No Rest for the Weary
By David Bacon
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Friday 25 February 2005
<www.truthout.org/>
San Francisco - Time to eat in the middle of the workday
sounds pretty simple - something most people take for
granted. Yet in reality, many, if not most, people who
work in restaurants have to put in their entire shift
without stopping.
That's a violation of California labor protection laws.
But the state Chamber of Commerce and the restaurant
industry would like to brush that law aside. Now
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has made a proposal that
will help them. The governor's new regulation would
allow employers to simply inform workers of their right
to a lunch break, rather than actually provide one.
Further, it would eliminate a requirement that employers
pay an hour's pay for every break they fail to provide.
Nationally, twelve million people work in restaurants -
over 40,000 in San Francisco alone. While some labor in
family-owned businesses, many work for chains owned by
huge corporations. One if fifteen adults in the US has
worked at McDonald's, for instance, at some time in
their lives. That makes the change one that affects a
broad range of people.
According to a cook at one famous San Francisco
restaurant [afraid he'd be fired if his name was used],
"there's a lot of work, and they don't let you take a
break, even when you're hungry. From the time I began
here, I never had any time to eat. If I tried to take a
meal break, they'd come up after five minutes and tell
me to go back. You can't eat in five minutes. They tell
you, eat after you leave. I've had to work without
eating, and it makes me feel bad. But I've done it so
that I don't have any problems."
Not all workers are so accepting. In fact, in the last
couple of years, restaurant workers have begun filing
cases against their employers for not providing lunch
breaks. One big chain, The Cheesecake Factory, has been
the target of many such complaints. Patty Senecal, a
former Cheesecake Factory worker in San Francisco, says,
"In the two years I was there, they never gave us
breaks."
Once people like Senecal began filing complaints,
however, the company implemented a strange system to
still keep people working for hours without stopping
"The Cheesecake Factory had us come in an hour before
our scheduled shift," she recalls. "If you had to be at
work at five, you'd come in at four. You'd get in your
uniform, and you'd fold napkins for half an hour. Then
you would clock out for a break, and then work your 8-
hour shift. You were not allowed to eat during these 8
hours, or leave the vicinity. If you did, you'd get
reprimanded and written up. Technically, they'd say your
break was during your shift, because you'd come in an
hour earlier to fold napkins."
Working for hours without a break can be dangerous to
health. "It's very exhausting to work a full shift
without eating," Senecal explains, "and if you look at
the health of people in the restaurant industry, it's
terrible." Nevertheless, that's what employers like The
Cheesecake Factory wanted. "If you took food into the
back during your shift and tried to eat it, you'd get
written up. Some servers would try to sneak a cigarette,
and they would get written up. Once, after working all
day I just sat in this chair out of my customers' view,
because I was so tired. I immediately got lectured and
yelled at. For just sitting down."
Even before the Governor's proposal to weaken the law,
workers had to risk their jobs to enforce it. Marilyn
Smith, who helped Cheesecake Factory workers fill out
the state complaint forms, found that she faced
retaliation from her employer for doing so. She was
suspended, and her shifts reassigned. "They were angry,
and they're still angry," she says. "From the start, the
company moved against me. I have to watch my back. I
know that every move that I make is a big deal now. I'm
paying a price for it."
Governor Schwarzenegger's proposal would stop what
Cheesecake Factory workers are doing to defend
themselves, by making it much harder for anyone to sue
for violations of the lunch break regulation and others
like it. In just one settlement, the owners of the
Chili's restaurant chain, Brinker International, had to
pay a settlement to its workers that totaled $10
million.
At the same time, resources for enforcing existing law
are shrinking in the budget morass, and some of the
Governor's proposals to streamline government would have
made enforcement even harder. Schwarzenegger proposed
last year to abolish the Industrial Welfare Commission,
which sets the state regulations for lunch breaks,
minimum wage and overtime. California currently has
better protections than the Federal government provides,
but the new proposals would eliminate the state agency
that writes these protections. And under the Bush
administration, the Federal protections are likely to be
weakened as well. Public outcry recently forced him to
abandon that proposal.
While restaurant workers are among those most affected
by the meal break rule, other low wage workers in the
retail and janitorial industries also have a long record
of complaining that they don't get mandated lunch
breaks. Schwarzenegger's proposals benefit all these
industries that employ large numbers of workers
dependent on state protections. And those industries
have been generous to the Governor. The funds set up for
his initiative campaigns, and to pay his high living
expenses, have received generous donations. Target and
Wal-Mart each gave over $200,000, and The Gap was close
behind. And he received over $20,000 from the California
Restaurant Association, as well as individual restaurant
and hotel owners.
The state Division of Labor Standards Enforcement has
held a series of hearings around California, in
preparation for adopting the Governor's recommendation.
The Chamber of Commerce organized large delegations of
restaurant owners to testify in support. Without a
widespread public outcry, there is little doubt that the
change will be implemented.
So the next time you sit down in a restaurant to eat,
look into the eyes of the person who put the plate in
front of you, or who cleared it away after you ate your
fill. When you hear that she or he doesn't need a meal
break, ask yourself these questions: Could I work an
entire shift without eating or sitting down? And if my
boss cheated me, or violated the law, would I have the
courage to protest?
---
David Bacon is a California photojournalist, who
documents labor, migration and globalization. His book,
The Children of NAFTA: Labor Wars on the US/Mexico
Border, was published last year by University of
California Press.
