Nazi cbg bans poster for writing you dont get paid for lunch.

McGruff here taking a bit out of lame posts, at lame sites. This link was P.M’d me by a member of this forum,from the lamest of all labor/ employment sites LLT. They seldom get it right and only those that agree with there Nazi moderator cbg can post other wise you are banned like this poor guy 48 Packard. Of course under the circumstance the poster at this site and LameLawtalk wanted McGruffs input here.
McGruffs critique will appear in blue. The link below is the original locked post. Now lets get in to it wolf wolf!!

- - Lunch breaks California http://www.laborlawtalk.com/showthread.php?t=257836

hr newbie2 03-09-2010 01:21 PM Lunch breaks California

If an employee is scheduled to take 30 minutes of lunch break every work day, and that employee constantly shortens her lunch to 5-10 minutes and clocks back in early.....is the employer at risk for any liabilities for not providing 30 minutes of lunches?

Ok the question posed by this poster is one of reporting time, paid as well, as unpaid. Ca law an employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than thirty minutes, except that if the total work period per day of the employee is no more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee.... Cal Labor Code Section 512 Full text click: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=00001-01000&file=500-558

The first question I have is; dude what does your payroll Dept. say? The answer to the posters question is no, as long as you are not violating 512. Just because the employee is clocking back early from lunch does not mean her meal break is ended under Section 512. The posters question has little to almost nothing to do with 512. The employer recognizes and comports to it. No where in the post does the poster make any reference to “working” after clocking in, only that she clocks back in 10 minutes early from her break.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DAW 03-09-2010 01:28 PM

Yes.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_MealPeriods.htm

DAW is an accountant not a bad guy, but he is looking at the wrong statute, and reading the one he linked improperly. The statute as you can see by link is addressing the 30 minute meal period the employer must provide, the statute does not address reporting at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hr newbie2 03-09-2010 01:53 PM


Thank you. So just to be clear, even though the employer is scheduling 30 minutes of lunch and the employee clocks in early and returns to [the] work [place] earlier than 30 minutes out of their own accord, the employer is still at risk for violating the california law? if that is the case, how should it be remedied?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CO_Daisy 03-09-2010 02:19 PM
I'm going to tread lightly, as I have found out from reading other posts that California is much, much different with labor laws than Colorado...

I would write up the employee for not following the schedule, especially if this 5-10 minutes per day is causing her to go into OT for the day. The write-up should state that her work schedule is to with the lunch break scheduled to Any further infractions of abuse of lunch break time for her benefit/shortening her lunch break without the express permission of her supervisor would consititute termination.

Just my thoughts, hoping they are consistent with the employee-friendly California laws!

What a clown! She is advising the poster to actually write up an employee for clocking in early from lunch, and threaten termination to boot. Where in either post is there mention of work being performed? Another thing I always notice about the Nazi cbg's brown shirts is they all have to march lock step to the Nazi's notion California has confiscatory employment laws. Regular posters at LLT don’t care much for California, the reason they put a common sense law like that on the books is because of people like the Nazi cbg that thinks every single detail that can possibly arise in the work place must be codified in a statute, and if it is not the employer can do whatever he pleases.
Just my thought s but if you don’t know what you are talking about keep your fingers of the key board.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WorkHorse 03-09-2010 05:32 PM

I wouldn't write her up, not everything has to be a write up.

I would speak with her and let her know what the issue is - noncompliance with California break laws.

She probably doesn't know and thinks she's being a hard worker. I would document the discussion, but it doesn't have to count against her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DAW 03-09-2010 05:35 PM

If you are looking for a short simple answer that will be 100% accurate 100% of the time, no such answer exists. There are pending on court cases on this question.

I can say that every employer I have worked for (all of them in CA) felt that they were very much at risk if their employees played the same type of games you are discussing. I can say that those employers made it very clear that any employee who played those types of games would be fired. And some employees were indeed fired. Those employer basically had:
- Clear policies that such behavior was not allowed.
- Any employees who violated the policy once was written up and consoled.
- Any employee who kept violating the policy were written up and fired.

There are pending cases where an employee wants to be paid for hours not worked? Hmmm where is the Nazi cbg demanding citations of the cases.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WorkHorse 03-09-2010 05:44 PM

I would make sure that it is a game first and not jump to conclusions.

At my previous workplace, it wasn't the worker playing games, it was the employer. The employer loaded us up with so much work you couldn't take breaks or lunch.

