Difference in unpaid lunchbreaks

Person_one

skintandscared wrote: »

Useful contribution, many thanks. No, really.

Be completely honest with yourself though, in an office, what will actually happen if you have an hour's lunch break and still go home on time?

Either you are being given too much work to do within the hours that you are paid for, or you're placing too high a value on it and working through your break needlessly.

If you could convince them to shorten your lunch break, do you think they'd actually pay you 2.5 hours extra every week on top of your contract or would they just tell you to go home half an hour earlier too (knowing that you probably wouldn't!)

AP007

skintandscared wrote: »

um, I would probably end up staying 45 minutes late to catch up. Anyway, thanks for your replies.

Maybe I'm phrasing this wrongly, sorry if I'm not being clear.

Colleagues work 8 hours. I work 8 hours. We do very similar roles. They are paid for 7.5 of those hours. I'm paid 7. Can I request to switch to just half an hour unpaid lunch instead of a full hour?

Then how about just work 7!??

mountainofdebt

But if they're salaried, as opposed to being paid hourly, then they are worse off than you......or am I missing something???

[Deleted User]

Denning. wrote: »

Well it is. Your job is not that important. People who claim 'they are too busy to stop' are in one of two possible situations.

1) They are incompetent and can't get the work done in their contracted hours
2) Their workload is too much for one person.

If it is the former then you are doing the right thing. If it is the latter you are just shooting yourself in the foot.

Whilst I'm sure this is true in a lot of jobs, there are also jobs where you are expected to get certain jobs done every day. I have certain reports etc to produce daily, and it has to be done whether it takes 30 mins or 3 hours (if IT issues delay me or something else comes up). I wouldn't be in a job much longer if I just went home and left work undone. Plus most people are doing the job of 2,3 people as companies make cuts and redundancies...that's the way things are at the moment sadly.

Renegotiate your contract, you can but ask.

LittleVoice

skintandscared wrote: »

I get paid way more than NMW. Nobody "decides" that I get 15 minutes lunchbreak, I literally am too busy to stop. I just wondered whether, as there are employees who work 8 hours and get just half an hour lunchbreak, they could refuse to employ me on the same basis, that's all.

I asked about NMW as, if you were close to that, not being paid for the extra time could fall foul of those regulations.

It sounds as though someone has decided that you take 15 minutes for lunch, that person being you of course.

You could ask to be put on the contract where you are paid for 7.5 hours rather than 7 - but they wouldn't have to pay you more than they do now.

Try taking your full hour. You say that would mean leaving 45 minutes later. I would think that if your job was so busy that you could take only 15 minutes for lunch, then there would also be many times when you would need to work beyond the scheduled finishing time. Your post suggests you don't do that so you do have control on that end of the day and on the start. Now you have to take control of the lunch break too.

skintandscared_2

Person_one wrote: »

Be completely honest with yourself though, in an office, what will actually happen if you have an hour's lunch break and still go home on time?

Either you are being given too much work to do within the hours that you are paid for, or you're placing too high a value on it and working through your break needlessly.

If you could convince them to shorten your lunch break, do you think they'd actually pay you 2.5 hours extra every week on top of your contract or would they just tell you to go home half an hour earlier too (knowing that you probably wouldn't!)

Well that is exactly what they are doing with the other staff - paying them 2.5 hours extra every week. I am not complaining about the length of my day and I love my job. I don't care that my lunchbreak is 15 minutes long. I am not incompetent and yes, I probably do have too much work for one person but I love it anyway. My question was merely whether I can request to be put on the same contract as the others have just been moved to and whether they legally have to consider that. Someone above has said I can ask and they can say no. If that is the legal position in employment law then so be it, that's fine. I was just asking the question, that's all!

Anyway, thanks for the contributions. I'm off to bed...

CKhalvashi

This may not help OP, but the NHS had various people working between 35 and 37.5h a week when they were switching contracts.

I can't see the NHS doing anything unlawful in their working hours.

CK

getzls

skintandscared wrote: »

um, I would probably end up staying 45 minutes late to catch up. Anyway, thanks for your replies.

Maybe I'm phrasing this wrongly, sorry if I'm not being clear.

Colleagues work 8 hours. I work 8 hours. We do very similar roles. They are paid for 7.5 of those hours. I'm paid 7. Can I request to switch to just half an hour unpaid lunch instead of a full hour?

So if they changed your break to 30 minutes you would take how long of it as your actual break?

5 mins?

If your firm knows you are giving them a free 45 minutes a day, why would they change that?:cool:

persa

Most employers will let you take whatever lunch break you like, as long as you work your contracted number of hours and show your face during core hours.

I don't think it's that unusual for different departments to have different contracted hours - same employer, but different type of work.

If I read this correctly, the OP's gripe isn't with the length of lunch break (which is easy to fix) but rather the contracted number of hours (i.e. wants a payrise)?

CKhalvashi

persa wrote: »

Most employers will let you take whatever lunch break you like, as long as you work your contracted number of hours and show your face during core hours.

We don't deal with the public, but this is my view on business.

As long as what I'm paying for gets done, I don't really care. I'm also aware that one team disappeared at around 3pm yesterday (contracted to either 5/6), but as the workload was complete, as above, I don't really care.

I'm in Geneva at the moment, company is in London, therefore as long as it's done, and there's some form of contact with the outside world between 4am and 10pm (dual-shifted), even on a 'someone will get back to you' level, it really doesn't matter to me.

I don't think it's that unusual for different departments to have different contracted hours - same employer, but different type of work.

This, certainly within our industry, isn't unusual at all. We'll have the office guys/girls on days, the touring guys/girls on evenings (typically 6pm to 2am), and the studio guys on whenever suits them/the client.

If I read this correctly, the OP's gripe isn't with the length of lunch break (which is easy to fix) but rather the contracted number of hours (i.e. wants a payrise)?

To which if it isn't discriminatory........

CK