitimate authority to impose those conditions, precisely because it does not own the property on which the land is situated.

Yes it does have legitimate authority, unless today is opposite day; and regardless, employers agreed to the terms of employment. They had the choice of not hiring anyone. Instead they chose to hire employees, pay them minimum wage, pay taxes, and EVEN agree not to whip or commit assault on their employees.

Their choice. Their signatures. Their compliance.

ah it was McDonald's, so i didn't give a shit. they can afford it
edit: it wasn't a paid break either

Well I always say if you are going to break the rules why do it half ass?

The employee agreed to accept the offer of employment (with all the terms attached), whereas the employer never agreed to let the collective impose their despicable terms on his sacred private property.
Of course he did. The moment he started his business in the place he started it in (the city, the district, the nation) he agreed to those terms exactly like the employee agrees to the terms of employment the moment he takes it.
Don't want to pay taxes? Don't open your business where you have to pay taxes. Don't want to give your employees a lunch break? Don't open your business where you have to give your employees a lunch break.

The employer owns the property on which the business is situated, so he is entitled to make the rules for that property.

The government does not own the property on which the business is situated, so it is not entitled to make any rules that are binding on the person or entity that actually does own the property.
Oh, so your theory only holds true for business situated on real estate owned by the employer? What an interesting distinction. So, since most food and retail establishment as well as offices are in fact situated on rented property, workers have to be given lunch breaks there and taxes have to be paid?

As an aside, there are plenty of employees that dont have to work and certainly have a choice wether to work at all. Retirees, the bored wealthy, people from two income homes where the second salary is just "fun" money are just a few examples.

"A few" examples is right. The vast majority of the work force does not fall into those "do not have to work" categories.

Government has no legitimate authority to impose those conditions, precisely because it does not own the property on which the land is situated.

Government has the authority to do whatever the people under that government allow it to do. If that means regulating business, the the government has the legitimate authority to regulate business. If a business does not want to be constrained by these regulations, they are free to do so outside the purview of that government's authority. Just because it is impossible to operate a business outside the confines of a society does not mean that they still do not have the choice, as free men.

Precisely. His property, his rules. Don't like the rules, don't go on the property.
So basically you're saying that I can commit any crime I want no questions asked as long as I do it on my property because laws don't apply there and hence they're not actually crimes.

Nifty! Too bad I'm renting.

Government has no legitimate authority to impose those conditions, precisely because it does not own the property on which the land is situated.

Not sure why you would think that. Just because one owns the property doesn't give exclusive rights to keep the "government" imposing their laws on it. What do you think taxing is? How about if a police officer drives by and see's you breaking the law on your property? Hell they can even take your property for the public good if they see fit. With compensation of course. So not sure where you get this notion that in the US the land owner has absolute rights.

The employer owns the property on which the business is situated, so he is entitled to make the rules for that property.
... and so, by that token, if the business does not own the land but is leasing the land to have their building on, then who makes the rules?

The employee agreed to accept the offer of employment (with all the terms attached), whereas the employer never agreed to let the collective impose their despicable terms on his sacred private property.
Give me a good reason to accept this tripe.

How can you hold that an employee tacitly accepts to be treated in any way, merely by being in the jurisdiction of the employer, and hold that an employer, in the jurisdiction of government, does not tacitly accept the terms of operating a business.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

Moreover, not all employers own the property they operate their businesses from.

The employer owns the property on which the business is situated, so he is entitled to make the rules for that property.

The government does not own the property on which the business is situated, so it is not entitled to make any rules that are binding on the person or entity that actually does own the property.
Though the government doesn't own the property, they have jurisdiction over it; what with the property being situated within a State and all.

If there were no State, then your argument would hold. As it is, you're arguing against yourself.

"A few" examples is right. The vast majority of the work force does not fall into those "do not have to work" categories.

I substitute teach once or twice a month for something different to do. Every once in awhile i catch one of my nephews or one of my friends kids in the hall and its fun. Its certainly not for the $80 a day that they pay.

