Bathroom breaks at work

[Skilly]

........no, this isn't THAT kind of a post.

 

Today my girlfriend comes home with an email she received at work today. Check this out:

 

"Upon review of the contract and the interpretation by personnel (meaning the HR dept) of the language, the scheduled 15 minute breaks you presently have will no longer take place. According to personnel, the law and the intent of the contract is to allow working in an office environment to have a total of 15 minutes per day of break time. Rest room breaks, snack breaks and sunshine breaks are all part of the total 15 minute break time. Effective July 14, 2008 there will no longer be a scheduled break time. As the need arises, each employee may take a cumulative total of 15 minutes per day break time. Only one person may be out of the office at any given time and must sign out and back in again."

 

She works in an environment where they do have to sign in and out for security reasons, so that's not really an issue.

Here is the exact wording from the contract:

 

"...one hour or one-half hour for lunch, and coffee breaks as may have been established, but not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes per day."

 

Can anyone here justify that memo as being accurate and representative of what the contract language states? In an office work environment, are the employees supposed to monitor their "bathroom time" and subtract it from their daily allowed break time? I don't think that is implied, and that management is purposely trying to incite the employees and create a hostile work environment, possibly in order to force a few of them to quit.

 

Bottom line: my GF hates her job.

 

For you employers out there (Detlef, maybe?), is this a pollicy that you would put into place? If so, why?

[Big Country]

detled would dock their tips for bathroom time. j/k

 

Never worked for a place that monitored like that.

 

Here in Cali, I believe the law is that you are entitled to a paid 15 minute break for every 4 hours worked, and if you exceed 6 hours you must be allowed an unpaid meal break of 30-60 minutes. I've never worked at a place that monitored it closely.

 

Perhaps they have had complaints about smokers taking excessive amounts of break time compared to non-smokers (though that could be a thread of it's own) or some other type of common complaint that has led management down the path of more closely monitoring the break habits of their employees.

[geeteebee]

I see this thread quickly deteriorating into a union vs. non-union argument.

 

With that being said, I agree with BC, I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of people taking an inordinate number of breaks may have created a problem for everyone.

[Skippy]

I work in a great work environment as far as thing like breaks go but nearly a year ago we sort of went to this kind of policy regarding our two 15 minute daily breaks. The main reason was over one guy that spends over 20 minutes a lot of the time using the can. He did this mostly right after lunch break and it started to drive some of the rest of the crew crazy. After a suggestion and a vote from the crew, we no longer take a 15 minute morning break nor do we take a 15 minute afternoon break. If we need to take a quick piss it is no big deal and it is not subtracted from your time but if you go take a poop and you are noticed gone, you are assigned certain duties that take up your 20 minute clean up time at the end of the day. Overall, 12 of my 14 men love this policy. It seems kind of whacked to me but it is what it is. I don’t even have to police or enforce it as the rest of the crew is happy to narc on anyone to get out of the end of the day duties.

[keggerz]

........no, this isn't THAT kind of a post.

 

Today my girlfriend comes home with an email she received at work today. Check this out:

 

"Upon review of the contract and the interpretation by personnel (meaning the HR dept) of the language, the scheduled 15 minute breaks you presently have will no longer take place. According to personnel, the law and the intent of the contract is to allow working in an office environment to have a total of 15 minutes per day of break time. Rest room breaks, snack breaks and sunshine breaks are all part of the total 15 minute break time. Effective July 14, 2008 there will no longer be a scheduled break time. As the need arises, each employee may take a cumulative total of 15 minutes per day break time. Only one person may be out of the office at any given time and must sign out and back in again."

 

She works in an environment where they do have to sign in and out for security reasons, so that's not really an issue.

Here is the exact wording from the contract:

 

"...one hour or one-half hour for lunch, and coffee breaks as may have been established, but not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes per day."

 

Can anyone here justify that memo as being accurate and representative of what the contract language states? In an office work environment, are the employees supposed to monitor their "bathroom time" and subtract it from their daily allowed break time? I don't think that is implied, and that management is purposely trying to incite the employees and create a hostile work environment, possibly in order to force a few of them to quit.

 

Bottom line: my GF hates her job.

 

For you employers out there (Detlef, maybe?), is this a pollicy that you would put into place? If so, why?

I have worked for some major(2 Billion plus in sales) companies and none have ever monitored bathroom breaks like that....however, if management believes that someone is using the bathroom excesively they may have asked them if they were having any medical issues etc....the biggest concern was drug or alchol usage...but fwiw, i would not consider this a normal policy at all

 

detled would dock their tips for bathroom time. j/k

 

Never worked for a place that monitored like that.

