My employer, in order to avoid overtime, has demanded that employees, if they are approaching the end of the work week and have hours that approach 40, to take a longer lunch to avoid going over the 40 hours by the end of the week.

For example, if by Thursday my hours are at 35 and I am scheduled for a full day on Friday, that I come in at my scheduled morning time and leave at my regular time but to take a 3 hour lunch.

Is this an appropriate manner in which avoid paying overtime.

Is this an appropriate manner in which avoid paying overtime.

Legal? yes. Appropriate? Who knows, since that is subjective.

I come in at my scheduled morning time and leave at my regular time but to take a 3 hour lunch.

That could be quite inconvenient, but not illegal.

I would rather come in later or leave earlier, but the company gets to make the call.

Agree, it's legal. An employer in Idaho can adjust an employee's hrs. within a workweek so that the employee does not earn overtime. However, this probably wouldn't be legal in states that have a daily OT std.

I am not aware of any laws in any state, even those with a daily overtime requirement, that prohibit the employer from managing the employee's hours so that they do not go into an overtime situation. It may have to be managed differently in daily overtime states, but it can be done. No employer, barring a bona fide contract or CBA that says otherwise, is required to allow an employee to work overtime.

It's in a law book that I have (section on employment law written by an attorney in an employment & law group) that adjusting the hrs. in a workweek to get out of paying overtime isn't legal in states with daily OT standard. I added the probably to my post because I wasn't sure that was correct (but didn't really know if it was or not) - I don't remember seeing anything on a forum about it previously. I can see where it could be done but I'm not an attorney. It seems there could be a problem though if for example in Ca. they didn't want to pay OT for the workweek but need employees to work overtime on a certain day to get a job done by a certain time where they had to work over 8 hrs. in a day to get it done - then they would have to pay OT even if they work just 40 hrs. total for the wk. by working less hrs. on other days. (non-exempt, of course)

It should work ok though if an employee who works M-F 8 hr. days needs to work on Sat. for several hrs. for a special project (for example) that the hrs. before Sat. could be adjusted (less worked) so that the total # of hrs. worked Sat. & M-F didn't go over 40 for the workweek & no OT need be paid. Maybe the attorney is wrong - he didn't give any details but just made that statement. I'm trying to get this straight in my mind.

I'm rambling on here - late, tired, I'm going to bed now - good night.

In a daily overtime state they'd have to adjust the hours on a daily, rather than a weekly, basis, but overtime is not a right and the employer has every legal right to schedule an employee so that they do not work overtime.

It might be a consideration in California, which has some rules regarding split shifts. But Idaho doesn't, so that's irrelevant to the OP's situation.

Even here in CA employers are usually advised that they can adjust a schedule so as not to incur daily or weekly overtime. The most common practice is to send folks home early. Of course, you have the reporting pay law, so you only send an 8-hour person home after 4 hour as you have to pay at least 4. And I always tell people to make the employee stay and work the 4 hours you are paying them. Never go ahead and pay and send them home.

The split shift is 1 additional hour of pay, at the regular rate so it is not advised to have them take a long lunch.

Just curious! How does the long lunch system advantage the employer? The employer is still only getting 5 hours of work from the employee on Friday in the example. What difference does it make if that work is done 8 to 1 or 8 to 11 and 3-5? I can understand coverage concerns, but they would require the employer to have an alternate arrangement should all the employees be in the "overtime situation." The employer could not all of the employee out from 11 -3.

I'm probably just full of hot air, but if the employee isn't allowed to leave during those three hours, but it be considered "engaged to be waiting" or "waiting to be engaged" or whatever you call it (I always get the two mixed up)??

Or is that all moot because they know the exact time they have to start and begin?

Or am I just not making any sense? :D

No, but they can stagger the workers so that while there may be fewer working at any given time, more workers work fewer hours rather than fewer workers working more hours and going into overtime. It's cheaper to pay more employees at straight time than to pay fewer employees a combination of straight time and overtime.

And historically, that is exactly the situation the overtime laws were designed to encourage.

I'm probably just full of hot air, but if the employee isn't allowed to leave during those three hours, but it be considered "engaged to be waiting" or "waiting to be engaged" or whatever you call it (I always get the two mixed up)??

Or is that all moot because they know the exact time they have to start and begin?

Or am I just not making any sense? :D

Not necessarily. If they can do personal stuff, even if they are required to stay on the premises (and the OP did not say that was the case), it can be unpaid time. The only state I can think of where this it NOT the case is New Jersey.

Not necessarily. If they can do personal stuff, even if they are required to stay on the premises (and the OP did not say that was the case), it can be unpaid time. The only state I can think of where this it NOT the case is New Jersey.

Thanks for the clarification!