Did the concept of 9-5 included a 30 minute lunch and two 15 minute breaks?
You always hear the phase “9 to 5” and also the song with the same name. Assuming you include 1 hour worth of breaks (30 minute lunch and two 15 minute breaks), you’re only working for 7 hours a day which comes up to 35 hours a week.
Now it feels like you have to work 8 hours a day (for a total of 40 hours of actual work), plus your other time off meaning you’re really there for 9 hours each day (for a total of 45 hours). Am i looking at that wrong, or did expected times change, and if so, when?
Everything changed. You're not crazy. If you watch movies made before the 2000s about office culture, including the movie 9 to 5, you can see that the hours included a lunch break. Which was paid.
Yes, those of the older generation had it easier in every way.
Is this a US thing? Do you not get paid for your lunch hour? That's wild.
Most people don't. So, for an average employee, it would be 9-530 to account for their unpaid 30m lunch required by law.
I believe many places lunch is not required, and neither is any limit on number of hours per day required.
In the US, you're lucky if you get paid for the hours you work. And many don't get all of their hours paid.
In the US, it's Salary, not Hourly. It's not "getting paid for the time", you get paid for doing the job you agreed to do.
Most salaried workers are written up if they fail to work 8+ hours. Salaried is now just a method to deny people overtime - fancied salaried workers may still operate in the intended way but even most developers I know have to obey some sort of time tracking method.
That's just salaried folks though. The vast majority of american workers are hourly or contractors. Per the Dept of Labor's own site:
Wage theft is when employers don't properly pay their employees and is a HUGE problem because it isn't always out of malevolence, it can be as simple as the time clock not properly computing overtime, etc.
If you don't think that $274 million is large amount, think about how the vast majority of these things never get reported to the authorities; that number should be higher.
Source for quote: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/data
No. Some jobs are hourly and some are salary.
I live in Canada. We get a half-hour lunch that isn't paid in my province.
Also, if you take more than 3 sick days a year, your boss can fire you. And the 3 sick days are unpaid. The government lowered the number from 10 to 3 shortly before the pandemic, and didn't raise it again! Oh, and to count, your boss can demand a doctor's note. Which cost money to the patient.
Damn, Canada is becoming less and less a viable escape plan from American fascism...
There might still be some decent provinces.
But yeah, I blame brain drain, cuts to the education system, and the influence of American culture! Haha
Where do you live, Alberta? Or one of the maritimes??
Sounds like Ontario 🙃
That really sounds like one of the flat-lander regions.
I get 21 holidays a year, not counting every second friday off because of my 9x9 compressed-time agreement. If I plan it right, and hit the stats with the comp days, that's 7 weeks off a year. Why, that's almost european. I've just finished my first year at this shop.
Is that by law, or what your employer offers? Because I'm talking about what the law requires.
It's Ontario! aka. Open for (Big) Business. No longer "Yours to Discover" because it's all been sold off.
That’s so toxic! I get an hour long paid lunch break, and a bunch of paid sick days. Your work’s policies are shit, I’m so sorry!
It's not my work's policies. I get better than that. It's what my province legally mandates that's the problem.
Oh shit, sorry! I’m so happy you get better than that. Those are garbage mandates that predatory businesses for sure take advantage of. I hope your stuff is as good (ideally better) than mine.
It doesn’t affect me but my work also rolled out months of paternity leave which is BAAAAASED
Thank you.
I definitely agree with businesses doing right by their employees. I just wish the governments would be doing more to protect ALL employees. I vote based on which parties are looking out for everyone, not based on whatever works best for me because I've got better than the legal minimum.
Ha! Hour. You’re funny. Federal law only gives half an hour.
Ha! Nah, Federal law doesn't require a lunch period, or breaks, at all. It's all state side.
Only thing is that if an employer gives a short break, like 5-20 mins, it must be paid and included in overtime.
Depends on the state, in my state you legally have to get paid for 30 minute lunches but not hour long lunches. No idea why but because of this most office jobs will give you an hour lunch in addition to your mandated 2, 10 minute breaks.
Honestly I would love to just take a 30 minute break and get out earlier. It's not even about the money.