 

Here in Cali,

you can stop at CALI....In CALIFORNIA you almost have to be an attorney to deal with employee issues...i think it would be safe to say that California is the most employee friendly state that we have.

[Skippy]

you can stop at CALI....In CALIFORNIA you almost have to be an attorney to deal with employee issues...i think it would be safe to say that California is the most employee friendly state that we have.

PA may be right there with them. Except for resturant workers. They seem to be the modern day slave that makes decent money in the right places.

[rocknrobn26]

I see this thread quickly deteriorating into a union vs. non-union argument.

 

With that being said, I agree with BC, I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of people taking an inordinate number of breaks may have created a problem for everyone.

 

Nah....unions enforce and have clauses in their contract that parallel similar stuff. But ...your second comment is a pisser. A couple of people creating a problem and then admin making rules to make ALL abide is BS! Not attacking you GTB, but this is soooo typical of an admin w/ no spine! Take those people (who abuse the loose policy) aside and explain that they are abusing a policy that is not strict and all will suffer. Get THEM to tow the line, but don't put out a blanket policy that punishes all! The physical thing can be a tender spot also. Some people have IBS, Frequent urination, etc. may have reasons for more frequent visits, and NOD may/should be involved.

[Skilly]

Yes, this is a management vs union thing, however there are less than 5 employees affected. If someone were taking advantage of breaks, it would be noticed and should be directly addressed to the employee, IMO.

 

I think my point of contention on this is that they are trying to quantify the amount of time the employee can use for the restroom, and their 15 minutes allotted break time should not be counted against bathroom breaks. I mean, if you have to go, you have to go. What if you use up your 15 minutes in the morning, having a cup of coffee, a smoke, and a pee break? Does that mean that from after lunch until 4 or 5 pm, that person should not be allowed to use the bathroom? Because that is exactly the policy they are trying to enact.

 

Now, all that being said, I am in favor of management disciplining an employee who wastes too much time in the bathroom. That is something that obviously affects productivity. But I don't think you can generalize the situation and create an all-inclusive policy like they are trying to do.

 

I believe there is an OSHA regulation that covers this, and I'm going to find it!

[keggerz]

PA may be right there with them. Except for resturant workers. They seem to be the modern day slave that makes decent money in the right places.

Trust me when I tell you, its not even close.

[Big Country]

Yes, this is a management vs union thing, however there are less than 5 employees affected. If someone were taking advantage of breaks, it would be noticed and should be directly addressed to the employee, IMO.

 

I think my point of contention on this is that they are trying to quantify the amount of time the employee can use for the restroom, and their 15 minutes allotted break time should not be counted against bathroom breaks. I mean, if you have to go, you have to go. What if you use up your 15 minutes in the morning, having a cup of coffee, a smoke, and a pee break? Does that mean that from after lunch until 4 or 5 pm, that person should not be allowed to use the bathroom? Because that is exactly the policy they are trying to enact.

 

Now, all that being said, I am in favor of management disciplining an employee who wastes too much time in the bathroom. That is something that obviously affects productivity. But I don't think you can generalize the situation and create an all-inclusive policy like they are trying to do.

 

I believe there is an OSHA regulation that covers this, and I'm going to find it!

 

I guess their contention to your scenario is that any time over the 15 minutes should be unpaid time and that if said employee wants full credit for an 8 hour work day, or however they are compensated, they should plan to work beyone the normal COB time for that additional time off.

[Skilly]

Nah....unions enforce and have clauses in their contract that parallel similar stuff. But ...your second comment is a pisser. A couple of people creating a problem and then admin making rules to make ALL abide is BS! Not attacking you GTB, but this is soooo typical of an admin w/ no spine! Take those people (who abuse the loose policy) aside and explain that they are abusing a policy that is not strict and all will suffer. Get THEM to tow the line, but don't put out a blanket policy that punishes all! The physical thing can be a tender spot also. Some people have IBS, Frequent urination, etc. may have reasons for more frequent visits, and NOD may/should be involved.

 

What is NOD?

[keggerz]

Nah....unions enforce and have clauses in their contract that parallel similar stuff. But ...your second comment is a pisser. A couple of people creating a problem and then admin making rules to make ALL abide is BS! Not attacking you GTB, but this is soooo typical of an admin w/ no spine! Take those people (who abuse the loose policy) aside and explain that they are abusing a policy that is not strict and all will suffer. Get THEM to tow the line, but don't put out a blanket policy that punishes all! The physical thing can be a tender spot also. Some people have IBS, Frequent urination, etc. may have reasons for more frequent visits, and NOD may/should be involved.

