Are there any labor laws about time off?

I know theres all manner of laws concerning maniditory breaks and meals while at work. But are there any laws that dictate a minimum ammount of time off between shifts?

The reason I ask is that my job has been doing some pretty extreem swing shifts and my inability to get adequate rest means I either am exhausted at work and/or facing diciplanary action due to not getting up on time.

Case in point last Sunday I was at work doing inventory for 9 hours, leaving at 9:30pm. I was then scheduled to open the store the next morning at 6:30am. Its also an estabished fact that It takes me an hour to commute each way. So it gives me effectively 6 hours to be at ome, factor in I need to eat and its expect I make myself presentable for the next day, it leaves me with 4 hours sleep.

Its not that I haven't done it before, or that others don't, but there seems something terribly wrong with using this as a regular scheduling plan, and then looking at me like I'm a dirt bag when I can't cope any longer. Is there anything out there regarding this?

There are laws if you are a commercial driver. Don't know about regular folks.

Retail Management.

I can see how the law would turn a blind eye to the commute factor. Its just dirty since it was a known factor when I was placed to the location, and multiple requests to move have either been turned downout right or "I've got something in the works..." and nothing is heard of from again.

I was even enough that that they factored in an extra $3000 in my annual for gas/wear/tear

It depends on the State. My guess is that you can find out by checking the website of what ever state agency enforces the labor laws.

do you think employers can treat people worse since the economy blows?

I see that we sometimes treat people worse. don't like it? good luck finding another job.........

The state of NJ webiste appears to apply mostly to state employees and private sector people are ushered towards OSHA. Thats where I get lost.

And this job has been doin much worse before the economy crapped out. It seems its legal to expect 16 hours of work for multiple days in a row, and then bring the axe down when that employee can't drag himself out of bed. All with the additude "If you don't like it, take your ball and go home."

Be glad you have a job. Getting off at 9:30pm and not having to be back in till 6:30 the next day is not a big deal.

In NY the laws are supposed to be posted in the work place.

I don't think there is a minimum time off unless you have a CDL. We had an 8 hour rule and many times I'd get out at 2 am and be back at 10am. Living 80 miles away meant a good night sleeping in the car. Now that I'm "management" I've had as little as 4 hours off.

Several years Taco Bell was doing this to an employee. He got in a wreck on the way home (fell asleep at the wheel) and was seriously injured. Sued the pee out of them and won millions. I doubt there are any laws involved, but there is some liability.

I have had problem with an employer before. A phone call the the state employment commission will answer all your questions. It will also give you some ammo to use.

Sometimes a phone call to a district manager will help. Then again, they can also get you fired. Good luck,

I would probably call the state people first and find out if you have a leg to stand on. I would also tune up the resume and start looking for another job.

When I was starting in college, I worked Saturday Night close and Sunday Morning Open on purpose. They were the 2 shifts that people wanted the least and no one fought me for the hours. That said, I did not live an hour away (30 minutes max if I went to my GF's house, 10 if I stayed home)

In this economy, research it and see what the state says. can you afford not to commute any more?

As a Federal employee working in a weapons manufacturing facility, all they have to say is "schedule in jeopardy" or "in the best interest of National Security" and you might as well bring a cot in. State laws and common sense do not apply. Imagine being as tired as you are, but running a lathe, turning a chunk of steel 20" diameter and 30 feet long.

Do your managers really have a take it or leave it attitude, or is the guy writing the schedule just not aware of your situation? Does this go on for weeks at a time or is this a one time glitch? Do you have a Union? Do you have something like a Management Employee Relations rep?

Maybe it's time to polish up the resume'.

Dan

I'll give the state a call in the next couple of days. Just to find out where I stand.

And the fact that the District Manager is the one coming down on me, does nothing for trying to go up that ave. It feels more like "lets setup the reasons to fire this guy so we can hire someone cheaper."

The last time this happened (several months ago) we were working daily double 6am-9pm+, after one of the three key holders to the store, just disappeared. When I couldn't cope anymore I over slept and the store opened late twice and they look to me like I'm the peice of E36 M3 because I couldn't get up on time.

I have definately been looking for other employment though, but only just recently. So I'll just have to see how that goes too.

