Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PossibleHipster t1_iuduos3 wrote

Reply to comment by Tacos_truck in Filing for Unemployment with Company that serially fires employees by marqui4me

It's in the 1st sentence?

5

Tacos_truck t1_iuduxac wrote

That OP took a break they weren’t legally required to get because they were working a short shift?

2

PossibleHipster t1_iudv368 wrote

Like they said, they thought they were closing. They didn't know they were on a short shift...

Also depending on the state they could still have a legally required break for the number of hours they worked.

2

Tacos_truck t1_iudvfwz wrote

So OP goofed and rather than just accept it and wrap half their sandwich back up, jumped immediately to telling their supervisor they were breaking the law

1

PossibleHipster t1_iudvryu wrote

Depending on what state they are in they can still have a legally required break that they were denied. E.g. California.

But like, maybe you should go read their post again because it sounds like you clearly didn't understand parts of it.

3

Tacos_truck t1_iudwbio wrote

I understand it, it’s just more of the same “management always bad, workers never wrong” on Reddit. Taking even some accountability goes a long way

1

PossibleHipster t1_iudxkvs wrote

I'm not sure why you are hellbent on assuming they were not legally required to get a break. There are a ton of state laws that require breaks.

3

sugabeetus t1_iuemwtw wrote

It's not. She was wrong. He was wrong. I was right.

2

sugabeetus t1_iuemn9v wrote

I didn't goof, she was wrong, and I only pointed out the law after a few minutes of polite (on my side at least) talking.

2

sugabeetus t1_iuemf85 wrote

I had already worked the 6 hours minimum to require me to take a 10. I was very aware of the law because the upper management had been getting very strict about making sure employees were taking their state-mandated breaks. I was actually trying to help her not get in trouble at first.

2