In 1817, the famous British philosopher and educator Robert Owen proclaimed the concept that eight hours a day are supposed to be for sleep, eight for rest, and another eight for work. It took decades of disputes, strikes and negotiations before the eight-hour workday became the norm in much of the world. Okay, the official norm.
Today, an 8-5 working week is considered the standard, but de facto those are 9 hours we spend in the office (unless, of course, working from home). This includes, of course, lunchtime, which most employers do not pay for, but how free are employees during this hour? The user u/ftp67, the author of today’s story, came across this issue directly during their own job search.
The author of the post is a jobseeker and they almost always face this situation when the recruiter says lunchtime is unpaid
Image credits: Malte Helmhold (not the actual photo)
However, the author is sure that the 8-5 working week is actually 9 billable hours, not 8
Image credits: ftp67
According to the author, lunchtime isn't a time when the employee can actually do something for themselves
Image credits: Igal Ness (not the actual photo)
Image credits: ftp67
So the author suggests either to have a true 8-5 working week with lunch at the work desk, or to make lunchtime paid officially
So, the Original Poster (OP), in their own words, has been looking for a new job for six months, has applied for many vacancies, but employers only began to respond relatively recently - after they lied on their resume. And so, in the process of communicating with recruiters, the author had one fairly standard question.
Each time during the conversation, the candidate asked whether the 8-5 system actually meant 9 billable hours. And every time the answer was quite the same, and in a rather offended tone of voice: “No, hour lunch break, 8 hours!”
However, as the original poster believes, and there is a grain of truth in their reasoning, in fact, the employer should be paying for their occupied time. After all, the employee cannot do anything during this hour of nominally free time. Pay attention to household chores? No! Walk the dog? No. Cook some food in the kitchen? Also no. Work on a pet project? No again.
De facto, an employee represents their company even during lunchtime, although they don’t receive money for it, the original poster is sure. In addition, many workers generally eat for 15 minutes right at the working desk, in between emails and calls. So why not either squeeze this time span into a full eight hours, or pay for that same ill-fated hour within the working day, the author of the post ponders?
Image credits: Redd F (not the actual photo)
Indeed, the Fair Labor Standards Act, adopted back in 1938, limited the workweek to 44 hours, while obliging employers to pay time and a half for overtime hours. Well, subsequent amendments limited the working week to 40 hours. On the other hand, according to a survey by Gallup, American adults employed full or part time work an average of 43 hours per week.
Moreover, in the entire history of these surveys, starting in 1989, this figure has never dropped to 40 hours, reaching its maximum of 45 hours in 2017. What proportion of these overtime hours were actually paid in accordance with the law - Gallup alas doesn't provide such data. But lunchtime is definitely not included in these hours. This is how it happened historically...
By the way, this became perhaps the main argument in the words of skeptical commenters on the original post. And there were surprisingly many such folks. People counter the author by saying that they should just accept it because that is the ‘common practice’, and perhaps even go to therapy to de-stress from the situation.
On the other hand, a significant part of the commenters sided with the OP, arguing that, firstly, during lunchtime, an employee really cannot fully belong to themselves, and secondly, many employers somehow force staff to work even during their lunchtime. “The lunch hour is deff. not ‘your time.’ <...> When you’re there to an office that hour is super restricted and should be paid,” one of the commenters aptly wrote.
In any case, as the original poster is sure, something needs to be done about this situation, because “we recognize lunch is effectively working time. Nobody instantly mentally relaxes and enjoys that, That is not your time. It’s recess.” And what do you, our dear readers, think about all this? Do you agree or disagree with the author of the post? Please feel free to share your opinions in the comments below.
The internet, as it turns out, is very divided over this, but many commenters do side with the author, agreeing with most of their points
Image credits: Israel Andrade (not the actual photo)
