495
Kentucky: New bill eliminating work break rights rings alarm bells
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
495 points (99.0% liked)
News
23530 readers
4772 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I feel like I spent to much time in the sun today...
Why is nobody talking about this?
Am I missing something here. Do these people get paid overtime if they work 7 days in a row, period, as long as they work 40 hours a week? Or does this mean if you work over 40 hours and 7 days in a row, you do not get your overtime pay for the 7th day, even if that puts you over 40 hours?
While i understand many people dont work 7 days in a row, I'm unclear as to why eliminating overtime pay, in any capacity, isn't a bigger part of this story. I understand breaks are important and it's not right to take that away, for various reasons, but to eliminate any form of overtime pay is also a big WTF. Idk, this isn't a thing in my state
And then there's this:
Are they supposed to eat their sandwich while working? The break is only as long as the employee is actively eating? If there's no break, how are they eating, at all?
Idk. Not like its unusual for me to be dense, but these things really make no sense to me.
As to that second point, if it means that the employer has to pay during a lunch break (which is how it should be), then I'm all for it.
The 8 hrs working plus unpaid lunch way we do it is bullshit.
Y'all are reading into that too much. We have a similar clause in Texas, which is virtually our only protection in regards to breaks. To simplify: they are saying that if the employee is eating AND working, then you have to pay them. I'm not sure how they are wording it in Kentucky but here it's along the lines of "you don't have to give the peasants a break, but if you do and it is unpaid then it is illegal to request that they work".
It sounds stupid because they are literally saying "if you don't pay them they can't be forced to work", but I'm really glad that protection is there or guarantee it would be abused even more than it likely already is.
The practical effect is everyone just gets an unpaid lunch because asking people to work 8 hours with no break is ridiculous.
Yeah i always thought that was stupid. If thats what it means, I wonder if that means it will count towards the 8 hours you actually work? I wonder if companies would want to pay people for the extra hour vs losing an hour of productivity.
Trading off breaks for going home an hour "early" actually sounds like an interesting proposition for office workers, for people that work outside or in a factory, not so much.
I think it's saying: you don't have to give your employees a lunch break, but if you do you have to pay them while they're on break. To me it sounds like a way to convince all employers in the state to not give lunch breaks since they have to now pay employees during lunch.