Same in Germany, I think this common in many countries, no?
You get paid for lunch? Where is that? We don't either in Switzerland
In Spain, if you work more than 6h you have at least a 15 minutes break that almost always is paid. But people usually work 5 or 6h, 1 or 2 hours for lunch (not paid), then the rest.
Ah that's interesting, thanks.
Here in Switzerland if a shift is longer than 5.5 hours it needs to have at minimum 15min unpaid break for lunch by law. Longer than 7 hours means 30min unpaid lunch and longer than 9 hours means an hour unpaid lunch by law. Additionally if the split is uneaven such that the period before or after lunch is over 5.5 hours, then you recursively get another break following the above rule by law. But these are all unpaid and do not count as hours worked.
The usual reality for typical 8.2 h/d office jobs is that people take half an hour to an hour of lunch, unpaid, and companies allow two 15 min paid coffee breaks, one in the morning, one in the afternoon, despite not being forced to by law.
The unpaid break is also the same in the general work law (Estatuto de los Trabajadores) but professions get extra laws that apply to them (convenio del metal, convenio de farmacia, etc) where they can go better than the general law, and most ‘convenio’ pay for that 15 min break. Lunch time? Never paid unless you agree directly with your company, but some nice companies (I don’t have numbers but in my experience in the IT industry may be around 30% of them) give you 10-12€ a day to help pay your lunch or they have cafeterias where you eat for 4 or 5€.
Ah yes we have some general contracts for whole sectors as well that ususally contain better conditions (called Gesamtarbeitsvertrag GAV).
My workplace, also IT, also gives 180 Swiss Franks a month to help with lunch (much appreciated in Zürich, shit's expensive). There are some tax rules concerning workplaces either offering cafeterias or lunch subsidies. I believe 180 is the most they can give you before it counts as a separate form of reportable income that needs to be taxed. I think this is common for office jobs, but I also don't have hard numbers.
Where do you get paid for your lunch hour? I'm in Germany and while work life balance is certainly a thing here, more so than in the US, a paid lunch break is something I have never heard about.
Typically no but my current employer pays us for 1/2 of our 1 hour lunch.
Spaniard here. Not only does my company not pay me for lunch time. It also demands it to be at least 30 minutes long. How is it even legal to force my unpaid time to be a minimum amount?
It's probably a law. Mandatory minimum breaks make perfect sense for factory workers.
They should be paid though
For the record, lunch time is not considered paid time in Sweden either.
I work 10’s and we get 2 paid 20 minute breaks that are actually usually 25-30 depending on how caught up we all are individually since they let you walk away early if you’re caught up and how long after you get up, go to the bathroom, get some coffee , put your stuff up.
They’re actually pretty chill as long as you stay caught up
Those old tv shows where they casually eat breakfast before work make more sense. They weren't up at 6, rushing to get to work by 8. They had a whole hour more.
They also had someone to make it for them. One income was enough for the household.
Is the part about being able to socialize also a mythic fantasy? Where ever do people work that they find the time to have conversations?
I am 51. When I started working my job was 9-5 with a one hour lunch an unofficial 30 minute coffee break and about four unofficial ten minute smoke breaks.
What's it like for you now?
Retired in a 3-bedroom home paid off that was purchased for $57,000.
/kidding
You're thinking boomer so you are off by ~20 years.
My company went full time "work from home" in 2012 and we are specialists that are only brought in when everyone else has fucked up. So basically, I am on call 24/7/365.
This actually doesn't sound like a bad thing.
I didn't think it was. For IT, it was a dead end job, so I couldn't stay.
You're thinking small-time, like an hourly worker. Good office jobs are generally salaried positions and the idea of clocking in and out is... not a thing. Some days you work more, some less, whatever needs to be done. The idea of 9-5 is just a general time frame. And no one gives a shit when you lunch or break. In a real profession the yardstick is, are you getting it done or not?
I'll catch grief for saying that, so I'll preempt by saying, if your job isn't like that, you likely have a shit job.
Gentle reminder that without "small time", hourly workers doing real labor your easy, sweatless, office job would disappear overnight. Perhaps some gratitude? Maybe even some solidarity?
