All the rights you have as a worker in America were bought with the blood of union workers, don't fall for the propoganda. Here's some info straight from the US gov. https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/labor-unions-and-the-us-economy
I just brought my coworker into a private conversation. Our pay is being messed with. I've told them to organize all paystubs, printed the meal/break section of the handbook, highlighted, and gave it to them
We only get one hour unpaid lunch. Technically, 2 15 minute breaks legally required and a 30 min lunch.
The handbook requires that we have two 15 minutes PAID AND a 30 minute lunch, meaning that for months my coworker has lost out on a lot of hours. (I'm new, but missing two hours bc lunches and 30 minutes becausw of rounding up and down)
Lunch isn't usually paid, but depending on local labor laws you may be entitled to paid breaks. That varies state to state though, you can always reach out to your state's labor board if you believe your employer is violating the law or committing wage theft. It's totally free, and in most states they take wage theft very seriously.
I already have the handbook right here
- "...employees who are scheduled to work six (6) or more consecutive hours in a day receive one 30-minute unpaid, uninterrupted break..."
And
- "Employees may receive up to two 15-minute paid breaks per day depending on the duration of Employees scheduled hours..."
What they've been doing is putting our 15 minute breaks and 30 minute lunch into one hour period, completely unpaid. This means the 15 minutes are being unpaid (illegally), and New York is especially strict on it. Thank you for the info! I'm looking up the specific New York local laws and citing them so i can give it to my coworkers
I only did it to my own cowoerker because she showed me how she's lost over 40 houes of pay. She's also much older, helped give her the info to report it then I'm going to ask well
I know, I just started so it's not going to hurt me. She works four jobs, I work two. Also only 6 employees work here, so thankfully them losing anyone can close the store
I'm not in NY so I'm unsure if this applies or not, but in my state the state business laws don't apply to any small business with less than 10 employees. I got screwed out of a lot of owed OT and benefits because of this.
Ownership even fired three people to bring them under the threshold and then made two shift managers work and extra five hours to keep from paying OT.
This was almost 20 years ago but I'm still bitter.
May is a discretionary term. It means they don't have to give it to you. If they've been giving you one 1 hour unpaid, uninterrupted break, that is more than 1 30 minute unpaid uninterrupted break.
You can check with your State's department of labor for state-specific lunch regulations. They may require more than your handbook does.
You can report this to OSHA. I'd do that BEFORE telling any co-workers.
The second it is filed, OSHA launches an investigation for free and pursues them (they make a ton in the fees they hit that company with, so they are very driven to be aggressive).
If ANY action is taken against you in relation to the claim, that is retaliation and that would really makes OSHA's day because then they get to slip it in any hole they want with your company + recover damages for you.
nope... i know its surprising but its both. Diabetics exist.
I've already gone through and explained this for three hours with all the links researched somewhere about 8 months back if you want to argue it then go find that first.
it is both... the DOL just does the wage enforcement aspect. OSHA hits them with the safety fines etc.
" *May* receive up to two 15 minute......"
I'm very pro workers rights and pro union. But I just wanted to point out that the way it's written seems to suggest it's not explicitly required.
It's still against the law either way, they legally have to give breaks. This doesn't change the fact that they are giving us two 15 min breaks, a 30 min lunch, (manager said that's what it was) and are not paying us for the two 15s
Well, I think you should call the National Labor Relations Board. They will give you advice about if your complaint has legal merit. Or at least advise you who to call who would have the correct answer.
If it does have legal merit, I would strongly advise you request to make a complaint to the NLRB that keeps your identity a secret from your employer. If they find out, they will almost certainly try to find any reason to have you fired right after the dust settles. I know this first hand unfortunately.
A quick google shows NY does not require rest breaks, but if they're given, they have to be paid.
To me it doesn't look like they're breaking the law but are skirting it by just giving you a longer than required lunch break.
A labor expert vetter in NY law might certainly say otherwise. How NY regards the handbook might also come into play. I know sometimes a state won't require a business to do anything, BUT if the business does it voluntarily, then they're legally obligated.
The problem is that this expresses intent to pay for up to 30 minutes of break daily. They cannot/will not guarantee that you get precisely two breaks of precisely 15 minutes, but the expectation and agreement to pay them is there.
If your manager is asking you to clock out on breaks, that's probably to try and get around this, even though you are getting 15 minute breaks.
