Does your shop force you to take breaks?

Well, on a traditional wall timeclock in, say, a more industrial job where such things are used every day, you do actually have to physically be there. Indeed, seeing people running across the store, trying to get to a time clock on time so as not to get a time-clock or meal-exception violation, is not unusual.

As far as every other way this might be done electronically, well, everything is a 2011 version of a written time card. But, if you actually have to write it/file it at a certain time or times, as the original poster's boss is requesting because that is actually required by law, well, you still have to do it, at those times. And, in that case, you would be more apt to actually take that break (and have your accounting be accurate) because of that.

Basically, it sounds like his boss is making him do what he's saying he's going to do (if only on his own time schedule), in accordance with the law, and if that's what she's going to do, then she's probably going to be checking times of when those breaks are filed (or, they could be programed into an in-house system, thereby tracking who's on-time, who's late, etc....in order to see that people are actually following the law, which she obviously wants, for legal/follow-up reasons.

If that's why/how someone is doing this, and if a break is recorded electronically, it is less likely that people are going to just be writing something down for whenever if the system in place is a good, workable and accurate one in itself.

 

Totally agree. If your job involves fixing cars, shaving wood or cutting metal, you work in a shop. If your job involves sitting in front of a computer, you work in an office. If your job involves working in an office and bitching about working in a dying industry and a million other things, you probably work at a newspaper.

 

I'm in my shop tonight. And shaddap, or I'll throw an X-acto at ya. 8)

 

Half the reason I got into newspapers was to sound like a pretentious douchebag.

 

On my electronic time clock, when I'm gone for the day, I just enter in eight hours and that's that. Our paper has reporters just enter whatever time they enter, since they understand we're not always in the office.

 

I can't blame the people who want to do the bare minimum, or less.

There's no loyalty in this business, or now, for that matter, in any business. Time was, you worked your butt off, you got promoted, and you had a job with the company for life.

Now, you work your butt off with unpaid hours, the head person says, "Thanks for making me look good. Now I'm off for my new higher-paid gig which I was promoted to because *we* did such a great job here," and then some suit decides to lay you off.

I know journalism is supposed to be "different", and in many ways, it still is. But I don't blame people for wanting to have a life outside of work, or not busting their butts to get in those extra Little League briefs in the paper. Why be loyal to an industry that isn't loyal to you?

 

I'm not going to "blame" people who want to do the bare minimum. But it goes two ways. Nobody should "blame" people who want to go the extra mile, or look upon them as kiss-asses.

 

The difference is, they are screwing over the people who are trying to have a semblance of a life. The boss looks at the 40-hour worker who takes breaks and does what they're supposed to do and then asks them, "Why can't you be like Superman, who works 60 and gets paid for 40 and never takes a break?"

And this is sports journalism we're talking about here. Not brain surgery, where you're saving a life, or the law, where you're trying to help your clients with their legal rights. Sports journalism. It's important to readers, yes. But it's not life and death, although some people are crazy enough to make it like that.

 

it's not about being a kiss-ass. There are laws in place for a reason and its mostly to keep companies from taking advantage of their workers, who presumably need the job to survive. Now is observing break rules at a newspaper straight out of The Jungle? Of course not. But what irritates your co-workers if that you're giving off the perception that you're too good for your own rights. And while you think you're doing good for your company and your readers, you're actually creating a legal liability that could get you fired and would work against your paper if a co-worker ever got slighted and decided to sue.

 

Well, I guess then it's not going to go two ways.

 

Consider mission accomplished.

 

Today I had someone complain that I was taking the wrong kind of break on my time card. I've officially switched sides. Just eliminate the break law since I'm not taking the break anyway and let's be done with it. This law doesn't do me a darn bit of good. All it does is force me to stay at the office longer than I should otherwise have to.