As a former IT professional turned baker, I dislike the condescending attitude too many white collar workers have toward the actual wheel turners of the world.
"doing real labor" "easy, sweatless, office job" "the actual wheel turners"
"I dislike the condescending attitude"
It never ceases to amaze me how often people see and hate shit in other people that they epitomize themselves.
And honestly, my experience has been the opposite and I see the condescending attitude, at least more openly, coming from blue collar workers more often.
I was waiting for the /s the whole time, that comment read like a joke but I think it was actually sincere...
https://www.akpress.org/bullshitjobs.html
I'm a capitalist and this thread is giving me a hard-on
I've done it all, from shoveling asphalt to dishpits to customer service, all that and a dozen more. Guess what? Those were shit jobs. Doesn't make the person doing those jobs shit.
Some of y'all are so eager to be offended it's ridiculous.
If you want solidarity you need to stop shitting on office workers first. You're lambasting your own behaviour with this comment. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
Me laughing in salaried 9-5 with clock in and clock out. Pay deduction if i forget to do clock in or out even if everyone know i work that day. Got paid 50% less than people who did the same job same position who didn't need to clock in/out.
I have a shit job and the only thing that keep me going is the job close to where i and my family live so i can check on my sister (found out that she do self harm once and I'm scared to go faraway from her ever since).
Desperate people make a good cheap employee.
I'm "salaried," and union, but they 100% track our hours and if you use up your benefit time and take additional time off, you will not get paid.
So I'm not even completely sure how they can even call it salary. Like... Maybe I've misunderstood the meaning of that word my entire life?
I'm desperate ATM. Looking at a crappy onsite tech support role, no benefits, just to get by while I keep looking.
I have a salaried position. I don't clock in. But it's typically only used to deny us overtime pay. If I work 35 hours a week, I'm paid 12.5% less than my colleagues who do 40. And if my lunch break is too long, I'm expected to stay late sometime within the month to compensate.
And while I do have a shit job (save me) I've never seen someone whose employer didn't mind their hours as long as they got shit done.
You cannot be salaried and deducted hours you don't work.
Either you are hourly, and paid for the hours you actually work, or you're salaried, and paid regardless of how many hours you work.
What your employer is doing is illegal, and wage theft.
This is so common in Quebec that I have trouble believing it's illegal. I think it might be a loophole.
How do they know when you're not working your full 40 if you aren't clocking in or out? I'm not familiar with Canadian labor law so you may very well be right, but it is kind of hard to imagine a legal pay structure where they can dock you for working fewer hours but don't compensate you for working more.
Friendly reminder that wage theft is very common and just because lots of people are breaking the law doesn't mean it's actually legal. For example in the States, there is a fairly narrow definition of which jobs qualify as overtime exempt but go to a jobs board and you'll find pretty much anything under the sun. Many employees are incorrectly classified as exempt and are completely unaware they are even entitled to overtime pay.
Well they don't know know, but there are signs. For one, we fill in timesheets, and lying on them is a no-no. I could probably get away with stretching the truth a little, but if they notice I only commit between X and Y time, or that I'm seldom available for developer questions at a particular time, they might get suspicious and investigate my hours.
As for overtime... Well I think how companies handle it is they don't actually ask us to stay late; they just give us unrealistic targets that kinda require overtime unless you're a god if we ever complained they'd say they never asked for us to stay late.
We used to be able to accumulate time indefinitely and take time off according to the bank of extra time we'd worked, but once, someone accumulated hundreds of hours and just left on an unplanned vacation for nearly a full month and they really didn't like that. So now, you need to work your quota (which you can have them adjust to your capabilities; 30, 35, 40...) on average every month. So, sure, I can work only 20 hours one week, but that's 15 hours of extra time I need to do within that month.
And if you have extra at the end of the month, well, that's lost.
Which sucks, because I used to use those as sick days over the legally required two paid ones we get per year; my health isn't exactly resplendent.
Or they do it anyway and hope they just won't get caught.
And even if they do get caught, the likely punishment is just paying out the wages they owe, so why not chance it? Fines don't scale based on revenue, profit, or even damages, if there even are fines.
