should breaks be piad or unpaid?

[EastEnder]

I'm really shocked at the people who think that breaks shouldn't be paid for. Are you living in the Victorian times?

I'm a bit confused that you're shocked.... it's very standard, I get £XXX/year for doing my job, my contract says I work 37.5 hours a week, with a 1 hour unpaid lunch break. So I'm at work for 42.5 hours a week, being paid for 37.5 of them. If my company was told it had to pay me for the lunch breaks too, all that would happen is my hourly pay would go from being £(XXX / (52 * 37.5)) to £(XXX / (52 * 42.5)). I'd just get paid less per hour, but the same overall. In real terms what's the difference? It only really matters if you're paid by the hour, which I'm not, and probably neither are you.

 

[kyser_soze]

If, when it comes to your lunch hour, you sit at your desk and continue to work that's your choice. If you don't want to work through lunch, get up and leave for an hour or 30 mins or whatever you have.

 

[snadge]

But if you think you should get paid your lunch break why did you agree not to?

As you have already mentioned, we have to work.

 

[snadge]

That probably doesn't cover my point. I think I'm asking if you would have been happier if they contracted at a slightly lower rate but paid your lunch break, meaning your wage was the same.

I'm paid at an agreed blue book rate.

 

[Yelkcub]

In real terms what's the difference? It only really matters if you're paid by the hour, which I'm not, and probably neither are you.

Some folk are though.

But if you know you're going to get paid and 8.5 half hour day rather than nine I can't see the problem.

 

[Yelkcub]

I'm paid at an agreed blue book rate.

You'll have to educate me there I'm afraid....

 

[snadge]

You'll have to educate me there I'm afraid....

Anybody who does what I do gets paid that hourly rate.

and also gets 30 mins stole of them.

 

[Yelkcub]

Anybody who does what I do gets paid that hourly rate.

and also gets 30 mins stole of them.

At the risk of labouring my point, how's is sticking to the agreement you signed (presumably) stealing from you?

 

[snadge]

At the risk of labouring my point, how's is sticking to the agreement you signed (presumably) stealing from you?

Are you always this willfully stubborn?

I have NEVER signed anything to say I do not get paid for dinner.

I am at work from 8am till 4.30pm and get paid 8hrs pay.

Some companies pay for my dinner though others don't and they should, that is my point.

 

[Yelkcub]

Are you always this willfully stubborn?

I have NEVER signed anything to say I do not get paid for dinner.

I am at work from 8am till 4.30pm and get paid 8hrs pay.

Some companies pay for my dinner though others don't and they should, that is my point.

Or the ones that do shouldn't depending on the terms your agreement.

Unless I've missed it you never said that? You must have a contract of employment, a subcontract or a purchase order?

 

[N_igma]

Of course they should be paid, if you are stuck somewhere that isn't your choice day in and day out, you should be paid.
.

What you mean "isn't your choice", not everyone hates their job and you don't have to work.

 

[cesare]

They definitely shouldn't be piad.

At my old place I got 1/2 hour paid break and 1/2 hour unpaid. I think it depends on your contract rather than law.

You're right in that's there's no statutory requirement to pay breaks, as you say tis a matter of contract.

However, most employers tend to pay teabreaks. A few pay lunchbreaks.

I think teabreaks should be paid, and if you can get all or some of lunchbreak paid, even better.

 

[EastEnder]

You're right in that's there's no statutory requirement to pay breaks, as you say tis a matter of contract.

However, most employers tend to pay teabreaks. A few pay lunchbreaks.

I think teabreaks should be paid, and if you can get all or some of lunchbreak paid, even better.

Surely it only really makes a difference if you're paid by the hour? I have an annual salary, paid monthly. My contract doesn't say anything about an hourly rate, it just states the hours I'm contracted to work and the overall amount I get paid. So in real terms, whether I get paid for lunch breaks or not is irrelevant, it wouldn't any difference to my annual salary, just how many hours it's divided between. On the other hand if my contract stipulated that I was paid £10/hour, rather than stating an annual total, then it would be in my interests to get paid for lunch breaks because I'd actually earn more money. Or have I missed something here.....?

 

[cesare]

Surely it only really makes a difference if you're paid by the hour? I have an annual salary, paid monthly. My contract doesn't say anything about an hourly rate, it just states the hours I'm contracted to work and the overall amount I get paid. So in real terms, whether I get paid for lunch breaks or not is irrelevant, it wouldn't any difference to my annual salary, just how many hours it's divided between. On the other hand if my contract stipulated that I was paid £10/hour, rather than stating an annual total, then it would be in my interests to get paid for lunch breaks because I'd actually earn more money. Or have I missed something here.....?

Depends on the contract, loads of different types. The total number of hours, and the times, are meant to be stated. Usually it'll state that a break of however long should be taken for lunch, and whether or not it's paid.

 

[EastEnder]

Depends on the contract, loads of different types. The total number of hours, and the times, are meant to be stated. Usually it'll state that a break of however long should be taken for lunch, and whether or not it's paid.

My contract states that I'm contracted to work 37.5 hours a week, divided up into 5 days of 7.5 hours with a 1 hour unpaid lunch break. For that I am paid X pounds per year. So my effective hourly rate is X / (52 * 5 * 7.5). But that rate is not mentioned anywhere on my contract, only the gross annual amount. I'm pretty sure that if I started demanding to be paid for lunch breaks I'd simply end up with a contract rewritten to state that I'm now paid X pounds a year for working a 42.5 hour week, divided up into 5 days of 8.5 hours. It wouldn't make any real difference to the hours I spend in the office or how much I'm paid a year, I'd just have the dubious satisfaction of knowing I'm now being paid to eat my sandwiches...!

 

[phildwyer]

Logic dictates that isn't going to happen from here I'd think?

Logic schmogic. Revolutions *always* happen when they're least expected. If people expected them, they'd take steps to prevent them happening wouldn't they?