I substitute teach once or twice a month for something different to do. Every once in awhile i catch one of my nephews or one of my friends kids in the hall and its fun. Its certainly not for the $80 a day that they pay.
And... ?

I substitute teach once or twice a month for something different to do. Every once in awhile i catch one of my nephews or one of my friends kids in the hall and its fun. Its certainly not for the $80 a day that they pay.

Congratulations. If only your personal anecdote applied to everyone in the world equally, you'd have a point.

Congratulations. If only your personal anecdote applied to everyone in the world equally, you'd have a point.

Its not as "few" as he thinks it is. Your young so its still impossible for most of you to imagine that there is a large world of wealth out there that operates beyond ramen noodles before your 8:30 class..

A choice between "die of malnutrition" and "work" is not a valid or acceptable choice to any reasonable person.
Tough shit. It's a choice you have regardless.

Oh, so your theory only holds true for business situated on real estate owned by the employer?
Don't be dense. On rented property, the authority goes up to whoever actually does own the property, who may of course delegate as much or as little of it as he pleases to his tenants.

Government has the authority to do whatever the people under that government allow it to do.
No, it doesn't. "Popular sovereignty" is not a legitimate principle of government.

What do you think taxing is?
Fundamentally illegitimate.

How about if a police officer drives by and see's you breaking the law on your property?
The only legitimate laws are those that involve harming another person or property without his consent. If another person (or his property) happen to be on my property, then unless I was forcing them to be there in the first place, the person has consented to whatever rules I wish to impose on my property.

Hell they can even take your property for the public good if they see fit.
Not legitimately. Any laws to the contrary are wrong, and null and void.

and hold that an employer, in the jurisdiction of government,
Because the proper jurisdiction of government is not territorial but substantial. That is to say, government properly does not have jurisdiction over a geographical area but rather over a set of acts, and a rather limited and very well-defined set of acts at that. This popular notion of governments having "sovereignty" or jursdiction over land is absurd, and I reject it totally.

Its not as "few" as he thinks it is. Your young so its still impossible for most of you to imagine that there is a large world of wealth out there that operates beyond ramen noodles before your 8:30 class..

Of course it is as few as he thinks it is. The vast, vast majority of people on this planet have to work to maintain a living. We're not all lucky enough to have mommy and daddy subsidizing our lives like you seemingly are.

As an aside, there are plenty of employees that dont have to work and certainly have a choice wether to work at all. Retirees,empty nester housewives, the bored wealthy, people from two income homes where the second salary is just "fun" money are just a few examples.

These do not constitute 'plenty' by any bizarre use of the term.

I think it's funny, by the way, that you include 'retirees' considering that there has been a massive shift towards continued employment of the 'retired' due precisely to financial pressures. Kind of sucks when you can't afford to be 'retired', eh? Thank goodness for WalMart.

No, it doesn't. "Popular sovereignty" is not a legitimate principle of government.

Yes it does.

Its not as "few" as he thinks it is. Your young so its still impossible for most of you to imagine that there is a large world of wealth out there that operates beyond ramen noodles before your 8:30 class..

*falls over laughing*

Yes dear. *pats on head*

Its not as "few" as he thinks it is.

Uh, yeah it is.

Your young so its still impossible for most of you to imagine that there is a large world of wealth out there that operates beyond ramen noodles before your 8:30 class..

I'm going to hazard a guess that you're all of about 17.

Of course it is as few as he thinks it is. The vast, vast majority of people on this planet have to work to maintain a living. We're not all lucky enough to have mommy and daddy subsidizing our lives like you seemingly are.

Im 41 I am the daddy lol

(My gfs oldest son just got accepted to Penn State and we were touring campus and we were in the campus bookstore and we both realized omg we are the Parents, because we both remembered being in the bookstore in our college days and seeing kids parents with them and we realized thats us now. getting old sucks lol)

Its not as "few" as he thinks it is. Your young so its still impossible for most of you to imagine that there is a large world of wealth out there that operates beyond ramen noodles before your 8:30 class..
*snort*

Don't be dense. On rented property, the authority goes up to whoever actually does own the property, who may of course delegate as much or as little of it as he pleases to his tenants.
D'oh! Of course I should have known that the person who gets to decide if my business has to pay taxes and if my employees should get a lunch break is my landlord. I'll try not to be so dense in the future.