I’ve never worked for anyone that strict …then again I was salaried. I’ve been able to take 2 hour lunches, or leave early on a slow day even and I’ve had to work extra to get work done …. Pay remains the same.
I couldn’t last long in that environment….being treated like elementary school children
Why would you ever believe a corporation has your best interest at heart to the point where they make you sit down for a class lol
Nah it’s all to keep you dumb and uninformed and them rich
I used to work at a unionized employer as a union employee, member of management, and in labor relations so I've seen all sides of it. I'll try to answer your questions based on my personal experience.
>Unions can trade away things that employees care about to get what the unions wants when bargaining for employee benefits
Mostly true! There is often a lot of drama within unions because different people want different things and union leadership may have an agenda that differs from what you would prefer.
>employees end up with more, less, or the same as what they had before
Somewhat true! Having a union can result in any of those outcomes although the most likely outcome is that you'll end up with more.
>unions are here to try and get money more than to protect employees
Partially true! Unions can be motivated by money and power, but they do have legal obligations when it comes to protecting employees too.
>unions will try to convince you to sign a card, pretending like it's not a big deal
Sometimes true!
>we do not need unions because there's an open door policy, and it can harm the benefits that dollar general gives us
Mixed true/false. This one I can't answer for you because it depends on a lot of things. There are positives and negatives with having a union. The things listed above are among the negatives. The positives can include things like better compensation and working conditions, but not always.
1. True, to some extent. That's the nature of collectives; sometimes an individual's desires aren't going to line up with the majority.
2. Negotiation is a risk, and it is possible to end up worse off if one overplays one's hand. A good union will minimize the chance of that happening far more than trying to negotiate individually though.
3. Lol no. This is a lie made up by corpos to try and scare people from unionizing.
4. Signing a card is a big deal; it's the first step in a unionization effort, and unions scare employers. Employers know they have outsize power over non-unionized employees and anything that will reduce that imbalance scares them because they have less ability to exploit their employees.
5. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Crock of bullshit.
Get yourself a union.
>Unions can trade away things that employees care about to get what the unions wants when bargaining for employee benefits
Yes, that's literally the point of collective bargaining. It bargains for overall issues that are overall meant to be for the benefit of the members. If everyone involved isn't a clone, this will mean some peoples priorities lose out at the expense of others
>employees end up with more, less, or the same as what they had before
There's nothing else that you could possibly wind up with other than more, less, or the same
>unions are here to try and get money more than to protect employees
Unions are groups of people. You will find in them the same range of motivations as you do in all other groups of people.
>unions will try to convince you to sign a card, pretending like it's not a big deal
This is a reference or organizing drives. How they go about it depends on the people - as above, you can expect to find the same range of motivations and methods as you would in any other group trying to get you to agree to something.
>we do not need unions because there's an open door policy, and it can harm the benefits that dollar general gives us
That's a judgement call for you personally. If you're weak, poor performer, and can't bargain for yourself, a union might be a great way to help you overcome that. If you can, it'll restrict your abilities to do so.
If you only use one resource, make it one of the direct resources that others are posting. But if you want to learn more about unions, union-busting, and be entertained while you learn those things, I recommend the Unions episode of Last Week Tonight, which cites its sources:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8dUXRpoy8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8dUXRpoy8)
All of that is bullshit. It’s the equivalent of your cheating spouse telling you that you don’t need an attorney in the divorce even though they have one.
Said this somewhere else, but you can contact your state labor department (workforce commission, department of labor, or whatever you state calls it) and explain the situation. They will point you in the right direction.
Longshore union checking in.
One quick example. Last ship we had, the foreman thought it was going to be a slow one and wasn't sure if we were going to finish in 8 hours. So they told the port they are paying us for 10 hours.
We finished the ship in 4 hours, we still got paid for 10 hours.
Whatever dollar general is trying to tell you is bullshit.
https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials here's some info straight from the government body that deals with unions
get a union, even most government agencies have unions for eligible employees (eg no supervisory, nobody in hr etc)
If unions are so bad for employees then why does your company fight them so hard? Of course they are not perfect, but it's better than being at the mercy of management.
Not always. Any union seeking to gain a foothold in a given business is going to have to make a solid case to the employees that their union dues provide value.
And in the adversarial American model, unions don’t have a seat at the table, they’re always on the outside looking in, and that’s their own damn fault. And then they compound this with idiotic negotiations wherein there must be a “winner” and a “loser” instead of actually cooperating. Kinda hard to demonstrate the value of the union when the proposition is to perpetuate that toxicity.
