my employer in missouri is forcing the employees to clock out for their 30 min. meal break. clocking out isnt the problem, the problem is that i dont take meal breaks i just work straight through. can i refuse to take my unpaid meal break and decide to work straight through or do i have no choice and have to take the break.

You have no choice and have to take a break. Your employer decides what hours you work, not you. If the employer says you take a break, you take a break. That's all there is to it.

so what if your employer forces you to take it at the 2nd hour of your shift or the 7th hour. i thought employers have to issue breaks between the 3rd and 5th hour of the shift. also how can there be any guidelines in taking breaks when there are no laws in the missouri revised statutes about breaks. please respond.

In your state, your employer can require you to take a break at any time. Although there are some states that have specific guidelines as to when a break can be taken, Missouri is not one of them.

There ARE no legal guidelines in MO about taking breaks. You're taking a requirement that doesn't exist in your state and trying to apply it to your state laws. I never said that your state had any guidelines about breaks.

Hi I’m new as of today. I was reading some of the post and replies and I was wondering, even if you are required to take your "unpaid break" doesn't FLSA require that an employee be paid for actual hours worked regardless of where and or when that work is performed?

Yes - for ACTUAL HOURS WORKED. Taking a break is not considered hours worked under the FLSA unless the break is for less than twenty minutes.

I don't completely agree. There could be more factors than just the amount of time given for a "break" in determining whether or not it is time worked. Look at this.

29 CFR 785.11 - General

Work not requested but suffered or permitted is work time. For
example, an employee may voluntarily continue to work at the end of the
shift. He may be a pieceworker, he may desire to finish an assigned task
or he may wish to correct errors, paste work tickets, prepare time
reports or other records. The reason is immaterial. The employer knows
or has reason to believe that he is continuing to work and the time is
working time.

If Enforce's employer is cracking down on timing out for lunches then it would stand to reason that the employer has at least some awareness that their employees are working through lunch periods. Enforcer should take his meal break and not work because I'm sure that his employer has established some policy to prevent this from happening and he would be subject to some type of disciplinary action.

Just my opinion what do you think?

If enforcer is working through his break he has to be paid for it.

However, he can be disciplined in any way other than failing to pay him for the time, up to AND INCLUDING termination, for working unauthorized time.

So yes, right from the beginning I have been saying that he needs to take his meal break. I'm not quite sure what you are reading that leads you to believe I have ever said anything else.

I was responding to your post # 6.
"Yes - for ACTUAL HOURS WORKED. Taking a break is not considered hours worked under the FLSA unless the break is for less than twenty minutes."
That is your quote.
I covered what I was responding to in post #7 in the second sentence.
“There could be more factors than just the amount of time given for a "break" in determining whether or not it is time worked.”

What I was getting at is just because it’s over 20 min has little bearing on the determination of what “actual hours worked” are. One might come to the conclusion that just because your employers tells you that it’s an unpaid break doesn’t mean that it legally is and one might draw the conclusion, from your post #6, that the only criteria in determining if a break is “actual hour worked” is if it’s under 20 minutes.

Outside of a state law that requires breaks of longer than 20 minutes to be paid (there are some but Missouri is not one of them) or a bona fide contract that says otherwise, I am unable to come up with a situation in which an employer would not be within his rights to require an employer to take an unpaid meal break, regardless of whether the law required such a break or not.

The law does not support your position.

If you disagree, suppose you provide some backup to your position. Post a link to a law that prohibits an employer from requiring an unpaid meal break, or the name of a case law that made such a determination.

Your answer, forgive my bluntness, seems a little simplistic. If your employer states that you need to take a break, and you have no desire to take a break, no need to eat lunch, etc, then how can you be forced when you can not effectively use that time for your own purposes? It is effectively forcing you to waste your time without compensation. Let's say you have an employer that gives half an hour for a meal break, and there is a cafeteria downstairs. You choose not to eat there for whatever reason (limited diet, diabetes, whatever). You do not in this instance have the time to go shopping, or leave the premises for your own personal business. Yes, an employer can fire you for any / no reason in most states, it just seems like the answer was way too simplistic. It is time that you are required to take out of your day. When you can't use it for your own purposes, it is work.

Your answer, forgive my bluntness, seems a little simplistic. If your employer states that you need to take a break, and you have no desire to take a break, no need to eat lunch, etc, then how can you be forced when you can not effectively use that time for your own purposes? It is effectively forcing you to waste your time without compensation. Let's say you have an employer that gives half an hour for a meal break, and there is a cafeteria downstairs. You choose not to eat there for whatever reason (limited diet, diabetes, whatever). You do not in this instance have the time to go shopping, or leave the premises for your own personal business. Yes, an employer can fire you for any / no reason in most states, it just seems like the answer was way too simplistic. It is time that you are required to take out of your day. When you can't use it for your own purposes, it is work.
It is simple, thats the point. Again as cbg stated "your employer can require you to take a break at any time. Although there are some states that have specific guidelines as to when a break can be taken." The employer sets the hours, not the employee and if the employee doesn't want to follow the procedure set by the employer than they can have corrective action taken against them to include terination of employment. Not so hard to understand, but when you are trying to buck the system I can see why it is for you.

Outside of a state law that requires breaks of longer than 20 minutes to be paid (there are some but Missouri is not one of them) or a bona fide contract that says otherwise, I am unable to come up with a situation in which an employer would not be within his rights to require an employer to take an unpaid meal break, regardless of whether the law required such a break or not.

The law does not support your position.

If you disagree, suppose you provide some backup to your position. Post a link to a law that prohibits an employer from requiring an unpaid meal break, or the name of a case law that made such a determination.

It's not about finding a law prohibiting an employer from requiring an employee to take an unpaid meal break. It's about being completely relieved of duty, at the time of that meal break, to determine if it is to be unpaid. Let me ask you this. What is actual hours worked?

What do YOU think actual hours worked means?

Nice try. I asked you first.

Well, then, you're going to have to go on wondering. You're the one with the issue, not me, and I'm not willing to play your game of trying to back me into a corner. You seem determined to prove that an employer requiring a break be taken is hours worked that must be paid for, but you want me to disprove it, not prove it yourself. Sorry, but I don't have any issues with the answers that have been provided. If you do, it's up to you to prove your case, not mine to defend a law I didn't write.

Well, then, you're going to have to go on wondering. You're the one with the issue, not me, and I'm not willing to play your game of trying to back me into a corner. You seem determined to prove that an employer requiring a break be taken is hours worked that must be paid for, but you want me to disprove it, not prove it yourself. Sorry, but I don't have any issues with the answers that have been provided. If you do, it's up to you to prove your case, not mine to defend a law I didn't write.


No, I'm not going to go on wondering. You need to be careful as to how you reply to these messages. Your answers are often misleading and that is a disservice. You backed yourself into a corner. For instance, this is your quote from reply # 6
Taking a break is not considered hours worked under the FLSA unless the break is for less than twenty minutes.

Your statement is not completely correct. There are a lot of factors that are to be considered before a determination is made as to actual hours worked. Each determination is also evaluated on a case by case basis. One instance would be CFR Title 29 chapter V 553.223. In this case the 30 min meal break would be compensated.
Ordinarily 30 minutes or more is long enough for a bona fide meal period. A shorter period may be long enough under special conditions, provided that during the short meal period the employee is completely relieved from duty.

I am not here to provide all the possibilities. Yes, there can be special circumstances. However, in the majority of cases, a break that is less than 20 minutes must be paid and barring a state law to the contrary, a break that is over 20 minutes long need not be paid.

You're still going to have to wonder about my definition of hours worked because I am not providing it.

This conversation is terminated.