This practice continued until the California DOL came down and reviewed our timesheets and fined the company.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48Packard 03-09-2010 06:02 PM

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by hr newbie2 (Post 1113599)
If an employee is scheduled to take 30 minutes of lunch break every work day, and that employee constantly shortens her lunch to 5-10 minutes and clocks back in early.....is the employer at risk for any liabilities for not providing 30 minutes of lunches?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No of course not. If the employee leaves the premises for lunch then clocks in 10 minutes early she is still on break, she is just clocked in.


Damn straight this guy has the answer! I wonder if the attack dogs will be called by the Nazi cbg?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GotSmart 03-09-2010 06:43 PM
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
employee constantly shortens her lunch to 5-10 minutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The employee clocks in 20 to 25 minutes early.

48 Packard, does this change your opinion/advice? (Interested in the answer!)
Lame #1 shows up there is disagreement with a senior poster P.M are being sent one another.
What exactly does that mean (Interested in the answer!)? The rube thinks he is witty I guess.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Betty3 03-09-2010 06:49 PM

48Packard, please also note post #2 & DAW's link.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CatBert 03-09-2010 08:20 PM

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by WorkHorse (Post 1113628)
I wouldn't write her up, not everything has to be a write up.

I would speak with her and let her know what the issue is - noncompliance with California break laws.

She probably doesn't know and thinks she's being a hard worker. I would document the discussion, but it doesn't have to count against her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Everything doesn't have to be a write up is true, however in a year or two when some random government agency comes looking into the employees record, hopefully a good memory will serve. IMHO the best option is first a verbal warning, then a 1st written, 2nd written and then a final warning. Then there is documentation on file.

Other than the I.R.S and state taxing agencies, state and municipal health & safety depts.,etc (all of which could care less if the employer keeps records of unpaid break time hours) what agency is this moron talking about performing random audits? I Googeled the California state lunch police and could not find them any where.

If there is a state lunch police in California, do they require write up’s of employees that clock in early for compliance?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CatBert 03-09-2010 08:22 PM

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by 48Packard (Post 1113632)
No of course not. If the employee leaves the premises for lunch then clocks in 10 minutes early she is still on break, she is just clocked in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is this a guess?
Are you an idiot?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48Packard 03-10-2010 04:58 AM
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by GotSmart (Post 1113635)
The employee clocks in 20 to 25 minutes early.

48 Packard, does this change your opinion/advice? (Interested in the answer!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In California you may clock in to the work place early and the employer does not have to pay you for clocking in early.


Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48Packard, please also note post #2 & DAW's link.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes Betty I read the link it does not change my reply. The employer is not in violation since it meets the requirements of the link. The employee can not launch a complaint unless the employer is violation of the link.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Pattymd 03-10-2010 05:11 AM
Quote:


Originally Posted by 48Packard (Post 1113892)
In California you may clock in to the work place early and the employer does not have to pay you for clocking in early.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IF the employer can show that the employee was not actually working; the burden of proof would be on the employer, not the employee.
You dumb bitch go back to 9th grade civics, the burden of proof is always on the plaintiff in civil litigation.

In violation of a link?

Oh you sure are confused Fatty three heart attack no job having Patty. Do you notice this snide no job having bitch did not ask DAW (the original poster of the link) or back stabbing Betty who told 48 Packard note post #2 & DAW's link. Why? Because she is instigating a flame war and she wants to make sure is on side side of the lackeys. Or she is just a nit picky bitch that’s unhappy with her own lot in life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cbg 03-10-2010 06:13 AM


In 30 years this is the first time I've heard anyone claim that an employee can clock in early and does not have to be paid, particularly in California. Do you have some support for this position?

Oh no the Nazi cbg rears her ugly head! You know she may be right she probably has not worked in 30 years. Even if 48packard had these supporting documents that read “you can only be paid if you work” the Nazi cbg would just delete them and lock the thread that’s her style.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pattymd 03-10-2010 06:19 AM

Me? Same as any other state, "clocked in" doesn't necessarily mean "working", right? Such as hanging up your coat, getting a cup of coffee, chatting in the coffee room about the Oscars, stuff like that.

Oh the alleged payroll manger finally figured it out, wow it did not take a house to fall on you did it. DUH!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cbg 03-10-2010 06:22 AM

Actually, I was talking to 48Packard, who is claiming that you can clock in early and the employer doesn't have to pay you. While I recognize your point, Patty, I'm interested in hearing why 48Packard, to give him his new name, thinks that there's an across-the-board permission for this.