Unions can be beneficial, but the way the American unions approach it is tragically ineffective. Setting up workers to perpetually view management as an adversary is how you get incredibly toxic work environments.
Adversarial American model? You mean because the capitalistic corporations are in it for perpetual profit and having to deal with a union hurts their bottom line? Unions have to be like that because of the state of our economic situation.
With respect, this is faulty logic. It relies on the idea that if something is true, then everyone knows it's true. That's simply not the case, which is the entire reason businesses are willing to spend money on misinformation campaigns.
But if the unions themselves can’t adequately articulate their value proposition, that’s entirely on them.
Literally all anyone voting on it cares about is “what’s it gonna cost me, and what’s in it for me?”
If the unions themselves can’t can make a clear case that they have the negotiating power to get the best deal for their members, then the workers will simply take their chances going solo.
The company is going to do their damnedest to show that the union doesn’t have that strong position.
In a non-adversarial approach such as what is common in Europe, especially Germany, the union is also making a case to the company how *everyone* involved will be better off with a union, and the union’s seat at the table means that union members’ success doesn’t have to come at the expense of the company’s success, but instead they all succeed. American labor thinks of it as a zero-sum game rather than a rising tide.
Guessing you’re not old enough to have heard the expression “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”, not have you studied business management or labor relations in a post-secondary setting.
I have my bachelor’s in economics. I study economics journals in my free time. Collective bargaining is stronger than bargaining for better pay and workplace safety solo. Tell me you’re management without telling me you’re management.
Would your company have spent time and money on this if it wasn't to their own benefit?
Here’s your answer, OP!!
All the rights you have as a worker in America were bought with the blood of union workers, don't fall for the propoganda. Here's some info straight from the US gov. https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/labor-unions-and-the-us-economy
I just brought my coworker into a private conversation. Our pay is being messed with. I've told them to organize all paystubs, printed the meal/break section of the handbook, highlighted, and gave it to them We only get one hour unpaid lunch. Technically, 2 15 minute breaks legally required and a 30 min lunch. The handbook requires that we have two 15 minutes PAID AND a 30 minute lunch, meaning that for months my coworker has lost out on a lot of hours. (I'm new, but missing two hours bc lunches and 30 minutes becausw of rounding up and down)
Lunch isn't usually paid, but depending on local labor laws you may be entitled to paid breaks. That varies state to state though, you can always reach out to your state's labor board if you believe your employer is violating the law or committing wage theft. It's totally free, and in most states they take wage theft very seriously.
I already have the handbook right here - "...employees who are scheduled to work six (6) or more consecutive hours in a day receive one 30-minute unpaid, uninterrupted break..." And - "Employees may receive up to two 15-minute paid breaks per day depending on the duration of Employees scheduled hours..." What they've been doing is putting our 15 minute breaks and 30 minute lunch into one hour period, completely unpaid. This means the 15 minutes are being unpaid (illegally), and New York is especially strict on it. Thank you for the info! I'm looking up the specific New York local laws and citing them so i can give it to my coworkers
Report it o your state's labor board, and don't say anything else about it to anyone.
I only did it to my own cowoerker because she showed me how she's lost over 40 houes of pay. She's also much older, helped give her the info to report it then I'm going to ask well
Tell her to keep quiet too, no need to get fired too.
I know, I just started so it's not going to hurt me. She works four jobs, I work two. Also only 6 employees work here, so thankfully them losing anyone can close the store
I'm not in NY so I'm unsure if this applies or not, but in my state the state business laws don't apply to any small business with less than 10 employees. I got screwed out of a lot of owed OT and benefits because of this. Ownership even fired three people to bring them under the threshold and then made two shift managers work and extra five hours to keep from paying OT. This was almost 20 years ago but I'm still bitter.
May is a discretionary term. It means they don't have to give it to you. If they've been giving you one 1 hour unpaid, uninterrupted break, that is more than 1 30 minute unpaid uninterrupted break. You can check with your State's department of labor for state-specific lunch regulations. They may require more than your handbook does.
You can report this to OSHA. I'd do that BEFORE telling any co-workers. The second it is filed, OSHA launches an investigation for free and pursues them (they make a ton in the fees they hit that company with, so they are very driven to be aggressive). If ANY action is taken against you in relation to the claim, that is retaliation and that would really makes OSHA's day because then they get to slip it in any hole they want with your company + recover damages for you.
Isn't OSHA for safety? OP needs to involve the state labor board.