Unfortunately, it does only take one person to spoil it for everyone else. And its less about having a spine and more about having to ensure that you are treating all employees the same due to the litigiousness nature of our society which causes companies to take the actions that they do.

[keggerz]

I guess their contention to your scenario is that any time over the 15 minutes should be unpaid time and that if said employee wants full credit for an 8 hour work day, or however they are compensated, they should plan to work beyone the normal COB time for that additional time off.

you are probably right but a "rule" like that isn't going to create a positive effect on the workplace.

 

A happy workplace is a productive workplace.

 

An unhappy workplace is an unproductive workplace.

[Big Country]

you are probably right but a "rule" like that isn't going to create a positive effect on the workplace.

 

A happy workplace is a productive workplace.

 

An unhappy workplace is an unproductive workplace.

 

I agree with you 100%.

[H8tank]

I would quit.

 

Why can't she quit?

[keggerz]

I would piss in my seat.

 

Why can't she piss in her seat?

[Ursa Majoris]

Seems to me the contract specifically says "coffee", not bathroom. Management (HR (side note: how come most HR departments are full of complete tossers?) has included all breaks in the mix, which may be overstepping it. It's rank bad management whichever way you slice it and what RR said about people with urinary problems could come back to bite them.

 

Personally, I always think these issues should be dealt with 1 to 1, not by punishing everyone.

[westvirginia]

Seems to me the contract specifically says "coffee", not bathroom. Management (HR (side note: how come most HR departments are full of complete tossers?) has included all breaks in the mix, which may be overstepping it. It's rank bad management whichever way you slice it and what RR said about people with urinary problems could come back to bite them.

 

Personally, I always think these issues should be dealt with 1 to 1, not by punishing everyone.

 

But then (as someone made the great point above) you open yourself up to litigation because you're treating this one differently from that one. I agree w/you. I think a black-owned business s/b able to hire nothing but blacks, women/women, crackers/crackers, etc. and that anyone should be able to be fired or hired for any reason. But in the environment we've created, that just can't happen. If it could, then this one person causing the problem would have to take less breaks or be cut loose. Problem solved.

[rajncajn]

As long as I get my job done & don't surf pron I'm good.

[Skilly]

I would quit.

 

Why can't she quit?

 

If only it were that easy! The job market sucks out there, and she is paid well at her current job.

[keggerz]

But then (as someone made the great point above) you open yourself up to litigation because you're treating this one differently from that one. I agree w/you. I think a black-owned business s/b able to hire nothing but blacks, women/women, crackers/crackers, etc. and that anyone should be able to be fired or hired for any reason. But in the environment we've created, that just can't happen. If it could, then this one person causing the problem would have to take less breaks or be cut loose. Problem solved.

Diversity is the key....if you are in an all black neighborhood then you can hire an all black staff....but staffs are supposed to represent the diversity in the area that the business is in.....also fwiw, I will use NJ as an example...NJ is a right to work state which means you dont have to have a reason to fire anyone....but I dare you to find a major company that doesnt have some sort of operational compliance procedure that they follow before they will fire someone.

Edited June 25, 2008 by keggerz

[cliaz]

I say you need to check the state labor laws. A company cannot enforce a rules over employees that go against the labor laws.

 

I think for Maryland [my state] it is a 15 minute break every 4 hours worked and a 30 minute lunch break in an 8 hour shift. You can be kept after work without OT but that cannot exceed 2 hours and there must be 10 hours between shifts.

[REZ]

Hmmm...pretty sure in California it is 2 10 minute breaks for an 8 hour shift.

Least that's what my wife is entitled to at her job.

I don't know the policy at mine. Never came up.

[FWmaker]

Skilly,

 

Why can't she just hold it in???

 

Them wimmin will complain just about anything.

[Perchoutofwater]

Unfortunately, it does only take one person to spoil it for everyone else. And its less about having a spine and more about having to ensure that you are treating all employees the same due to the litigiousness nature of our society which causes companies to take the actions that they do.

 

Keg hit the nail on the head. More than likely this new policy will run off the offending party in a month or so, and then it will be reversed. We did something similar to run off one employee in the office who took smoke breaks every hour on the hour. They quit within a month, and then changed the policy back to the way it was. Not only does it keep you out of litigation from singling one person out, but if they quit rather than you firing them, it is better of financially for the company as no severance is owed, and you don't have to worry about unemployment.

 

With regard to breaks, in Texas you have to give them two 15 minute breaks and a 30 minute lunch if they choose to take it. That being said, you don't have to pay them for the time they are not working either. Most of our office personnel like to take 1 hour lunches so they forgo the breaks, and work 8-5.