Associate
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 753
- Location
- UK
I work in a bookmaker firm that had the following policy for breaks, depending on the length of shifts:
4 hours or less: no breaks
4.5 to 7 hours: 30 min breaks
7.5 or more hours : 1 hour break
It now changed its policy to make the one hour break for shifts of 7 or more hours. This by itself might seem ok but the nature of the business is such that we are often unlikely to use our full breaks anyway. To begin with, the times of taking a break are undefined and the betting shops never close during the day so if a couple of people work together and one wishes to take a break, this will mean that the rest (which most commonly is just one person as most betting shops have maximum two members of staff at a time) have to bear the workload. It gets even worse if we end up working on our own as there is no one to cover for us and, at the same time, higher management gets pretty bullying when it comes to someone stepping up with the idea of closing the premises for duration of a break (this bullying is a story of its own so I would rather not go into it).
Needless to say, these are breaks that people can only take in the middle of the shift, not the beginning or the end. In that sense, everyone agrees that this move by the company is with the aim of keeping us half hour more at work for the same pay so my question is whether they can actually do that? What stops them, for instance, if they decide to roll another change to this and make it one hour break for all shifts that are 6 or more hours?
Some people are telling me that there is an EU law stating that its only breaks over 7 hours can be an hour long but I can’t find anyone with deeper knowledge or authority to confirm it and, if it is, then the fact that the company does not follow it correctly should surely be a significant breach. What do you guys reckon?
ps - Bookie firms are generally a greedy bunch and, quite frankly, I don’t see myself working there for much longer but I nevertheless made many friends during that time and would like to dig deeper into that issue at least for the sake of helping them.
4 hours or less: no breaks
4.5 to 7 hours: 30 min breaks
7.5 or more hours : 1 hour break
It now changed its policy to make the one hour break for shifts of 7 or more hours. This by itself might seem ok but the nature of the business is such that we are often unlikely to use our full breaks anyway. To begin with, the times of taking a break are undefined and the betting shops never close during the day so if a couple of people work together and one wishes to take a break, this will mean that the rest (which most commonly is just one person as most betting shops have maximum two members of staff at a time) have to bear the workload. It gets even worse if we end up working on our own as there is no one to cover for us and, at the same time, higher management gets pretty bullying when it comes to someone stepping up with the idea of closing the premises for duration of a break (this bullying is a story of its own so I would rather not go into it).
Needless to say, these are breaks that people can only take in the middle of the shift, not the beginning or the end. In that sense, everyone agrees that this move by the company is with the aim of keeping us half hour more at work for the same pay so my question is whether they can actually do that? What stops them, for instance, if they decide to roll another change to this and make it one hour break for all shifts that are 6 or more hours?
Some people are telling me that there is an EU law stating that its only breaks over 7 hours can be an hour long but I can’t find anyone with deeper knowledge or authority to confirm it and, if it is, then the fact that the company does not follow it correctly should surely be a significant breach. What do you guys reckon?
ps - Bookie firms are generally a greedy bunch and, quite frankly, I don’t see myself working there for much longer but I nevertheless made many friends during that time and would like to dig deeper into that issue at least for the sake of helping them.