My employer is now making anyone who works at least 4 hours a day take a half an hour unpaid break. These breaks are being forced upon us and we do not feel it is fair. Can our employer make us take the break? Some people are loosing 4-5 hours of work a week due to this new policy. I don't think it is fair that i am loosing 2-3 hours of work and i am only scheduled for 15-20 hours a week as it is and I have 2 children to raise.

Can our employer make us take the break? Yes. If your employer mandates that you take a beak, then you take a break.

You know, I've answered as many questions this week from posters who were angry that they weren't being provided a break as I have from posters who are angry that they are being required to take a break. There's just no making everybody happy.

I can see your frustration.

I'm an employer who has employee's saying that I only have to ALLOW them to take a break and that if they don't it's their choice. They are only scheduled 41 hours and want to get paid for as close to 40 as they can.

Our policy manual states that for every 8 hours they must take at least a 30 minute break (state minimum). I run a hair salon and employee's stand on their feet with their hand at their shoulders for 8-10 hours a day. I want them to take a break for their safety!

Any place I can go to get the verification I need to make them take a break?

People will always complain.
I became frustrated with it, too, until i read something that said just that:
people will always complain.
It then went on to explain that it is not nessarily a BAD thing, and that as a manager you can use this to see what level your employees are functioning at (Maslow's theory applied to mngmt).
So I quit focusing on eliminating complaints and instead listened to the TYPE of complaint, to see how we were doing. (other than the whiners, you know the people who can't have a conversation without every sentence being a complaint).
People ESPECIALLY complain with changes. It's just human behavior. they'll adjust.

Shellfish, if you want to know where you can get verification for requiring breaks look in the mirror! :) If you want your employees to have them, so be it.
If you want a written statute give me the state & I'll try to look it up for you, or contact the state DOL.

Assuming this poster is in Minnesota, since that's where they tacked on this question, the law only says that you must "provide" sufficient time to eat a meal. It doesn't necessarily say that the employee MUST take the break, even if they choose not to.
http://www.doli.state.mn.us/breaks.html

Having said this, however, this isn't really your employees' choice. You have a perfectly valid reason for requiring they take a meal period and, even if you didn't, if that is the policy you want to set, IMHO, the employees need to adhere to it if they want to continue working there.

Quite a lot of people have gotten the impression that if the state does not require breaks, the employer can't either. That's wrong.

There doesn't have to be a law specifically granting the employer the authority to require breaks. The employer sets the hours, period. The employer decides what hours the employee will work, period. If the employer says you take a break, you take a break, period.

Rather than trying to find a law justifying your right to require breaks, I'd turn it back on the employee. Tell them that they need to show you the law that says you can't require it. You don't need to justify your decision.

What about work situations where you can not leave your place of employment during a shift, but are required by the employer to take a break? You can not tell me that an employer can expect you to stay on premesis, and not pay you. These forums just seem to say "Do what they say and shut up". It doesn't seem like much thought is given to the replies.

If the break is shorter than 20 minutes, then under Federal law it MUST be paid.

It's not that no thought is given to the replies. It's that the law doesn't say what you want it to say.

What about work situations where you can not leave your place of employment during a shift, but are required by the employer to take a break? You can not tell me that an employer can expect you to stay on premesis, and not pay you. These forums just seem to say "Do what they say and shut up". It doesn't seem like much thought is given to the replies.
The replies you are getting are based on the state specific laws or lack there of and since you don't seem to like the answers you are getting, work through your elected officials and fight for the change.

First, I was simply responding to another post. It is not a question of if I like the answers that I am getting. That statement is conceited at best. It is a question of the answers lackiing merit and forethought. Anyone worth their salt knows law is subject to interpretation.

Second, if you read the example I posted, then you would see I was very specific. The FLSA states, in essence, that when you can not use your time for your own purposes, that time must be compensated.

Now, a court just ruled that an employer did not have to pay for breaks when he refused to allow an employee to leave the premises. The question has not been answered on whether he can then force the employee to take the break in the first place under those circumstances. The arguement can be legally made that the employee is not able to use his "own" time for his "own" purpose, therefore he can not be forced to sacrifice an hour of his day without pay. The ruling only found that the employer did not have to pay for breaks taken as long as the breaks were not interrupted. It made no mention whatsoever of the employee being required to take a break in this instance. The only involvement of "state" as you mentioned would be if a district court judge saw it one way, or the other. If there is other case law out there, I would love to know. And again, the answer was more "We're right, you are wrong" without anything whatsoever to back it up. I am not trying to be advesarial, but there is more than one side to this, as with any issue.

And here is the law that says so: see paragraph (b)
http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_29/Part_785/29CFR785.19.htm

We don't make this stuff up. :p