Translation: Of course I know you are right, just as 48 Packard is right but I am interested in banning him. Patty if you fuck this up by making me look like the idiot I am, you will be going too. I know I pretend to be you friend and P.M you, but that is all contingent on you not making me look like the Duncski that I am. THIS LLT AND I AM THE EXPERT ON THE LAW BECAUSE I AM THE SUPERMODERATOR AND I CAN BAN PEOPLE AND LOCK THREADS!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pattymd 03-10-2010 06:38 AM

A new name. *sigh*

Translation: Oh no it was someone that was banned before and I took sides with him now I have to make you look smart cbg? That is asking a lot because I am the expert on wage law issues and I already agreed with his position. Please, please, please don’t ban me! I know you are the super moderator with awesome power I am getting scared.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Betty3 03-10-2010 07:17 AM


Double "sigh."
I expect that Betty3 is a back stabber who befriended McGruff, and McGruff sent her links to websites that you typically have to pay for. We will never know if the Nazi cbg is insinuating 48 Packard is McGruff, they have banned so many people for disagreeing with their lame ass’s it could 1000 different people. I wonder how many of the banned posters Betty3 has stabbed in the back?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GotSmart 03-10-2010 07:29 AM

I thought "ON THE CLOCK" meant that you were getting paid for your time. :rolleyes: (sigh)
Well GetSmart looks like you are NotSmart maybe change your user name to StupidMoFo.
Post 4 and 5 have the proper advice.

WorkHorse 03-10-2010 03:58 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by CatBert (Post 1113659)
Everything doesn't have to be a write up is true, however in a year or two when some random government agency comes looking into the employees record, hopefully a good memory will serve. IMHO the best option is first a verbal warning, then a 1st written, 2nd written and then a final warning. Then there is documentation on file.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's exactly right, have documentation, but not necessarily a write up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48Packard 03-10-2010 04:30 PM

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by cbg (Post 1113931)
In 30 years this is the first time I've heard anyone claim that an employee can clock in early and does not have to be paid, particularly in California. Do you have some support for this position?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


See post 16 cbg no reason to be redundant.


Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF the employer can show that the employee was not actually working; the burden of proof would be on the employer, not the employee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That is not true. The burden of proof is always on the complainant not the respondent.


Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What’s the matter you people afraid you might learn some thing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cbg 03-10-2010 05:07 PM

So, there is no CA statute granting the employer permisssion to not pay employees for time they are clocked in.

That's what I thought.
And that proves....what exactly Nazi?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48Packard 03-10-2010 06:17 PM

So what are you looking for; a statute that dictates employers do not have pay employees for hours they do not work? Yea you are right there is more than likely no such statute, but there is no theory of recovery as well. To recover you must have a loss and evidence to back up your loss, especially with an administrative agency.
LMAO Point set match game over Nazi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Worriedspouse 03-10-2010 09:58 PM

The problem, as stated by the OP in post #3, is that the employee returns to work after punching in early. That does require that the employee be paid for that time. Should the employee be scheduled for an 8.5 hour day and cut an unpaid 30 minute lunch period short by clocking in early and returning to work as stated by the OP, overtime pay would be called for.
You dumb bitch read it again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GotSmart 03-10-2010 10:22 PM


The problem is that packhard is giving out bad information. He pontificates, and will not back up his hyperbole with facts. He has a problem with reading and understanding simple sentences also.

Everyone knows that if you are clocked in, you must be paid.

There are ways of blocking IP addresses to keep out those that deliberately give out false or misleading information. Nobody is fooled by the multiple identities that are used. (sigh)
W.T.F ?? You can’t see it on this post but if you click the LLT link the right hand corner of ever post shows location (I.E. city state). This dip shit Notsmart wrote in “the bible belt” so he is getting bad advice from heaven and earth. What a wind bag trying to cover up a lame argument with big words.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48Packard 03-15-2010 08:25 AM I don’t know how you are being paid on Daddy’s farm but in the real world you clock in early you are not entitled to be paid for it. If you are on break you are not entitled to be paid for it.

Using your ridiculous logic the employees that don’t clock out for lunch and remain on site are not on break and have to be paid the whole half hour, after all they are still clocked in.

Clocked in is not working, shift start time is when your wages begin; lunch break you are not paid, and you are not paid for leaving late, and not working. Other wise everyone can just clock in an hour early sit around B.S all week, and demand 5 hours of overtime at the end of the week.

Show me a statute that says anyone clocking in on the job site early is entitled to be paid for it; I would love to see that. I can show my boss for about 130 hours of unpaid wages for 2009 alone. Of course he would laugh his head off. I could show it to payroll they would laugh at it. I could then take it to an attorney and they can get a good laugh too.