You would think that. And yet, the US... Finds a way. I'd rather not doxx myself by getting into it further, but it's definitely not illegal where I am.
Not illegal, as in you've actually gone through this with a lawyer, or not illegal, as in your company does it anyway?
Because Federally, being salaried does not work like you describe: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/17g-overtime-salary
Working less hours in a day is not valid reason to deduct pay. Working less full days is. (From the source above)
State law does not trump federal law, unless explicitly called out. It's just that federal law is actually pretty lax regarding most things and states are more restrictive.
You're not an exempt (salaried) employee if they deduct your pay for working less in a given week. I've never had an employer who cared about hours as long as work got done.
Mine doesn't give a fuck how long we work.
I used to work at an engineering firm and one day I saw one of the engineers leave at like 2pm on a Wednesday and he was like, "Bye, see you next week!" He had been busting his ass to finish a project and already hit his 40hrs for the week.
I was a temp at the time but needless to say, I jumped at the chance when they offered me a real job.
As others have said, I'm in the "put time in, get shit done" camp.
Provided I deliver a job well done, my bosses don't give a fuck what or how many hours I clock per week.
Lolol what kind of fantasy world do you live in? Salaried worker here and although my job isn't 9-5 strictly if I don't work at least 40 hours a week my pay will be docked. So I get to choose between 8-5 or 9-6 or I can work while I eat and get that cushy 9-5 life. Or if I miss work I can make up those hours by working at night. It's a real luxury to be able to do that compared to shift work, but the hours are still being counted.
Also stop being so entitled. Most of your life necessities come from industries (groceries, power plants, gas stations, hospitals, etc) where people work on a timecard/shift basis so don't you come out here and pretend timecard or shift work isn't a "real" profession.
Refer to my last sentence. And you will note that I didn't denigrate anyone's work, only that if they're on the clock, the job probably sucks.
Tell me more about this "some days you work less" concept. It's completely foreign to me
Those would be Fridays at my last job. Swear to god no one did anything unless absolutely necessary and most were gone by mid-afternoon. LOL, which sucked because that's when I was often jamming along and no one was around to help, question, etc.
If your job has you grinding non-stop, that's no way to live and a good employer recognizes that.
Tell me.more about this "good employer" concept. That's completely foreign to me
Yes. And if you interview for an 8 to 5 job, you tell them that it sounds like a crock of shit and you don't want the job.
So sick of that shit. Fuck any employer who pulls this shit.
I don't WANT your crock of shit job! I'll go live on the streets!!! I'll give blowjobs for $20! And hey.....you want a blowjob? Got $20?
I think i would just not apply if i felt like you do
Employers don't usually broadly advertise their anti-perks. This is the kind of thing you usually discover with a question during an interview or when you're handed your employment contract.
Crock of shit or no, a man's gotta eat. That's kind of how we got into this problem in the first place. They have a captive audience.
USA. Been working 20 years. Every job has been 8 to 5, unpaid 1h lunch, 2x15min paid breaks. :(
The last time I worked hourly was the late 90s. We got a paid 15 break per 4 hours worked. If we worked more than 6 hours, we also got an unpaid 30 minute lunch. I got no benefits because I was part-time at 37.5 hours per week.
crazy, in my world that's pretty much full time
I believe it is where I am too, 36+ is full-time for benefits requirements. Apparently the insurance company asked my employer to please make sure I was working at least 36hrs a week, because for a month or so I was only getting to 32.
I had a job where I was working 80 hours a week without breaks and my boss told me I was part time
That's wild that it wasn't full time. IRS now defines 30 as full-time thankfully
Imagine being that guy scheduling people for 39.9 hours thinking you're a goddamn genius.
The "genius" was the IN state Congress that made it law that 37.5 and under must be considered part time, even for minors. I was working exactly that every week while also going to high school when I was 16.
Not to mention commute time, time spent getting ready for work/bed, and time spent sleeping. I don't consider any of that to be free time.
I work 10 hour shifts, so once you factor in all that stuff, I get about two full hours for myself each day to do whatever I want, before I have to start the process all over again for tomorrow.
