New Hampshire Republicans Propose Bill To Eliminate Workers’ Lunch Breaks

[Galraedia]

New Hampshire’s GOP legislature has come up with all manner of absurd bills recently, including a proposal making public school curriculum optional, another to prevent police from protecting domestic abuse victims, and even a measure mandating that new laws be based on the Magna Carta. Some of the Granite State’s GOP lawmakers have even proposed doing away with the law that requires employers to give their workers time off for lunch, under the rationale that all employers will simply grant lunch breaks out of the goodness of their hearts:

“This is an unneeded law,” (Republican state Representative Kyle Jones) said. “If I was to deny one of my employees a break, I would be in a very bad position with the company’s human resources representative. If you consider that this is a very easy law to follow in that everyone already does it, then why do we need it? Our constituents have already proven that they have enough common sense to do this on their own.”

The bill’s sponsor, state representative J.R. Hoell, argued that companies failing to provide lunch breaks would be shamed over social media, thus rendering the law unnecessary. “If they are not letting people have lunch, they could put it out though the news media, though social media. I don’t think that abusive behavior would continue, the way communications are today,” he said.

Of course, not every employer can be counted to to follow even the easiest of requirements to look after workers’ health and rights. Back in 2005, Walmart was forced to pay $172 million for denying workers their lunch breaks. Pyramid Breweries Inc. settled a case in 2008 for $1.5 million. Just a few months ago, California ordered Embassy Suites to pay workers tens of thousands of dollars for forcing them to skip breaks.


Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/08/421510/new-hampshire-gop-repeal-lunch/

[Angry Dragon]

1. do these people have ANY fuctioning brain cells??

[neverforget]

6. No.

[Zalatix]

12. Yes, they're evil and smart, and that's why America is in so much trouble.

[atreides1]

13. They're only smarter

Then the stupid idiots who voted for them...but they definitely are evil!

[Javaman]

17. +1

Why you play to the lowest common denominator, you really don't have to be all that bright, just brighter than the smartest idiot.

[hifiguy]

19. +1 nt

[Zalatix]

30. Point taken!

[limpyhobbler]

2. republicans hate workers. nt

[Canuckistanian]

3. Cheap labor conservatives

That's all that ever motivates them. Drive wages down as productivity goes through the roof.

It's predictable.

[Kalidurga]

4. So they want corporations to make people mad so that

people will facebook bad corporations maybe boycott picket and harass them? Why would anyone want to encourage corporations to act horribly just so people can be righteously angry at them? This makes no sense whatsoever, corporations are already doing just fine on their own making themselves look bad.

[julian09]

5. They should eliminate the three martini lunch

and save taxpayers money.

[mick063]

7. GOP for Dummies.

GOP hates:

The poor
Middle class
Workers
Women
African Americans
Unemployed children
Government
Compromise
Common Sense

It just goes to show....with a network like Fox, you can fool 40% of America into just about anything.

[Snarkoleptic]

8. Yeah...the reason he'd be in trouble with HR is that it's illegal to deny a lunch break.

I truly believe we're witnessing the death throes of the Republican Party.

[gratuitous]

27. Yes . . .

Although the New Hampshire Lege is such a large body (something like 400 members or more), just about any lunatic idea can get pushed forward.

I really like this nitwit's rationale: We don't have to mandate lunch breaks legally, because any employer that denies the break would be shamed socially. This is standard Libertarian nonsense, that somehow or another, laws upholding workers' rights or safe food handling standards or traffic control laws or whatever else is squirreling around in their tiny brains, just happen. This is the same thought process that leads these idiots to believe that if you just put the workings of a zillion watches into a zillion blenders, one of them would eventually produce a working timepiece, so why would anyone need a watchmaker?

Sure, a lot of people are going to be overworked, underpaid, and treated punitively by greedy and unscrupulous employers, but eventually, it will all work itself out without the need for any of those overbearing, intrusive laws limiting our precious freedom. These idiots think a car has brakes so it will stop. Wrong. A car has brakes so you can go fast. How fast would you drive in a car without brakes? Would you even get in a car without brakes? Laws perform the same function.

[The Genealogist]

9. New Hampshire must be in good shape, if they have time to

play chicken with the legal system this way. I'm sure when they get done making a mockery of law and order, it will take years to fix it all in NH. What are the chances, realistically, of the NH legislative branch going back to dems, after this mess of stupid?

[needvsgreed]

31. I live in NH - a response

Actually, "pretty good". Our main TV station recently did a poll here and found that NH'erites consider the "NH GOP" to be the second biggest problem in the state (with "the economy" being first).

Full disclosure, I'm on the ballot with a D next to my name this year.

[The Genealogist]

33. Oh! Good luck to you then! n/t

[tech_smythe]

10. *epic facepalm*

at apple, if they would have denied me a lunch break.. or EVERY break, THEY WOULD HAVE!!!!

those inhuman assholes worked us till we burned out and tossed us aside!

and that's how it was BEFORE these laws were put into place.
they don't fucking care about the workers, only the bottom line!

what fairy land do they think we live in that they think that an employer will EVER do the right thing simply because it's right!?

[gregtownsand]

11. They lost their minds when Obama was elected!

They used to try and hide someof their nuttiness! LOL

[sybylla]

14. And who hasn't had a job where you were asked to work through lunch on occasion or eat at your desk?

Hourly workers know that employers already push the law. If there were no law, there would be no lunch or a very short lunch on a lot of days.

For one summer I worked for a manufacturing company. During my twelve hour shifts, I got two 10 minute breaks and one 15 minute lunch break. Because that's all they were required to give us.