914Driver wrote: As a Federal employee working in a weapons manufacturing facility, all they have to say is "schedule in jeopardy" or "in the best interest of National Security" and you might as well bring a cot in. State laws and common sense do not apply. Imagine being as tired as you are, but running a lathe, turning a chunk of steel 20" diameter and 30 feet long. Dan

The joys of being "Essential" After 9/11 I worked from tuesday thru sat, straight, and then atleast one shift every day off. Luckily since then i've only been stuck here for snow emergencies which only drag on for a day or so.

....and the people here keep saying we don't need unions anymore.

pete240z wrote: do you think employers can treat people worse since the economy blows? I see that we sometimes treat people worse. don't like it? good luck finding another job.........

Absolutely.

I don't know about the laws there... but here i'm perfectly allowed to come in start working at 5:45am, and leave at 9pm when overtime is in effect. I do that for usually the 1st 3 months out of the year, and work another 8 hour shift on saturdays.

But it's not mandatory, and i'm a sick berkeleyer that believes simply in "the ends justify the means." Working 80 hour weeks pays the bills, and gives me money to sink into the money pit. If that means working myself into the ground, then i'll do it.

I haven't had a vacation in over 3 years, and i haven't worked less than 50 hours in a week in over 2 years.

But some people can do it, and some simply can't. If i had an hour commute on top of that, i don't think i could.

So call the state.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

pete240z wrote: do you think employers can treat people worse since the economy blows? I see that we sometimes treat people worse. don't like it? good luck finding another job.........

Absolutely.

You can do things now that were unimaginable a year ago. And we're a gov't agency with many unions.

pete240z wrote: do you think employers can treat people worse since the economy blows?

During downturns you find out what people and companies are really made of. A fair number of companies always decide that the best way to manage their employees is to treat them badly. That and treat job seekers dirt as well. Here in in Silicon Valley, during the dot bust, we saw a lot of that. We also saw many of the those companies those their best people as soon things began to turn around.

Hmmm... OK, I see what you are saying.

But what is the balance?

I live in a town that just lost more than 10% of it's jobs, over 90% in several industries. Our company, however, is growing like gangbusters.

We are hiring- about a 50% increase in staffing over the next 4 months.

So, part of the picture is that we have a lot of people to choose from. We can get a lot of bang for our buck, and frankly don't need to pay top dollar.

I think that is smart business, at some level. There's some great people out there who are willing to work for less than they might have a few years ago.

Part of me feels like that's just what the market will bear. It's basic supply and demand, and good business.

But I suppose it could be viewed as taking advantage of folks.

Thoughts?

I was even enough that that they factored in an extra $3000 in my annual for gas/wear/tear

No offense, but as others have stated, this is a pretty friggin' sweet deal for a LOT of folks, especially in the current economy. i.e., if you left tomorrow, and the boss put an ad. in the newspaper for "80 hours a week, plus vehicle gas/wear/tear allowance," I'm guessing people would be beating down the door to apply.

If it's not your gig, start looking for something else. Looking for the state to come in and "Screw the man" doesn't do ANYONE any good. While they may not legally be able to fire you for turning them in, or personally confronting them about the issue, I'm sure they could come up with some new "creative" tasks for you to perform during your now 4 hour shift, 3 days a week.

Not trying to be a self-righteous prick. Just statin' the facts.

I was thinking that (well, maybe not the SR prick part)

You've got a job. You are free to decide whether you want to leave or not.

But why look for a legal battle?

Would you want to continue working there if you won such a battle?

SVreX wrote: Hmmm... OK, I see what you are saying. But what is the balance? I live in a town that just lost more than 10% of it's jobs, over 90% in several industries. Our company, however, is growing like gangbusters. We are hiring- about a 50% increase in staffing over the next 4 months. So, part of the picture is that we have a lot of people to choose from. We can get a lot of bang for our buck, and frankly don't need to pay top dollar. I think that is smart business, at some level. There's some great people out there who are willing to work for less than they might have a few years ago. Part of me feels like that's just what the market will bear. It's basic supply and demand, and good business. But I suppose it could be viewed as taking advantage of folks. Thoughts?

The problem with this situation is that when you drive wages down, your employees spend less money at surrounding businesses, then those surrounding businesses have to lay people off, then those people who get laid off have no money to spend, so they spend no money at surrounding businesses including your business, so you have to lay some people off, so even fewer people have money to spend at surrounding businesses so they have to lay even more people off....and so on.

I disagree.

We are not driving wages down. We are driving them up.