As a guy with an actual office job. It's usually 8-5 or 9-6 with an hour lunch, plus whatever time you spend on coffee or whatever.
It's pretty standard, and it's been that way for a couple decades at least.
And that lunch hour is unpaid.
Hour long mandatory lunch, no pay. Switzerland.
Switzerland is more like 8-11 12-18. Atleast for me. So more 8-6 than 9-5.
Half an hour mandatory lunch, paid. Austria.
(pretty much depends on your job a bit, just wanted to continue with the same comment style)
Oh shit I need to go pester my family to let me be a citizen (or recheck and go talk to an EU focused immigration lawyer to discuss where exactly in Europe my family was when to see if I qualify)
Where are you working where you are expected to work through your breaks? 9-5 should include your break times as well, yes.
Every job I've ever had.
Most jobs I've had will schedule 8-430/9-530/etc, so that you work a full 8 hours but you have a 30min mandatory unpaid lunch break. The two 15 min breaks are paid, but they were also "discouraged."
Man, I have worked some shitty jobs and not one of them as ever discouraged me in any way from taking my breaks.
Days off is a whole other thing though
Meanwhile, I've only ever had one that encouraged taking breaks.
I've been in construction for many years, and the norm is working straight through till lunch then straight till the end of the day. Usually no one bats an eye if you take a few minutes to catch your breath or smoke if you bust ass, but yeah there typically isn't a designated 10-15 all stop. That and most guys usually take 20 min to take a shit, so I guess it tends to balance out.
To be fair, construction workers get paid a shitload. Fucks your body up though from what I understand.
Sounds like you've been taken advantage of. Assuming you live in a western country they should have some kind of department for labor violations you can escalate to if it comes that.
I'm in the US.
I've never had a job tell us we can't take our 15s. But most places keep staffing tight enough, and busy enough, that people feel guilty taking a 15 unless they have a real reason to.
Personally, I find them kind of frustrating. By the time I begin to calm down, it's time to head back. It's not even like a real break. Where I am now, 30min is auto deduced for lunch, so we take 45min lunches most of the time.
That's be super illegal, yeah
I've worked one place that enforced they be 10 minutes, though, which is the requirement in California, shockingly
I remember asking about breaks before accepting a job and explaining that I take a 10-minute walk every afternoon. I was assured that was fine! Until I was working the job and actually did so every day. Then it wasn't fine.
At a low paying non-profit, no less.
The worst is when they're like that about lunch breaks, but when it comes to smoking, all bets are off. If you don't smoke, then you can just go fuck yourself I guess...
Much less common than it used to be, but still a thing some places.
I'm in Germany. I'm 40 years old. And this year, for the first time in my life, I work in a job that is 9 to 5 with an hour of breaks.
Which counts as 7 working hours. Because the breaks are not included as work time. Never have been. In none of the official, unionized jobs I ever worked.
America I’m guessing.
I'm Canadian myself but isn't this illegal? In Canada we have a labor program where you can file a complaint if it comes to that.
Depends on the state. But the reality is you need to hire a lawyer to fight it and we already have to choose between a roof and food most of the time so good luck with that.
That sucks, sorry to hear that. I honestly thought the US had a similar thing as well. I guess that explains the huge push for more unions across the US over the past few years.
They have it really bad over there. My understanding is most European countries would laugh at Canadian labour law, but Canada laughs at the US's.
Oh I'm sure you can FILE a complaint here too.
Doesn't mean anybody gives a shit.
In Canada full time is whatever an employer decides it is, not 35h, not even 40h. In Quebec an employer isn't required to give 15mins break. But if they do they must be paid. The 30mins lunch break is mandatory, but also unpaid. You've just gotten lucky with decent employers/union jobs. I'd imagine other provinces are similar.
https://www.cnesst.gouv.qc.ca/en/working-conditions/work-schedule-and-termination-employment/work-schedule/presence-work-breaks-and-weekly-rest-period
In British Columbia our labor laws were basically written by EA so tech workers have almost no protection against overtime unless it's contiguous - the only hard limit on working is once you hit 32 continuous hours you must be given time off... BC high tech employees are exempt from any overtime and the only limit they still get is that they must be given eight hours off every day - but that's eight hours not working, not necessarily eight hours of sleep. So you could be asked to work 32 continuous hours then be sent home with a forty-five minute drive, get home, sleep for six and a half hours (or try to) then get back in your car to drive back to the office to work another sixteen hours.
