I recently got offered a position with CVS in CA. A classmate of mine who has worked in that state as a tech and an intern for a number of years told me that due to labor laws, pharmacists in that state are mandated to clock out for 30-60 minutes for break within an 8+ hour shift. Can anyone from CA confirm this?
Labor laws in CA
- Thread starter hye345
- Start date
You are required to clock out for at least 30 minutes for your lunch. I belive that labor laws also give you the option to take two 15 minute breaks during your shift, although you are not required to take them.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2005
- Messages
- 2,351
- Reaction score
- 1,406
What about if a waiver is signed?
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 10,410
- Reaction score
- 4,038
You can't waive away California labor laws, it's q very specific and strict requirement.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 36
Confirmed. "Meal period" is mandatory.
"Meal period" must happen before the "start of 5th hour". If you work more than 5 hours and then you have "meal period", your company will have to pay you "meal period penalty" which is money equal to 1 hour of your rate. Companies don't like this so they have rules and strict steps to prevent abuse and minimize cost. I have had a few uncomfortable talks from above about the money I received for "meal period penalty", I never intended to work more than 5 hours to cause meal period penalty.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 36
Confirmed. California law has "mandatory meal period" and "optional break period".
The law allows 2 break times, 15 minutes each.
Break time of 15 minutes each is optional decided by you.
Break time is not mandatory. You don't have to to take break time.
Company can not stop you from taking break time.
Company does not have to force or encourage you to take break time. This is important key point in a law suit I read. As pharmacist on duty, you are considered to management figure at that moment. If your subordinate wants to take "lawful break period", never stop them. At the same time, you are not forced to encourage or remind your subordinate to take break time. There was a lawsuit about management not reminding people take break time. We don't have to remind people to take break time. Workers must decide if they want to take break time or not. I never took my break time for many years, my company gained over 60000 minutes of my break time.
30 minutes a day * 5 days a week * 52 weeks a year = 7800 minutes a year free for the company.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 36
Congratulations on the job offer.
pharmacists in that state are mandated to clock out for 30-60 minutes for break within an 8+ hour shift. Can anyone from CA confirm this?
Confirm with clarification.
clock out for 30-60 minutes for break
clock out for 30-60 minutes for "meal period". (note: "break" is a term for 15 minutes break period which is "optional break period". "meal period" is term for "mandatory meal period"
within an 8+ hour shift.
within an 8+ hour shift....If you work more than 8 hours and scheduled to work 8 but still under 12 hours, you have "second meal period" which is "optional second-meal-period". You can silently waive "optional second-meal-period"and skip "optional second-meal-period" and continue working and get paid for that meal period. (Say you open the store, then you second worker is sick and no worker can work, you can work the second shift too, you then work over 8 hours....)
If you work more than 12 hours....we will talk about meal time by then.....the law has rule about this too but we will talk about it later....
You can read more at this link....
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_mealperiods.htm
Welcome to California.
pharmacists in that state are mandated to clock out for 30-60 minutes for break within an 8+ hour shift. Can anyone from CA confirm this?
Confirm with clarification.
clock out for 30-60 minutes for break
clock out for 30-60 minutes for "meal period". (note: "break" is a term for 15 minutes break period which is "optional break period". "meal period" is term for "mandatory meal period"
within an 8+ hour shift.
within an 8+ hour shift....If you work more than 8 hours and scheduled to work 8 but still under 12 hours, you have "second meal period" which is "optional second-meal-period". You can silently waive "optional second-meal-period"and skip "optional second-meal-period" and continue working and get paid for that meal period. (Say you open the store, then you second worker is sick and no worker can work, you can work the second shift too, you then work over 8 hours....)
If you work more than 12 hours....we will talk about meal time by then.....the law has rule about this too but we will talk about it later....
You can read more at this link....
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_mealperiods.htm
Welcome to California.
Last edited:
Thanks! I'm originally from Southern CA, worked at target in a non-pharmacy capacity for a while. I remember most of the rules concerning mandatory lunches, but wasn't sure if these extended past cashier-level workers.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 10
You absolutely can waive a lunch period. I work 9 hour shifts on the weekends and I get no lunch due to no technician help. One of the conditions to be hired was that I had to sign a lunch waiver. I only get lunch if I work a 12 hour shift.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 10,410
- Reaction score
- 4,038
150% illegal in California. No wiggle room whatsoever, law is crystal clear.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 10
If there is a loophole to be found scrupulous companies like mine will always find it. http://www.calrest.org under on duty meal period agreement explains it. I'll have the union fax me over a copy of the meal waiver and I'll post it for you.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 10,410
- Reaction score
- 4,038
I read it briefly...it looks like it's still a meal break on paper, so it meets the letter of the law, but definitely ripe for exploitation.
That's unfortunate
EDIT: Wait...no, that link makes it very clear that the DLSE opinion letter does NOT consider an on-duty meal break as valid.
It hasn't been adjudicated in the courts, but on-duty meal breaks are straight up illegal.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 10,410
- Reaction score
- 4,038
Okay, this is a complicated issue so I’m hopping on the computer to type this out.
Labor law is inherently complex, on-duty meal periods are considered “**** happens” events where, for whatever reason, you couldn’t take a lunch at the appropriate time. Maybe you were responding to a code blue or something, I don’t know. In that case, the employer has to pay you for that time worked or premium pay.