With thousands of people sitting on the unemployment lines locally, we are one of the only companies hiring. Any job is better than no job.

And I'm not sure it's fair to say we are paying low. We are negotiating in a time when things are terrible. Maybe we are paying higher than the value will be a year from now.

We hired one guy be a production supervisor who took a pay cut from his industrial engineering position at the local plant of a national tire chain (now closing).

So what is the value of this guy? If we look backwards, we could say that he's worth whatever the tire company used to pay him. That job is gone. If we look at the present, we could say he has no value, as he is on the unemployment lines. But we are looking to the future. We recognize that this guy made more before, we value what he brings to the company, and we anticipate that he will be able to grow here, and hope that we can utilize his experiences better, and offer salary increases to go with it.

He is looking to the future and recognizing the VERY REAL possibility that unemployment may double locally and that there will probably not be any industrial engineering positions opening. Perhaps he will remain unemployed. Perhaps his value 1 year from now will be significantly LESS than it is right now, as more enter the job hunt, and all the industrial engineers are busy competing with each other for lawn care jobs.

How is that taking advantage of a guy? I think it is offering him an opportunity. Why is "the man" always wrong? This is the kind of stinkin' thinkin' that got us into this mess (someone else is responsible for my well being).

I don't buy the "village" mentality of economics. I look around and think all the other local businesses are acting incredibly stupid, and we are the smart ones investing in the future (and taking the risk to do so).

This reminds me of a story I'm hearing more and more now.

Richmond, VA is the home of Capital One Credit Cards. Years ago Cap1 would give a card to just about anyone. They were a decent company as far as cc companies go. Paid well. Kept their people on during good and bad times. A good corporate citizen.

About ten years ago they started laying off folks left and right. Word on the street was that you could work there but layoffs would happen so jump ship the first chance you got. Subsequently, they had retention issues with talented people. They solved that issue by paying everyone top dollar. Their employees still have a mercenary mentality. If you can get more someplace else, you leave Cap1 at that very moment. So they lose they're most talented folks quite often.

Now, in these times of the credit crunch, they're jacking everyone's interest rate through the roof. A friend has worked there for 13 years. He has stellar credit. Not a blemish. They "repriced" the interest rate on his card up 10%. He had an 8% interest rate. It's now 18%. He's lucky. He doesn't revolve credit. He pays it off monthly. Other folks are now caught. When they could afford the lower interest rate, the one on the initial contract they agreed to, maybe now they can't. So they will get socked with over the limit fees, late payment fees, we're-screwing-you-and-you-can't-do-a-thing-about-it fees. On the face of it it appears unfair as well as taking advantage of these tough economic times. A guy could've been in great shape but this may push him over the edge while also ruining his credit. Now with ruined credit the guy can't get as good a job as he had before. His car insurance costs more. He can't rent as nice a house for his family. This, on a massive scale, has an effect on the nation ultimately. In that we are all effected.

I know I'll never have a Cap1 card because of the layoffs and this new interest rate hiking strategy. If they pull that crap now they're only going to do it again whenever the environment allows them too. It's dirty pool in my book. I can't help but think people will remember this and treat them accordingly when times are good again. I'm not saying this will drive Cap1 out of business but it can't help them in the future.

After typing all that I'm thinking "Maybe the morale of the story is if you take advantage of people during the bad times will people take advantage of you during the good times? Once the power dynamic is back on the side of The People are they then going to thumb their noses at you while you cry?"

In a way I kind of hope so. After all, we're in this together. If you're not a friend, or straight dealing business partner, in bad times then what kind of friend/business partner are you?

I'm not advocating "Screw the man!" here. I'm saying that if you enter into an agreement with an entity or person, and they change the terms midway through, how can you trust them to deal straight again? You can't. You learn your lesson and leave those guys behind. It probably makes good business sense to pay someone the least you can get away with. But does it make long term business sense to do so? I have no idea. I do know that Cap1 won't get my business ever. If a company didn't pay me what I considered myself to be worth I'd leave first chance I got. Is it worth to pay a guy low now knowing that in the future he'll leave you for someone who will pay him better? After all the training, indoctrination, and investment you've put into him for the duration of his employment to you? Depends on the employee I guess. If he's not worth squat then watching him leave won't matter. If he's a key player you'll rue the day you were able to bull him into a lower tax bracket.

It's always a trade off or a risk I guess. I don't have an MBA so what do I know?