The only legitimate laws are those that involve harming another person or property without his consent. If another person (or his property) happen to be on my property, then unless I was forcing them to be there in the first place, the person has consented to whatever rules I wish to impose on my property.
So, out of interest: do you actually follow your so strongly held convictions in your daily life?

Tough shit. It's a choice you have regardless.

Nope, that's the point; it isn't. A "choice" which constrains upon you only one outcome (unless you are suicidal) is no choice at all.

This is why signing a contract under duress is invalid.

It's why children cannot consent to having sex.

Anything else? Perhaps you'd like to ignore this post too and blurt out another smarmy one-liner?

Because the proper jurisdiction of government is not territorial but substantial. That is to say, government properly does not have jurisdiction over a geographical area but rather over a set of acts, and a rather limited and very well-defined set of acts at that. This popular notion of governments having "sovereignty" or jursdiction over land is absurd, and I reject it totally.
I'd broadly agree with you, but you're argument seems to wander from 'the employer shouldn't have to do what the government says', a valid position that I'd happily debate, to 'the employer doesn't have to do what the government says', which is de facto false.

I'd broadly agree with you, but you're argument seems to wander from 'the employer shouldn't have to do what the government says', a valid position that I'd happily debate, to 'the employer doesn't have to do what the government says', which is de facto false.

I use them interchangeably, mostly for rhetorical purposes. Saying "I shouldn't have to do what you say, but I do," to me, sounds like a denial of the legitimacy of practical resistance, which I cannot accept.

Sorry if that confused you; I hope you can understand where I'm coming from here.

I use them interchangeably, mostly for rhetorical purposes.
Tut tut tut.

Saying "I shouldn't have to do what you say, but I do," to me, sounds like a denial of the legitimacy of practical resistance, which I cannot accept.
I can see where you're coming from, I just don't think you help your case by (perhaps unwittingly) arguing that employers have no legal bindings on labour law.

On a separate point, I think tacit consent in contracts is a dodgy route to go down; the employee, surely, didn't sign a contract saying 'I hereby allow my employer to treat me as they will'.

Sorry if that confused you; I hope you can understand where I'm coming from here.
Half the time. The objectivist stuff gets in the way, and I come from waaaaay the other side of the libertarian spectrum, but I can understand what your meaning and sympathise with some of it.

I own a bar and can tell you that the place you work for is bullshit. They should be giving you breaks following the law. I have a semi-large bar so its not a big deal to have one go on break as we have two bartenders at a time most nights. Thurs- Sat its three or more. If it is during the day when only one is scheduled the manager gives the bartender a break. Hell if im around I will even step in and take care of things for a bit. People have to have their breaks. What the hell is your employer thinking?Will you move to Boston and take over my bar?;)
The bar we have rarely has two bartenders on, particularly during the day when I want to eat. I wish I had managers who were willing to get behind the bar or do anything that us lowly hourly employees do...but I definatly plan on bringing that up if the food issue ever comes round again.
people out here with no job and hence no break and you bitching about your job that has breaks.

never mind us .. we'll be moving along.



I was kidding.. somewhat. I know Sar meant no harm. *still pissed*
Sorry :(
Now that the general manager did [a portion of] the right thing and stated in front of the bar manager that you are allowed to take a break to eat, you should make a rule of doing so, so you won't have that fight again. It is the law, and it is your right, so fuck the bar manager who is too much of an asshole to cover for the employee for a few minutes. That's just bullshit.I actually plan to from now on. Since I got the right, I figure I have to exercise it lest I have to fight the battle yet again.