If you objected to this schedule you could quit but you'd have no legal recourse to sue your employer.
Oh, and in the above three day scenario (home for eight, work for thirty two, home for eight, work for sixteen) you'd be paid the same if you worked for twenty four hours over three days.
BC tech workers have no rights.
Depends on the Province I think. Where I'm at you're entitled to 30 min off (unpaid) within the first 5 hours, and another within 8 if you're working longer than 8 hours. 15 min breaks are not mandated except that if the company gives you them they must be paid.
I'd guess too. In central and eastern Europe, 7 to 3 is the norm but nobody pronounces it that.
Probably the US, specifically. Most of America has unions, except the US has all but made actual unions illegal
Having worked in a couple of European countries, I thought 7.5 hours of work plus a half an hour lunch break is the norm everywhere in the western world. So the 9 to 5 did totally make sense to me. I was honestly surprised reading all these comments.
Here in America I work 7.5 with two 15 minute paid breaks and a half hour unpaid lunch. So it’s really more like 8:30-5
Nevermind the world. Even here in Europe in Switzerland the standard is somehow 42 hours a week.
In Spain it’s 40h a week maximum but to explain it simply there are 2 ways to go higher: 1. some professions can go higher as long as they compensate later the same year (the total maximum hours are anually, not weekly). 2.up to 80h a year on extra hours that need to be paid.
That said, that’s what the law says but many people do extra hours without getting paid and people do not sue for a few hours a year.
There are various exceptions in Switzerland too, I think the weekly maximum if going over your contract is 50h and that can either be paid with 25% extra, or compensated by free time in another week. And then even this maximum can be surpassed by another 2h/d, for a real max of 60h, if there is exceptional work that needs to be done, also paid with 25% extra, or compensated by free time in another week.
It seems a little complicated to me, lukily I haven't really had to deal with those protections in the law yet, since my workplace is pretty sensible overall.
It has definitely changed, I don't know when, but it's been like this for at least the last decade.
Though, in my experience (NB: I'm a software engineer, which is a notoriously lax field.) only what the piece of paper says has changed. Hell, most of my employee handbooks have claimed that "full time" is 50 hours a week. They get away with it because I'm classified as a "computer employee" (lol) and make more than $35k/year (super lol) which means my employment is exempted from minimum wage and overtime pay laws.
Nobody that I know actually works that consistently. Most people I know don't even do 40. I do 9-5 (or 8:30-4:30 usually), I take breaks when I need them and nobody has ever complained to me about the amount I'm working.
My only guess for why it's this way is that having that be the official working time means it's easier to fire anyone for no reason because they're not working their "contractually obligated" amount of time.
I actually had an argument with a former employer quite a few years ago about that 'computer operator' / ~36k limit thing.
My scummy boss at that time was telling me that because of those stipulations I wasn't eligible for any overtime and they could demand I work as many hours as they want - even though I was hourly. When I said that didn't sound right he dared me to look up our state's employment laws.
So I did (side note: I'm in one of the most employee-friendly states), and it very clearly said that my boss was profoundly wrong. So I sent him the URL to that page. And he and the piece of shit HR person shut right up about it. Me and all of my colleague never heard that ridiculous argument again.
My last couple of jobs, including my current one, have been much more reasonable and accommodating. Even though I'm now salary, they aren't exploitative of me or my colleagues.
So my advice to other IT folk is: take the time to check up on your state's employment laws. If you are being exploited by your employer they may be totally in the wrong.
100%
I'm unfortunately in a state with even more vague and useless definition of who gets to be exempt than the federal definition.
50 hours per week is a lot. Ive been a lot of places where you'd get scolded if you said you worked only 40 hours per week, but usually 42 was acceptable.
Different jobs are different
Sorry for rambling
Dutch law describes a mandatory break of 30 minutes (or 2 15 minute breakes) if a working day is longer that 5.5 hours. Break is not work, thus not payed.