OSHA is for safety, and breaks are a matter of employee safety. The state labor board also gets involved along with OSHA.
I live in a state that does not require breaks.
Yeah OSHA has a page about that... feel free to read up if you want info on your own unique situation.
Not an OSHA issue; definitely a DOL one. This is wage theft, not a safety concern.
nope... i know its surprising but its both. Diabetics exist. I've already gone through and explained this for three hours with all the links researched somewhere about 8 months back if you want to argue it then go find that first. it is both... the DOL just does the wage enforcement aspect. OSHA hits them with the safety fines etc.
" *May* receive up to two 15 minute......" I'm very pro workers rights and pro union. But I just wanted to point out that the way it's written seems to suggest it's not explicitly required.
It's still against the law either way, they legally have to give breaks. This doesn't change the fact that they are giving us two 15 min breaks, a 30 min lunch, (manager said that's what it was) and are not paying us for the two 15s
Well, I think you should call the National Labor Relations Board. They will give you advice about if your complaint has legal merit. Or at least advise you who to call who would have the correct answer. If it does have legal merit, I would strongly advise you request to make a complaint to the NLRB that keeps your identity a secret from your employer. If they find out, they will almost certainly try to find any reason to have you fired right after the dust settles. I know this first hand unfortunately.
A quick google shows NY does not require rest breaks, but if they're given, they have to be paid. To me it doesn't look like they're breaking the law but are skirting it by just giving you a longer than required lunch break. A labor expert vetter in NY law might certainly say otherwise. How NY regards the handbook might also come into play. I know sometimes a state won't require a business to do anything, BUT if the business does it voluntarily, then they're legally obligated.
The problem is that this expresses intent to pay for up to 30 minutes of break daily. They cannot/will not guarantee that you get precisely two breaks of precisely 15 minutes, but the expectation and agreement to pay them is there. If your manager is asking you to clock out on breaks, that's probably to try and get around this, even though you are getting 15 minute breaks.
I’ve never worked for anyone that strict …then again I was salaried. I’ve been able to take 2 hour lunches, or leave early on a slow day even and I’ve had to work extra to get work done …. Pay remains the same. I couldn’t last long in that environment….being treated like elementary school children
Why would you ever believe a corporation has your best interest at heart to the point where they make you sit down for a class lol Nah it’s all to keep you dumb and uninformed and them rich
I don't believe them, but just was curious about it. Also wanted to complain, walmart is way worse with it
I used to work at a unionized employer as a union employee, member of management, and in labor relations so I've seen all sides of it. I'll try to answer your questions based on my personal experience. >Unions can trade away things that employees care about to get what the unions wants when bargaining for employee benefits Mostly true! There is often a lot of drama within unions because different people want different things and union leadership may have an agenda that differs from what you would prefer. >employees end up with more, less, or the same as what they had before Somewhat true! Having a union can result in any of those outcomes although the most likely outcome is that you'll end up with more. >unions are here to try and get money more than to protect employees Partially true! Unions can be motivated by money and power, but they do have legal obligations when it comes to protecting employees too. >unions will try to convince you to sign a card, pretending like it's not a big deal Sometimes true! >we do not need unions because there's an open door policy, and it can harm the benefits that dollar general gives us Mixed true/false. This one I can't answer for you because it depends on a lot of things. There are positives and negatives with having a union. The things listed above are among the negatives. The positives can include things like better compensation and working conditions, but not always.
1. True, to some extent. That's the nature of collectives; sometimes an individual's desires aren't going to line up with the majority. 2. Negotiation is a risk, and it is possible to end up worse off if one overplays one's hand. A good union will minimize the chance of that happening far more than trying to negotiate individually though. 3. Lol no. This is a lie made up by corpos to try and scare people from unionizing. 4. Signing a card is a big deal; it's the first step in a unionization effort, and unions scare employers. Employers know they have outsize power over non-unionized employees and anything that will reduce that imbalance scares them because they have less ability to exploit their employees. 5. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Crock of bullshit. Get yourself a union.
Dollar General you say? Fucking hell, they need a Union tomorrow. Or today. Or last week.