If wanted to have my sanity questioned; I could say “yea but, but, but a guy named Getsmart on a site that gives free legal advice-told me it’s true” and this guy disagreed with him and they banned him from the site”! That’s all the proof you boss’s, payroll depts., and lawyers need, the word of Getsmart he can ban people he can see their I.P address. He is quit a guy he must be a retired Justice and he uses big words too! :rolleyes:

This is not rocket science it is very simple, you work-you get paid, you don’t work-you don’t get paid.

For this entire theory of recovery to work the employee has to commit a fraud on the agency or the court claiming she worked and was not on break but working. Please come back with something better than that.

Dude is making them look stupid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CatBert 03-15-2010 08:37 AM

Packard, if it's true you should have supporting docs...Where are they? Just because you think it's true or your friend told you it was, doesn't make it so.

This guy reminds me of bojangles and his pack of non-factual responders.

CatBert you remind me of the kid playing the Banjo in the movie Delivernce (product of a brother sister relationship). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CO_Daisy 03-15-2010 08:44 AM
The proof is on the employer to prove that the employee did not work, even though the employee was clocked in. Unless the supervisor is a serious micro-manager and documents every minute of every day, the state would look at clocking in as the employee working.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_MealPeriods.htm

Another idiot that belives you are guilty untill proven inocent in the United States.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pattymd 03-15-2010 08:46 AM
We know that. However, this responder STILL cannot point to an actual LAW that says that every clocked in minute must automatically be paid.

Fatty Patty just wrote 48Packard is right! There is no LAW that says that every clocked in minute must automatically be paid. The Nazi cbg will be taking her to the woodshed via P.M’s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cbg 03-15-2010 08:56 AM

I would suggest that the regular responders in this thread disregard Packard, who as far as I can tell is just trying to stir up trouble. For him, of all people, to be suggesting that the employer has the right to NOT pay for time clocked in is evidence of that.

If he wants to post a statute or the name of a case law that supports his position he is free to do so. Until he does so, since we all know that Daisy has just summed up the correct legal position, why don't we all just call it a day?

Why should he? He already kicked your ass, Fatty three heart attacks Patty turned on you. I’ll explain it to your dumb ass for him even though a kid that worked two weeks at McDonalds can figure it out. For the purposes of this analysis, we must look to the federal equivalent of the term “hours worked”.

First, it is necessary to recognize that, in fact, there is no federal definition of the term “hours worked”. However, as the California Supreme Court noted in Morillion v.Royal Packing Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 575, 589): “However, the FLSA specifically defines the term ‘[e]mploy,’which ‘includes to suffer or permit to work.’ (29 U.S.C.203(g).) Federal regulations implementing the FLSA define ‘hours worked’ to include: ‘(a)[A]ll time during which an employee is required to be on duty or to be on the employer’s premises or at a prescribed workplace and (b) all time during which an employee is suffered or permitted to work whether or not he is required to do so.’ (29 C.F.R. 778.223 (1998); see also 29 C.F.R. 553.221(b), 785.7 (1998).)”

The employee in the original post was clocking in form her break early, but no where did the poster say she must clock in early and no where did it say she suffered (worked) or was permitted to work.

For all we know she clocked in early went to her desk, kicked of her Louie Vuitton’s, threw her feet up on the desk and did a crossword puzzle for last ten minutes of her unpaid break.

Another thing I find amusing the Nazi cbg talks a lot about evidence (like she is the prosecutor) insinuating this guy is a banned member that championed employee rights, but now just wants to disagree for the fun of it.

Nazi read the evidence a little more you stupid old hag! 48Packard is looking out for the employee; in that he is telling the poster to maintain the statues-quo, the rest of the make believe H.R people are forming a lynching parties to hound the employee for clocking back from break early.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Worriedspouse 03-15-2010 08:57 AM

Easy enough answer to Packard. I would clock in early at the job site then get in my car and drive for 40 minutes to and from the site of a meeting and get paid for my drive time while performing no work. Pay for that time is called for under section 43.6.1 of the DLSE manual.

And that has what do with this? Worried spouse should be worried, her old man is playing house, while she is playing attorney.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48Packard 03-15-2010 09:04 AM
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by CatBert (Post 1115940)
Packard, if it's true you should have supporting docs...Where are they? Just because you think it's true or your friend told you it was, doesn't make it so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yea I do it’s called a pay stub. Just like every American that works I get one every time I am paid. Just like most Americans I clock in prior to my shift. And just like all those other Americans that punch a time clock early my employer does not pay me for it.

In fact if there was glitch in the computer and the employer accidentally paid it, it is my responsibility to inform them of the error.

Makes sence to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pattymd 03-15-2010 09:22 AM

This is my last post to this thread, then I'm putting 48Packard on "ignore".

