Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
Are you talking about government workers? I'm sure that salaried employees in the private sector can be required to stay in the building during lunch, however, that boss would have to be a huge prick if he or she enforced that standard.
2.22.2007 3:19pm
Ara Rubyan (www):
OK, who's in trouble now?
2.22.2007 5:06pm
Jerry Kindall (www):
The correct way to "enforce" such a rule is the way Google does it: offer three free high-quality meals a day to your employees, so they have no need or inclination to leave.

I'm pretty sure it's not covered by Federal law, though. It might be covered by state or local laws in some places.
2.22.2007 8:42pm
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Not that I'm aware, but I'm not aware of one that prohibits it either. I took a quick glance but I didn't see anything at Findlaw.com.

I'll assume this is an at-will, non-government, with no (or an ambiguous) contract involved. I'm guessing that the fact that you mentioned "salaried" makes you think that makes a difference, but I fail to see how.
2.22.2007 9:52pm
Rosemary, Queen of All Evil (mail):
I'm guessing that the fact that you mentioned "salaried" makes you think that makes a difference, but I fail to see how.

Because the employee in question was told by her boss that it did. I fail to see how it can be done but she was told that Federal law allows them to keep her from exiting the building until her shift ends. So, she can't see a doctor or do anything during her lunch hour.
2.22.2007 10:50pm
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):

"...she was told that Federal law allows them to keep her from exiting the building until her shift ends. So, she can't see a doctor or do anything during her lunch hour."



That is precisely why people take their lunch break to go down to the gun shop, return to work, and go on a rampage. I'm not saying it's ok to react that way, but I understand.
2.23.2007 1:11am
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
I'd check the NLRB regs or the CFR.

Beyond my expertise.
2.23.2007 11:53am
shep (mail):
"...she was told that Federal law allows them to keep her from exiting the building until her shift ends."

Sounds like federal law allows the “free market’ decide its employment policies. Do you think more federal regulation of private enterprise’s employment practices are in order?
2.23.2007 1:42pm
shep (mail):
*[chirp]*
2.26.2007 1:17pm
Michael (www):
Now, I don't know what the law is here, but it sounds to me like keeping you somewhere against your will during free time is unlawful incarceration.

Unless, of course, it's part of your employment agreement.
2.27.2007 1:13pm
shep (mail):
...keeping you somewhere against your will during free time is unlawful incarceration.

Oh no. Everyone's free to leave.
2.27.2007 6:31pm
Dan Melson (mail) (www):
Actually, there is at least one special case.

I spent twelve years as an Air Traffic Controller.

When you are in control status (as opposed to administrative) you must obtain permission to leave the site and they can refuse it. The flip side is that you are paid for your lunch time (in other words, 8 hours pay for a straight eight hour day, not 8.5 or 9)

There may be other examples. But in general, if they're not paying you for the time (most lunch breaks) how you spend it and where you spend it is your own issue, and you cannot legally be disciplined for leaving he facility.
3.1.2007 8:13pm
Account:
Password:
Remember info?