Thank goddess that the New Hampshire GOP has just screwed themselves over. Hopefully they'll lose big in November.

[Kingofalldems]

15. I can picture a Mom's basement die hard freeper trying to rationalize this

I am sure they will come up with something.

[Moosepoop]

18. Sure -- right after lunch

that Mom fixed for him.

[WI_DEM]

16. Pretty soon these crazies will be bringing back the sweat shop and 14-hour work day six days per

week. And on Sunday all you can do is go to church. Oh, and you can only have sex in a missionary position.

[hifiguy]

20. And why not? Feudalism was great for

the lords of the manor and they're the only ones who count, right?

[Nikia]

21. Thirty years ago, some people really believed these things

That businesses didn't need to be as regulated because businesses would do things out of the goodness of their hearts or at least reputations. The last 30 years have proven that false over and over again.
Even if Jones premise was true, why should an easy to follow law be repealed even if "everyone" would obey it anyway.

[Generic Other]

22. this from the three-martini expense account crowd!

What next? Outlaw restroom breaks?

[Conslayer25]

23. Employers do the right thing?

What freaking world are these republicans living in? We don't need laws requiring breaks for employees, because employers will do the right thing? These people obviously have never worked in a food service job. Even though state law mandated breaks for employees, neither I or any of my coworkers ever got them. Working 10 hr shifts without a break btw. Employers don't follow the law as it is now, what makes them think they'll just give breaks out of the goodness of their hearts? Also the whole shame thing will make them afraid of not giving breaks. You think someone who desperately needs a job, is going to dare say anything negative about a company on facebook? Hell no they won't, not if they want to keep that job. I'm seriously starting to hate these right-wing freaks.

[teop.peace]

24. Bullies on the playground

Unfortunately they live in the same world as we, sane people, do. They are just bullies who have had it good on the playground for the past 30+years. They still haven't realized or even considered that maybe people are ready to fight back and stand up for themselves. They have been bold and gotten away with stupid stuff for so long, with the help of others who were too scared to speak up that they think they can still run rough shod over everyone. Hopefully this election in November will prove them wrong. Not one republican or conservative should be re-elected to any position in November, whether it be local, state or federal. Here's hoping.

[DiverDave]

25. Unfortunatly NOT an Onion piece

what an IDIOT.
I really thought it was from the Onion.

[alterfurz]

26. New Hampshire: Live Lunch-Free or Die

[Quantess]

28. WTF?

How low can they go?

[limpyhobbler]

29. Let's remember, in most states there is no lunch break required.

What the NH rep. is proposing is radically stupid of course. It's a horrible idea.
But most states don't require breaks for workers. Of course the federal government doesn't require lunch periods either.

This is is a few years old but mostly accurate I think...

California – 1/2 hour after 5 hours worked, unless shift is only 6 hours
Colorado – 1/2 hour after 5 hours worked, unless shift is only 6 hours
Connecticut – if shift is 7.5 hours, 1/2 hour lunch after first 2 hours but before last 2 hours
Delaware – if shift is 7.5 hours, 1/2 hour lunch after first 2 hours but before last 2 hours
Illinois – required for hotel room attendants only
Kentucky – reasonable meal period between 3rd and 5th hour of shift
Maine – 1/2 hour after 6 consecutive hours
Massachusetts – 1/2 hour, if work is more than 6 hours
Minnesota – reasonable period, if shift is 8+ consecutive hours
Nebraska – 1/2 hour, off premises, at suitable lunch time
Nevada – 1/2 hour, if work is 8 consecutive hours
New Hampshire – 1/2 hour, after 5 consecutive hours – unless employee can eat while working
New York – 1/2 hour, if shift is more than 6 hours
North Dakota – 1/2 hour, if work is more than 5 hours
Oregon – 1/2 hour
Rhode Island – 20 minutes for 6 hour shift; 30 minutes for 8 hour shift
Tennessee – 1/2 hour, if shift is 6 hours
Washington – 1/2 hour, for 5 hour shift
West Virginia – 20 minutes, if work is more than 6 consecutive hours

http://www.legalandrew.com/2008/08/06/lunch-labor-laws-federal-and-state/

[needvsgreed]

32. Perspective from someone in NH

Our state GOP has been literally off the deep end. Since sweeping both chambers last year, they've gone completely guano loco with the bills they've introduced. Minimum wage: gone. "Right to work": passed, veto overturned. Bill allowing any parent to "veto" any lesson plan *coughevolutioncough* in any class in any public school (think about that for a moment...): passed. This is just a sample of the nutty stuff going on in Concord, nevermind the tactics used by the current NH house speaker.

With regard to this -specific- bill, NH has a -HUGE- small business community. We have one of the highest rates in the country of small businesses being owned and operated by individuals or families. As a result, from the perspective of a lot of NHGOP reps (many of whom were born on second base, and think they've hit a double) it really isn't a problem to just go to your boss and ask for a raise or ask for an extra sick day - because in their experience, where you are on a first name basis with your boss and he invites you to cookouts, you really can do that kind of stuff. They think they can set macroeconomic policy based on "little house on the prairie" type social models.

They simply lack any perspective on what it's like to work in a larger business, and especially a large company that's publicly traded or has out of state owners. They don't understand that megalocorp often simply fires people who ask for raises - and since we're an "at will employment" state, they get away with it and don't even need a reason.

What this rookie state rep doesn't get is that this idea of removing the "quaint" requirement for a lunch break won't solve the non-existent "problem" of small business owners not giving out overtime because they dont want to give a lunch break. All it will do is make life even harder for workers in crappy jobs, particularly those under 30 or without a college degree.

Full disclosure, I'm on the ballot this year with a D next to my name.