A pay stub does not imply a law.
Oh so now pay stubs is not admissible evidence in a wage dispute claim. Given that attitude its no wonder she is an unemployed temp. Fatty Patty you better bone up on rules of evidence, you are really embarrassing yourself and your Nazi master cbg.

I am sure this guy must be all broke up about being put on this lames ignore list.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48Packard 03-15-2010 11:15 AM
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Worriedspouse (Post 1115946)
Easy enough answer to Packard. I would clock in early at the job site then get in my car and drive for 40 minutes to and from the site of a meeting and get paid for my drive time while performing no work. Pay for that time is called for under section 43.6.1 of the DLSE manual.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I would not advise anyone to commit a fraud on the employer. For that to work you have to have a meeting the employer scheduled you to go to other wise you are stealing. The question the poster has nothing to do with 43.6.1

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that the regular responders in this thread disregard Packard, who as far as I can tell is just trying to stir up trouble. For him, of all people, to be suggesting that the employer has the right to NOT pay for time clocked in is evidence of that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How am I causing trouble??? Oh! I see if a poster does not agree with you and your attack dogs, he is causing trouble.


Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If he wants to post a statute or the name of a case law that supports his position he is free to do so. Until he does so, since we all know that Daisy has just summed up the correct legal position,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Follow the bouncing ball "jeez" that was posted by DAW on his first post. It only reinforces what I have been telling you.

The poster of the question acknowledges he is aware of the statue for the undisturbed lunch and is following it. The question is one of reporting hours, the statute does not address that because there is no need to.


Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
why don't we all just call it a day?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nope-I am right-you are wrong. Sorry if you feel like that gives rise to banning someone or calling out your attack dogs to instigate a problem.
DAMN RIGHT!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DAW 03-15-2010 11:47 AM

And the ignore list is your friend.

That’s funny this accountant has been going over his link with a microscope, cant find any thing so he just jumps on the band wagon of lames. Tss, tss I expect a better answer from a college man. Looks like he is a bad guy, did not used to be but you rub elbows with lames long enough well you see what happens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CatBert 03-15-2010 06:48 PM
I'm expecting any minute now to be reading about the ADA from this thread. Who was that bojangles cronie that loved quoting ADA?

I would not worry about that, never mind the fact that the Nazi cbg banned him so he can not respond to your lame ass. The fact that you regular posters can not grasp something a simple as when you are on a meal break you are not paid, how are you ever going to figure out something as sophisticated as the ADA?

The Nazi cbg banned 48Packard one way to find out is click a user then try to P.M the user if you cant it is a banned user. This post is typical of the mindset of these lames. Disagree the P.M's start and the rat packing begins. Well Nazi you and your lame's are bully's you don't have the guts to come over to this site and dispute it because it is all true. These posters are cowards they have to be on lame sites other wise their short comings appear quickly.

Thank you for bringing this here to read. Just incredible how truly pathetic they are. Can you imagine if they really did have jobs over there and some one actually had to work for them, or something hysterical like they really do have a day job and who ever they have to answer to finds they are playing on the computer all day!

You know you may be on to something. Fatty three heart attacks Patty and the Nazi cbg get caned often for being on the internet posting when they are paid to do something else. The Nazi cbg actually one time wrote it is job requirement in H.R to “work the boards” (even though she is not in H.R).

It’s no surprise they can not distinguish “hours worked” from what the average employee does on break, because they are always goofing off on the internet playing “make believe manger”, their real world mangers have to give them the boot for being poor performers on the job.

I have had to defend employees that used idle time and “work the boards” before. Managers do not like their subordinates straying far from the company’s web site on the computer. I would not even try to use that one as a valid defense at a disciplinary hearing.

All of us that work realize a secretary kicking off her Louie Vuitton’s, and doing a crossword puzzle had better be on break and that does not count as hours worked. Fatty three heart attacks Patty and the Nazi cbg see their role in the cyber world “working the boards” it is no different than the work they should be doing, which they are in fact being paid to do. So to them returning from a break 10 minutes early logging on too LLT is work, because that’s all they do at work until their supervisors catch wind of it and send them down the road.
JoeC (McGruff)

Will the Nazi cbg ban herself? She should, along with back stabing Betty, NotSmart and some other regular posters. The Nazi cbg agreed with opinion of 48Packard who she branded as trouble maker for telling a poster "you dont get paid for luch", and in true Nazi style banned him. In fact the Nazi cbg called out our own Squills and locked the post threatning him.

Check it out:
http://www.laborlawtalk.com/showthread.php?t=265673
The Nazi quotes the posters she banned word for word! If you did not work during that hour lunch then no, you are not entitled to be paid for the time. W.T.F!!!!
JoeC (McGruff)