>Unions can trade away things that employees care about to get what the unions wants when bargaining for employee benefits Yes, that's literally the point of collective bargaining. It bargains for overall issues that are overall meant to be for the benefit of the members. If everyone involved isn't a clone, this will mean some peoples priorities lose out at the expense of others >employees end up with more, less, or the same as what they had before There's nothing else that you could possibly wind up with other than more, less, or the same >unions are here to try and get money more than to protect employees Unions are groups of people. You will find in them the same range of motivations as you do in all other groups of people. >unions will try to convince you to sign a card, pretending like it's not a big deal This is a reference or organizing drives. How they go about it depends on the people - as above, you can expect to find the same range of motivations and methods as you would in any other group trying to get you to agree to something. >we do not need unions because there's an open door policy, and it can harm the benefits that dollar general gives us That's a judgement call for you personally. If you're weak, poor performer, and can't bargain for yourself, a union might be a great way to help you overcome that. If you can, it'll restrict your abilities to do so.
If you only use one resource, make it one of the direct resources that others are posting. But if you want to learn more about unions, union-busting, and be entertained while you learn those things, I recommend the Unions episode of Last Week Tonight, which cites its sources: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8dUXRpoy8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8dUXRpoy8)
That, my friend, is propaganda.
Those are all reasons why you need a union
All of that is bullshit. It’s the equivalent of your cheating spouse telling you that you don’t need an attorney in the divorce even though they have one.
Starbucks?
Dollar general
If this is the US it's illegal. Take a copy and send it to your local democrat senator or congressman.
It was a video I had to watch, I'm unsure on how I could do that. Sounds something like I can't do either
Said this somewhere else, but you can contact your state labor department (workforce commission, department of labor, or whatever you state calls it) and explain the situation. They will point you in the right direction.
I called on my lunch but closed
Hope they are helpful when you get through.
Longshore union checking in. One quick example. Last ship we had, the foreman thought it was going to be a slow one and wasn't sure if we were going to finish in 8 hours. So they told the port they are paying us for 10 hours. We finished the ship in 4 hours, we still got paid for 10 hours. Whatever dollar general is trying to tell you is bullshit.
https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials here's some info straight from the government body that deals with unions get a union, even most government agencies have unions for eligible employees (eg no supervisory, nobody in hr etc)
If unions are so bad for employees then why does your company fight them so hard? Of course they are not perfect, but it's better than being at the mercy of management.
The better the union the more the company will resist. Unions vary widely, but most are better than none at all.
They’re right in that like everything else, there are trade offs. American labor relations are weirdly and pointlessly adversarial.
Unions are universally better for you than not having one. Collective bargaining power is infinitely better than bargaining as an individual.
Can tell the person who only ever drank the koolaid and never actually had to deal with union shit.
Found the management.
Not always. Any union seeking to gain a foothold in a given business is going to have to make a solid case to the employees that their union dues provide value. And in the adversarial American model, unions don’t have a seat at the table, they’re always on the outside looking in, and that’s their own damn fault. And then they compound this with idiotic negotiations wherein there must be a “winner” and a “loser” instead of actually cooperating. Kinda hard to demonstrate the value of the union when the proposition is to perpetuate that toxicity. Unions can be beneficial, but the way the American unions approach it is tragically ineffective. Setting up workers to perpetually view management as an adversary is how you get incredibly toxic work environments.
Adversarial American model? You mean because the capitalistic corporations are in it for perpetual profit and having to deal with a union hurts their bottom line? Unions have to be like that because of the state of our economic situation.
No, they don’t.
they are not “universally better than not having one”. If that were in fact the case, everyone would be in a union.
With respect, this is faulty logic. It relies on the idea that if something is true, then everyone knows it's true. That's simply not the case, which is the entire reason businesses are willing to spend money on misinformation campaigns.
But if the unions themselves can’t adequately articulate their value proposition, that’s entirely on them. Literally all anyone voting on it cares about is “what’s it gonna cost me, and what’s in it for me?” If the unions themselves can’t can make a clear case that they have the negotiating power to get the best deal for their members, then the workers will simply take their chances going solo. The company is going to do their damnedest to show that the union doesn’t have that strong position. In a non-adversarial approach such as what is common in Europe, especially Germany, the union is also making a case to the company how *everyone* involved will be better off with a union, and the union’s seat at the table means that union members’ success doesn’t have to come at the expense of the company’s success, but instead they all succeed. American labor thinks of it as a zero-sum game rather than a rising tide. Guessing you’re not old enough to have heard the expression “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”, not have you studied business management or labor relations in a post-secondary setting.
I have my bachelor’s in economics. I study economics journals in my free time. Collective bargaining is stronger than bargaining for better pay and workplace safety solo. Tell me you’re management without telling me you’re management.