The California Supreme Court speaketh:
In a case that affects thousands of businesses and millions of workers, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that employers are under no obligation to ensure that workers take legally mandated lunch breaks.
The unanimous opinion came after workers' attorneys argued that abuses are routine and widespread when companies aren't required to issue direct orders to take the breaks. They claimed employers take advantage of workers who don't want to leave colleagues during busy times. ...
You can see where this goes. The same place that "overtime pay" disappears to.
How this plays out over time: subtle little hints about how now is not a good time to go eat, glares from supervisors when people get up from their desks, things like that. And suddenly, "workers don't want to leave colleagues during busy times."
In the go-go nineties, I argued with a Disney suit about how a "working lunch" around a conference table wasn't really lunch. I kept saying that the company was obligated to let people exit the premises to eat, and that a sandwich at a meeting didn't qualify.
Stupid me.
Posts
23 comments:
The world is in their pockets, and the problem is that stuff like this can simply be fobbed off as political correctness to an extreme (by a court none the less). "Hey Man, it's a free world, you can do whatever you can do. We're not making you make us make you do anything... But hey, are you finished doing that thing I asked you to do for me yet?
Abandon ship! She’s gonna tip!
Ir's time for the artists of the industry to stand together, for their individual, as well as collective rights. The entertainment business is second only to agriculture in Califirnia. The unions ought to be proud of the services--and creativity--they provide. In the long run, they save money, and the experience they deliver is second to none.
Funny how the California Supreme Court will defend the "rights" of gays to get "married" but not the rights of workers to eat. Glad I live in the Midwest. Not nearly as nutty here.
Yeah, the same way the U.S. Supreme Court defended the "rights" of blacks to "marry" a white person, or the way the Senate passed an amendment that gave women the right to "vote". We all know how ass-backwards and nutty those decisions were.
I'm glad you live in the Midwest too.
"Funny how the California Supreme Court will defend the "rights" of gays to get "married" but not the rights of workers to eat."
Congratulations. You win "The stupidest comment ever" award!
d.
"Glad I live in the Midwest."
Where people vote against their best interests by relying on emotions rather than logic.
**Yeah, the same way the U.S. Supreme Court defended the "rights" of blacks to "marry" a white person, or the way the Senate passed an amendment that gave women the right to "vote". We all know how ass-backwards and nutty those decisions were.**
The U.S. Supreme Court defended a man's right to marry a woman, which, whatever color the participants are, is still what constitutes a marriage, at least in those states in which ALL of the citizens were given a say in the matter (via the ballot box - the thing gay marriage advocates fear the most.)
And PLEASE - comparing the gay marriage farce to women's rights? That's even lamer than comparing it to the civil rights movement. And we all know how much black Americans love THAT comparison.
**Where people vote against their best interests by relying on emotions rather than logic.**
And it's logical to pretend that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships, how?
If you really believe that, nature says "Hi!"
Better yet, name one species in nature in which individuals of the same gender sexually bond, give birth to and raise young as a matter of course. ONE.
We Midwesternites know the difference between political correctness and the truth. Sad the same can't be said for the suckers in San Fran. (Happily, the rest of California has made it known how they feel about gay "marriage". Twice. Not that the court gives an eff about that).
Unless you're a geneticist, I think passing judgment on homosexuality is kinda outside of your area of expertise, and a rational, patient, open attitude is probably more appropriate than condemnation of gay marriage.
What if we find out that homosexuality is a natural evolutionary step to prevent overpopulation in our species? You'd feel kind of like a jerk then, wouldnt you?
Uh.
How did we get from "No lunchtime for YOU!" to gay marriage?
You put up a post, and somebody hijacks it.
This is the bed you made, Steven.
^
Agreed.
The solution is to moderate the blog and delete off-topic comments.
Actually it occurs in nature fairly often. You still need male/female to fertilize the egg, but there's been documented cases in nature of same sex couples raising offspring.
Heck if you google the subject there's even a Faux news network video clip on the subject.
That being said, quit giving mid-westerners a bad name.
**Actually it occurs in nature fairly often.**
Nope. There is no firm and clear evidence of that. It's just yet another "fairy" tale the left loves to tell.
**You still need male/female to fertilize the egg,**
Bingo. That's the natural design. That's what makes the world go round, and that's why heterosexuality is essential to survival but deviancy like homosexuality is not. Therefore, homosexuality is not "equal" to heterosexuality in any empirical or truthful sense of the word. And no amount of grandstanding and political intimidation can make the popular (in some quarters) notion that it is any less of a lie.
**but there's been documented cases in nature of same sex couples raising offspring.**
You talking about the "gay" penguins? The ones who always break up when more females are introduced into their environments (which has happened in two zoos so far)? In nature that does not happen in the sense you're implying. There are herds of female individuals, such as elephants, which raise the young with males taking little or no part, but there are NO same-sex, sexually bonded couples in nature that raise young. None, zip, zilch, nada. That's the truth, whether you like it or not. In acknowledging the truth instead of going along with politically-correct polemics, we Midwesterners are defending our good name. It's San Francisco and the other havens of perverts and parasites that the rest of the country laughs at.
You still haven't addressed my point, that until you know the science behind it, you can't pass judgement and call homosexuals perverts.
There might be a natural, biological reason homosexuals exist. We dont know yet. So in the meantime, can you please put your judgemental, thinly-veiled bible thumping away please? I'm more offended by that than any amount of man on man partnership I've ever seen.
There IS no "science" behind his comments. It's pure ignorant bigotry and hatred, taught religiously from a young age like so many nazi youth.
The fact is any objection to U.S. Citizens of the same sex getting married is a religious issue, and therefore not debatable. We live in a CIVIL society, one based on SECULAR points of view. With respect to all religions, but bowing to none. The way the Founding Fathers planned.
We do not live in a theocracy. Thank goodness!
Would you guys stop arguing about gay marriage already? I'm trying to eat my lunch here.
Hey, this reminds me: companies are liable for unpaid overtime, right? Does this ruling mean they're not liable for unpaid meal penalties?
Do gay people eat lunch, or do they just absorb all their essential nutrients by burning bibles and rubbing the soot on their genitals? That what my priest told me in between rapings.
I find it fascinating that the religious zealots find it necessary to have the government deprive those who "choose" a different lifestyle, when the country was founded on having the right to have a different lifestyle that was ordained by the Church of England.
If by chance gays were to get power and outlawed heterosexual marriages, guess who would be demanding a Supreme Court hearing?
We ought to outlaw priests. All they want to do is diddle small children.
"We live in a CIVIL society, one based on SECULAR points of view. With respect to all religions, but bowing to none. The way the Founding Fathers planned."
Thank you anon. Reading comments like yours make me realize there are reasonable people out there.
There's no reason whatsoever why religios people feel threaten by the issue of gay marriage. Some of them seem to froth at the mouth and are bent on opposing it, like our friend here.
We either want an inclusive society or we don't.
d.
Post a Comment