By David Bacon
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Friday 25 February 2005
<www.truthout.org/>
San Francisco - Time to eat in the middle of the workday
sounds pretty simple - something most people take for
granted. Yet in reality, many, if not most, people who
work in restaurants have to put in their entire shift
without stopping.
That's a violation of California labor protection laws.
But the state Chamber of Commerce and the restaurant
industry would like to brush that law aside. Now
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has made a proposal that
will help them. The governor's new regulation would
allow employers to simply inform workers of their right
to a lunch break, rather than actually provide one.
Further, it would eliminate a requirement that employers
pay an hour's pay for every break they fail to provide.
Nationally, twelve million people work in restaurants -
over 40,000 in San Francisco alone. While some labor in
family-owned businesses, many work for chains owned by
huge corporations. One if fifteen adults in the US has
worked at McDonald's, for instance, at some time in
their lives. That makes the change one that affects a
broad range of people.
According to a cook at one famous San Francisco
restaurant [afraid he'd be fired if his name was used],
"there's a lot of work, and they don't let you take a
break, even when you're hungry. From the time I began
here, I never had any time to eat. If I tried to take a
meal break, they'd come up after five minutes and tell
me to go back. You can't eat in five minutes. They tell
you, eat after you leave. I've had to work without
eating, and it makes me feel bad. But I've done it so
that I don't have any problems."
Not all workers are so accepting. In fact, in the last
couple of years, restaurant workers have begun filing
cases against their employers for not providing lunch
breaks. One big chain, The Cheesecake Factory, has been
the target of many such complaints. Patty Senecal, a
former Cheesecake Factory worker in San Francisco, says,
"In the two years I was there, they never gave us
breaks."
Once people like Senecal began filing complaints,
however, the company implemented a strange system to
still keep people working for hours without stopping
"The Cheesecake Factory had us come in an hour before
our scheduled shift," she recalls. "If you had to be at
work at five, you'd come in at four. You'd get in your
uniform, and you'd fold napkins for half an hour. Then
you would clock out for a break, and then work your 8-
hour shift. You were not allowed to eat during these 8
hours, or leave the vicinity. If you did, you'd get
reprimanded and written up. Technically, they'd say your
break was during your shift, because you'd come in an
hour earlier to fold napkins."
Working for hours without a break can be dangerous to
health. "It's very exhausting to work a full shift
without eating," Senecal explains, "and if you look at
the health of people in the restaurant industry, it's
terrible." Nevertheless, that's what employers like The
Cheesecake Factory wanted. "If you took food into the
back during your shift and tried to eat it, you'd get
written up. Some servers would try to sneak a cigarette,
and they would get written up. Once, after working all
day I just sat in this chair out of my customers' view,
because I was so tired. I immediately got lectured and
yelled at. For just sitting down."
Even before the Governor's proposal to weaken the law,
workers had to risk their jobs to enforce it. Marilyn
Smith, who helped Cheesecake Factory workers fill out
the state complaint forms, found that she faced
retaliation from her employer for doing so. She was
suspended, and her shifts reassigned. "They were angry,
and they're still angry," she says. "From the start, the
company moved against me. I have to watch my back. I
know that every move that I make is a big deal now. I'm
paying a price for it."
Governor Schwarzenegger's proposal would stop what
Cheesecake Factory workers are doing to defend
themselves, by making it much harder for anyone to sue
for violations of the lunch break regulation and others
like it. In just one settlement, the owners of the
Chili's restaurant chain, Brinker International, had to
pay a settlement to its workers that totaled $10
million.
At the same time, resources for enforcing existing law
are shrinking in the budget morass, and some of the
Governor's proposals to streamline government would have
made enforcement even harder. Schwarzenegger proposed
last year to abolish the Industrial Welfare Commission,
which sets the state regulations for lunch breaks,
minimum wage and overtime. California currently has
better protections than the Federal government provides,
but the new proposals would eliminate the state agency
that writes these protections. And under the Bush
administration, the Federal protections are likely to be
weakened as well. Public outcry recently forced him to
abandon that proposal.
While restaurant workers are among those most affected
by the meal break rule, other low wage workers in the
retail and janitorial industries also have a long record
of complaining that they don't get mandated lunch
breaks. Schwarzenegger's proposals benefit all these
industries that employ large numbers of workers
dependent on state protections. And those industries
have been generous to the Governor. The funds set up for
his initiative campaigns, and to pay his high living
expenses, have received generous donations. Target and
Wal-Mart each gave over $200,000, and The Gap was close
behind. And he received over $20,000 from the California
Restaurant Association, as well as individual restaurant
and hotel owners.
The state Division of Labor Standards Enforcement has
held a series of hearings around California, in
preparation for adopting the Governor's recommendation.
The Chamber of Commerce organized large delegations of
restaurant owners to testify in support. Without a
widespread public outcry, there is little doubt that the
change will be implemented.
So the next time you sit down in a restaurant to eat,
look into the eyes of the person who put the plate in
front of you, or who cleared it away after you ate your
fill. When you hear that she or he doesn't need a meal
break, ask yourself these questions: Could I work an
entire shift without eating or sitting down? And if my
boss cheated me, or violated the law, would I have the
courage to protest?
---
David Bacon is a California photojournalist, who
documents labor, migration and globalization. His book,
The Children of NAFTA: Labor Wars on the US/Mexico
Border, was published last year by University of
California Press.
posted by:
|
California
|
