New Hampshire Republican proposes end to lunch break law

WHAT !!!!!

New Hampshire State Rep. J.R. Hoell (R) says a law that gives workers a 30 minute lunch break after 5 hours of work is no longer necessary because employers will always treat workers well, and because human resources departments require it.

Well if that's the case there Mr. Hoell, then why waste money to change a law that seems to be popular and seems to be working

What if some manager decides to punish workers ?

What if some H.R. director decides to change the policies ?

Needless to say, a State union official had a different opinion, as did many other lawmakers.


Thursday, February 9, 2012 10:14 EST -- The Raw Story

A Republican State Representative in New Hampshire has found a way to create a new front in the war on workers, proposing a bill that would repeal the state’s law requiring that workers get a 30-minute lunch break after five hours of labor.

State Rep. J.R. Hoell (R), a supporter of libertarian-leaning Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) for president, told a New Hampshire General Court committee this week that he believes the law is unnecessary because it is in employers’ interest to treat workers well, according to The Concord Monitor.

His argument was seconded by state Rep. Kyle Jones (R), a 20-year-old Ron Paul backer who earned a seat in the New Hampshire General Court during the last election as part of a mother-son candidate slate. Jones said that his days working as a shift supervisor at Burger King taught him that employers will always treat employees well because human resources departments require it.

Almost needless to say, New Hampshire lawmakers were not impressed with the bill, and Mark MacKenzie, the state’s AFL-CIO president, practically eviscerated the pair.

Trust the Employers?

I wonder what this guy's agenda is ?

Should we simply trust all employers ?

WTF? My work already doesn't afford me a lunch break, so it's no different for me, but still...that's ridiculous. What's next, they'll take away bathroom privileges?

This just reminds me why I'll NEVER work in an office again after this job. It's just not natural to be cooped up all day.

Oh yes, and there's this: SITTING IS KILLING US

Yeah, employers treat workers well...

My wife doesn't get a lunch break in 8 hours of work.

Crazy people are crazy, i guess.

Hell yeah, I'm down with this because I usually work through lunch anyways and don't get paid for it. It also sucks on Saturdays when I work half days, I'm always in a race to beat the 5 hour mark so I don't lose the half hour. The way i see it , if you want to take a lunch break then go for the jobs that offer them. I'm pretty sure there is a good bit out there that work on their lunch break just to get done earlier in the day.

reply to post by onewithall


That's why I alternate running and riding a bike every day at lunch. Of course, we have a shower at work and I get an hour otherwise I couldn't get it in. I couldn't stand to sit around and waste that hour at my desk.

Originally posted by xuenchen

I wonder what this guy's agenda is ?

Should we simply trust all employers ?

What's their agenda you ask? It's to remove all those pesky little regulations that separate the american worker from being a full blown slave, completely subject to the beck and call of his/her employer. You know, like China! As soon as they have accomplished their goals, we can have a job again. To hear them tell it, they're only doing it for our, (the worker's) benefit.

Should we trust all employers? About as much as you would trust all dogs not to bite. Furthermore, I wouldn't trust the current "party of de-regulation" and their republican puppets who promote their agenda any further than I can throw an elephant.

Plenty of employers already schedule with creative blocks of time to avoid having to screw with a lunch break as it is. If they remove the requirement, they'll find it's only been working BECAUSE the requirement was there. It's got diddly to do with employers feeling all gracious and generous about things. Heck, the boss takes his lunch regardless. It's to the employers benefit NOT to do it, so I must say....

Score is 1 for brain farts. 0 for common sense. About par for the course, and this could have been either party. Republican just makes it more interesting, but it isn't like Reid and Pelosi are a fountain for good ideas that help people either. It's all corrupt these days.

It's really funny she thinks that because since the economy has dipped, it's become de rigeur at places of employment that you can't necessarily expect a break. Employers can do what they want and they do because they know jobs are scarce. I had a job as a dish washer in the early fall and I was expected to just work 8 hour shifts with no lunch. When I requested one fifteen minute break a day I encountered some resentment from the cooks because while I was gone the dishes piled up. And I live in New Hampshire, btw, if it matters.

ff that thast some bullcrappp

I have an employer that automatically deducts 30 min off our time every day for lunch, and then conveniently fills what would be lunch time with tasks that take up that time. If she didn't deduct the time I wouldn't care as much but that adds up over the course of a year. For me that's 130hrs/year.It is not like I'm asking for a paid lunch break. But don't deduct it and make me work through it either.

reply to post by Wetpaint72


That is illegal. If you're an hourly employee you can not be required to work without being paid for the time that you worked. You need to file a complaint, file a lawsuit, file something.

Rest and Meal Periods: Rest periods of short duration, usually 20 minutes or less, are common in industry (and promote the efficiency of the employee) and are customarily paid for as working time. These short periods must be counted as hours worked. Unauthorized extensions of authorized work breaks need not be counted as hours worked when the employer has expressly and unambiguously communicated to the employee that the authorized break may only last for a specific length of time, that any extension of the break is contrary to the employer's rules, and any extension of the break will be punished. Bona fide meal periods (typically 30 minutes or more) generally need not be compensated as work time. The employee must be completely relieved from duty for the purpose of eating regular meals. The employee is not relieved if he/she is required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while eating.

US Dept. of Labor

reply to post by Angus65


And that is the tip of the iceberg! I called a lawyer but didn't go through with anything because Im scared she will just make my life hell....that was when she owed me 52 hours of overtime in one month. I need my job...what do you do, you know.

This guy is a loon and nobody is taking him seriously. He's trying to amend laws on gun legislation that will make them harder to conceal and carry also.

He does not speak for the republican party that's for sure.

Sounds cool to me! I don't eat lunch. I am forced to take a break because its a law that I have to take one. I would much rather get my 8 hours over as soon as I can and go home earlier.

The only reason company's give even a 30 minute break is because the are REQUIRED, not because it's the right thing to do. Every HR policy is written and based on the laws in the state where they are doing business, you can bet your entire paycheck they have looked at ways to get around those requirements.
Next time this Representative shows up at Olive Garden I hope the staff refuses him service and tells him to get back to work, after all the taxpayers pay his salary so as his boss they have that right.
What an a-hole.

What a load!

Hahaha. If employers had their way they would pay a buck a day

The above is exactly why we need unions. I'm sorry, but this is simply the hard truth. Yes there are fabulous employers out there who "get it" so to speak, but the vast majority are solely about their bottom line.

This doucher wants to set the labor movement back 100 years

Good luck, pal. I have to go eat lunch now.

in allllllll these threads on this website exposing politicians for their corrupt ideals and legislation how often do you see the article's linked to in those threads specifiy which candidates the crazy guy supports for president?

i never seen it till ron paul,

anything negative they can possibly find on anybody they are trying to tie to Ron Paul in anyway they can,


as if it wasnt blatant enough already


every person in history who has ever been on a voting ballot has had a crazy person vote for them, but never was it touted by the news until Ron Paul,

like that fox news story showing a prostitution business that was supporting Ron Paul, fox was basicaly saying there is no way any other candidates have any prostitutes voting for them, which is a load of crap.

reply to post by Kenrichaed


That is the problem he does represent the larger Republican Party. This is what the ultimate goal for them is. Every time they push right to work, and fewer regulations. They are not for the people, they are for corporate interests and use social issues to convince the stupid to vote for them. Not that the Democrats aren't much better, just a slightly less bought and paid for pool. People need to quit voting for the R and D besides someones name, the only thing either side care about is having the power anymore and we are being torn apart in their little tug of war.