And I feel your pain. When I get work at all, I'm an office worker. That's a minimum 7 hour day -- 8 hours minus lunch and breaks. Many employers try to pad it out to a full 8 hours on the clock by making me come in earlier and/or leave later to "make up for" my lunch. And a lot more employers actually try to bully me into not taking lunch at all. I'm surprised their idea of a "coffee break" isn't to give me a coffee can to piss in under my desk, too. (very obscure tv reference) Some employers -- true princes/princesses among human beings -- make me come in at 8:30 and leave at 5:30 or later AND try to pressure me into not taking a lunch break, too -- a good 9 - 10 hours of non-stop work, for which they only pay for 7 if I'm salaried -- because that unpaid lunch break every day is factored into the salary, even if I don't take the break.The place I used to work did that to us too...our break was automatically deducted regardless of if we took it or not. This resulted in me sitting at the employee table for an extra half hour after my shift had ended and my guests had left before clocking out several times.


One of these is legally hung somewhere visible at your workplace, likely a bathroom or breakroom:

http://www.mass.gov/Cago/docs/Workplace/wagehourposter_2008.pdf

It's clear as day. If they are persistent in this behaviour, then by all means, file a fair wage and hours complaint with the state Attorney General's office. I deal with them frequently, and believe me, they will come down on your employer's nuts like three tons of bricks.

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagohomepage&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Cagothank you. I'll definatly be looking into this if the issue continues to come up.
By the way, saw Reuben today

That's because she's a right bitch.
Nail on the head.
No, you didn't, the cycle is infinite. I suggest you re-evaluate your premises, they have committed various illegal operations.*kicks*

My industry is exempt from a lot of the break laws and has its own set. So my work day is ten to twelve hours long and usually for a flat rate (though to be honest, when they pull that I think they're breaking the law with my tacit consent...we shouldn't put up with it, but we want in...). I don't get breaks, I'm on the entire time. I only get a half hour lunch, and it's usually a working lunch (though generally just 'fire watch,' which is fine). The plus side of that is that it's provided. On top of that there is almost always (and if there isn't, there is a lot of bitching) a craft services table that I can hit up during lulls. When I work union jobs I tend to get the overtime if the day goes long. If not, I tend to get screwed. I also don't sit down the entire time except lunch.
That definatly sounds rough. I have the same situation with not being able to sit during my shift but really, most of the time, I have customers, so sitting wouldn't be an option even if I were allowed to.
(My gfs oldest son just got accepted to Penn State and we were touring campus and we were in the campus bookstore and we both realized omg we are the Parents, because we both remembered being in the bookstore in our college days and seeing kids parents with them and we realized thats us now. getting old sucks lol)FML?

He has the right to treat you however he wants, because it's his property and you're free to not go there if you don't like it.

It's his property, but inside the jurisdiction of the laws of the country he is in, thereby, the owner is free to abandon his business and leave if he doesn't like the laws. Sarkhaan could take over.

i wont let them leave.... security guards with tazers pointed at them will keep them at their desk.

And then you go to jail for attempted kidnap and human trafficking, where you'll be killed by the inmate populace. I can't think of a better fate for you.

And then you go to jail for attempted kidnap and human trafficking, where you'll be killed by the inmate populace. I can't think of a better fate for you.

this is all assuming a proper pro business police state has been instituted, or the company is located in a 3rd world country where support of business at the expense of the worker is the norm.

The employer owns the property on which the business is situated, so he is entitled to make the rules for that property.

The government does not own the property on which the business is situated, so it is not entitled to make any rules that are binding on the person or entity that actually does own the property.

Actually the current government owns the property. If the government can seize it for lack taxes or take it away through imminent domain.

Basically, Bluth, it's this:

The employee does enter agreements with the employer when he/she is hired, but the employer enters into agreements when he/she/they start a business. Agreements like:

You can't sell illegal goods, you must provide for basic rights, and you must conduct your business fairly and on your property only. You can't take advantage of customers or employees.

It's his property, but inside the jurisdiction of the laws of the country he is in, thereby, the owner is free to abandon his business and leave if he doesn't like the laws. Sarkhaan could take over.

...I support this.