Human Resource Blog

Meal Breaks Florida

	Benefits
Total Compensation Summary Performance Improvement Plan Performance Appraisal and Review Employee Payroll Status/Change Form Employee Change Form

	Management/Leadership
Complete Harassment Forms FMLA Administrator Kit Harassment Prevention Kit Sexual Harassment Kit Workplace Information Sheets

I work at [employer name deleted], a major discount chain,  in Florida. We’re told that if we work 6 hours or more, we are required to take a 30 minute (unpaid) meal break.
This rule is applied at 5 hours and 59 minutes; in other words, if we clock out for meals at 6 hours or more, we are in violation of the policy and receive “coaching” or written reprimands.
Management tells us that this is a Florida law, and that they are fined if we are even 30 seconds (yes, 30 seconds) late in clocking out.
I’ve looked online and it appears to me that there is no law in Florida that specifically outlines times for meal breaks, unless the worker is under 18 years old. I’m a lot older than 18.
Is [employer name deleted] in bounds here? I don’t mind taking a break but I’m often a minute or two over the 6 hour limit and I feel that a rule that ostensibly is supposed to protect my rights is being used to my disadvantage.

While there is no Florida law requiring breaks, this is a reasonable company policy that the employee needs to follow.

Having to conform to the company policy regarding breaks is much better than the alternative…having no break, ever. Often on this site, we see questions such as “My Florida employer makes me work 18 hours every day without a break. Is this legal?”  Sadly, it is.

Employers implement break policies to be fair to employees, but they also do so to reduce payroll expenses.

Suppose your employer, a major big-box retail operation, has 5,000 employees nationwide. If all the employees are paid the minimum wage and each “forgets” to take a 30 minute break, that works out to an extra $14,625 per day that the company is spending on payroll. Over a year, that’s more than $3.8 million (based on 5 days per week, 52 weeks per year.)  In reality, the cost is higher because some employees earn more than the minimum wage.

Some nationwide companies find it fairer to have the same policies at all their locations. So if California law requires that employees be given a 30 minute break, they do the same for workers at all locations. It makes life simpler for managers who may move between regions, and fairer for employees.

This employee should count her blessings. In a recent lawsuit that the US Department of Labor settled with Wal-mart, the retail giant deducted a meal break from worker’s pay – even through they never received the breaks. Now, that’s illegal. Wal-mart ended up paying workers more than $2 million in back pay, for meal breaks.

The bottom line is, this break policy is entirely reasonable and even commendable.

It would be great if the employer could allow a few minutes grace period when an employee is late taking a break. But here’s the reality of the situation, from an HR perspective. Suppose employees are required to take breaks after 6 hours, but the employer permits a five-minute grace period. This means that employees actually have 6 hours and 5 minutes to go on break. Some employees are going to take their break after 6 hours and 6 minutes, and complain because the employer is not allowing them a grace period of an extra minute or two.

Maybe the supervisor then permits an additional 5-minute grace period, meaning employees need to take a break within 6 hours and 10 minutes. But some employees are going to take their break after 6 hours and 11 minutes, and ask for a few extra minutes grace period.

If this keeps up, pretty soon employees are going to have 11 hours and 10 minutes to take a break – on an 8-hour shift.

The supervisor has to draw the line somewhere. In this case, she has drawn the line at 5 hours and 59 minutes.

Sometimes supervisors tell employees “You need to do this because it’s the law” instead of saying, “You need to do this because it’s our company policy” or “You need to do this because I said so.” That’s an understandable tactic.

It’s also possible that this supervisor knows she has to enforce this company policy, but is not clear about why. She may genuinely believe, or have been told by her boss, that it’s state law. It’s not. But it is a company policy, and needs to be followed.