The employer has to provide for the meal break and the CA Supreme Court has made this clear, that there cannot be any impediments to taking this break. So if your employer systematically creates a situation where it is impossible to take a lunch, then that employer is liable under current law (like, not scheduling relief, not closing the pharmacy, etc…)
So back to the on-duty meal break “by agreement.” To my knowledge, this is still illegal, and the gov’t entity in charge of enforcement has indicated that such an agreement is not valid. HOWEVER, this has NOT been adjudicated in the courts, so employers (after discussing with legal counsel), may opt to do this at their own peril.
So yes, it’s a gray area, and until there’s solid court rulings on it, employers will continue to push.
I still stand by what I say about it being 150% illegal in California…an enterprising industry lawyer is free to argue his or her point and run it up the judicial chain.
Labor law is inherently complex, on-duty meal periods are considered “**** happens” events where, for whatever reason, you couldn’t take a lunch at the appropriate time. Maybe you were responding to a code blue or something, I don’t know. In that case, the employer has to pay you for that time worked or premium pay.
The employer has to provide for the meal break and the CA Supreme Court has made this clear, that there cannot be any impediments to taking this break. So if your employer systematically creates a situation where it is impossible to take a lunch, then that employer is liable under current law (like, not scheduling relief, not closing the pharmacy, etc…)
So back to the on-duty meal break “by agreement.” To my knowledge, this is still illegal, and the gov’t entity in charge of enforcement has indicated that such an agreement is not valid. HOWEVER, this has NOT been adjudicated in the courts, so employers (after discussing with legal counsel), may opt to do this at their own peril.
So yes, it’s a gray area, and until there’s solid court rulings on it, employers will continue to push.
I still stand by what I say about it being 150% illegal in California…an enterprising industry lawyer is free to argue his or her point and run it up the judicial chain.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,655
- Reaction score
- 2,814
Regarding the first meal period (meal period must start before the 5th hour of work and be at least 30 minutes uninterrupted), an employer can have you sign a waiver but this does not relieve the employer of the requirement to pay the meal premium of 1 hour of regular pay if the employer does not "provide" a meal period.
Offering rest periods is also considered "mandatory" and is subject to a premium of one additional hour of regular pay if the employer does not "provide" the rest period(s). How they are "provided" is another issue...
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_restperiods.htm
"Provide" is a key word. You can choose to work through a meal period and the employer could argue that was your choice because employer policy but they would still be obligated to provide premium pay. Thus as stated previously it is highly discouraged, not only because of the meal premium but also because of any overtime hours worked (California requires time and a half for any time worked over 8 hours in a day and any time over 40 hours in a week), and many companies have disciplinary policies and procedures for employees who trigger premium pay.
I talked to people who work for CVS in California and apparently for single-coverage stores CVS eats the meal premium as pharmacists don't have meal periods. In double-coverage situations pharmacists do take their meal periods. As far as the issue of rest periods I have also been told that at CVS technicians can remain present in the pharmacy while the pharmacist is "away."
More information on meal periods and rest periods in BOP regulation:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Do...ype=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
Offering rest periods is also considered "mandatory" and is subject to a premium of one additional hour of regular pay if the employer does not "provide" the rest period(s). How they are "provided" is another issue...
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_restperiods.htm
"Provide" is a key word. You can choose to work through a meal period and the employer could argue that was your choice because employer policy but they would still be obligated to provide premium pay. Thus as stated previously it is highly discouraged, not only because of the meal premium but also because of any overtime hours worked (California requires time and a half for any time worked over 8 hours in a day and any time over 40 hours in a week), and many companies have disciplinary policies and procedures for employees who trigger premium pay.
I talked to people who work for CVS in California and apparently for single-coverage stores CVS eats the meal premium as pharmacists don't have meal periods. In double-coverage situations pharmacists do take their meal periods. As far as the issue of rest periods I have also been told that at CVS technicians can remain present in the pharmacy while the pharmacist is "away."
More information on meal periods and rest periods in BOP regulation:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Do...ype=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2016
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi everyone,
is it legal for your employer to ask you to sign a on-duty meal period agreement where you take a lunch on the 7th or 8th hour of your shift (on a 10hr work shift) so that they wont pay you a premium? I work in hospital in california.
Thanks
is it legal for your employer to ask you to sign a on-duty meal period agreement where you take a lunch on the 7th or 8th hour of your shift (on a 10hr work shift) so that they wont pay you a premium? I work in hospital in california.
Thanks
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 10,410
- Reaction score
- 4,038
Probably not, but see my big ass post about two or three posts up.
Given the job market, take the job, find a way to snack and eat while you work, and hope someone will file a lawsuit and you'll get a big settlement for back wages in the future.
Hey, I'm a realist!
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 36
You can ask directly with many lawyers specializing in Labor Law, for free.
http://www.avvo.com/ask-a-lawyer
If you win anything, please donate to American Red Cross something...(I donated blood...)
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 10,410
- Reaction score
- 4,038
The laws are love hate...sometimes I really do not want to take a formal lunch at hour 5 (like if a drug company catered lunch and it's been an all day food fest)...i'd very much rather take a 30min errand break at hour 7 or 8 and cruise through the rest of my shift.
And I personally HATE taking a lunch before all my clinical work is done...it ends generating more work for me.
CA laws don't account for these types of personal preferences. It's just annoying.
But the whole 1.5x & 2x mandatory OT rate shuts me up real quick. It also creates such a HUGE incentive to cover a sick call that we're almost never understaffed on a given day. Same with nurses...and we hand out bonuses to just come in (on top of an OT rate). Some hours-crazy nurses i know make more than many pharmacists (you can check that yourself, too...state worker salaries/pay is public).