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/werktijden/vraag-en-antwoord/wettelijke-regels-pauzes-tijdens-werk
This neglects that the breaks are not free time spent as desired and is entirely constrained to the circumstances of employment. You would not eat or do the same tasks in the timespan. Therefore it is not your time and should be compensated for. Like owning a vehicle, you still own it even when you are not driving it or it is broken down. Pretending ownership is only limited to the time the vehicle is in gear and moving is delusional logic for any such pro slavery State. Employment must include far more ethical responsibly than this.
Using that logic this includes commuting, as that is also not free time spent as desired.
Your math ain't mathing.
The stereotypical "9 to 5" is an 8 hour shift with a paid hour "lunch break". This includes two 10-15 minute breaks, which are also paid. You come to work at 9, do work, take breaks, take lunch, and then leave at 5. That's 8 hours.
My job is 8 to 430. I come in at 8, work till 12, then I have a half hour unpaid lunch. The unpaid lunch means I cannot be required to stay on site, which can happen with a paid lunch. Then from 1230 to 430 I work until I go home. There are two 10 minute paid breaks in there. I work 8 hours total in an 8.5 hour work day.
It's one of those ambiguous things that employers seem to be leveraging to their advantage. Where I work, plenty of people do 8-5. Those of us who have been around longer and don't give as much of a shit will count lunch as part of our day.
if someone tried to dictate the amount of work hours that I put in during the day I would just start puking and shitting
It depends on where you are and whether you join a union or not. Labor laws vary by state and by country. Paid lunches and breaks may or may not be part of your employment contract.
My time sheet totals 37.5 hours of work per week and I can take take a lunch break of 30 to 60 minutes. The break is unpaid and a minimum break of 30 minutes is required after 5 straight hours of work so the lunch break is mandatory.
Typically this works out to 7.5 hours work with a 30 minutes break totalling 8 hours on site. Smaller breaks are untimed so if we need to stretch our legs or get some fresh air no one is watching the clock. We also have a pretty good culture of not interrupting people's lunch with work issues so that does feel like an actual break.
In Canada, the regulations have been 8 hour workday with two paid 15 minute breaks in that period and an unpaid 30 minute break for salaried workers, unless otherwise agreed by contract, since I started working in the early 90s.
This means a lot of people work 9-5:30 or 8:30-5. Union jobs generally have a 8 hour day in total with a 1 hour lunch break, and other professions have other arrangements.
For a number of years, I took my “lunch break” at 5 and just worked a straight 8 hour day with two 15 minute breaks.
My job is 9 to 5 including one hour lunch time when I started, it at least that's what the HR person and my boss told me when I started. Early this year I saw my position "obligations" or whatever is called and it says that I work 9 to 6 so 🤷 I hope they never enforce it
Better to raise this concern early. It also fucks over your coworkers if you don't speak up and correct it
All my jobs have either been 9-5 or 9:30-5:30 with an hour lunch included. TBH I've never tracked my pay by the hour, just the day.
Shit, 45 hours a week would be amazing, my now former employer wanted me working 5 12hour shifts and pay me so little I needed a weekend job on top of that.
What the fuck job did you do
Professional blood donor
Neurodiagnostic Technologist, luckily I'm in a better situation now.
I guess it depends on the company. Mine clearly expects us to work on 37.5 hours per week whether you work non stop from 9 to 4.30 or from 7 to 7 with many long breaks. And any overtime I do during the week makes my day at work on Friday that much shorter.
I think it differs a bit from province to province in Canada, but where I'm at, you can either work 8.5 hours with a half hour lunch, or 9 hours with a 1 hour lunch. It's up to the employer. 15 minute breaks are paid, but not guaranteed (if it's busy). Lunch breaks are unpaid and mandatory.
Im fortunate. Work 08:30 - 17:00 with an hour break which I take at 14:00 and we can take mini breaks whenever we want to really. I work from home 3 days and often don’t take the hour and finish at 16:00.
Nope. It's 'did include' .
Oh, the grammar folk have made it to lemmy! You're right tho