Off Topic Political Debate

Especially now that employers have discovered a way to counter the new wage, and increase profits whilst doing so. They simply don't pay for lunch breaks.

 

I don't think that I have ever been paid for lunch breaks...

 

It has always been part and parcel of any employment contract I've worked under - especially as it's a legal requirement for employees who work more than a five hour shift to be given one. What I've never been paid for though is a 'tea break' - they have never been factored in to my working hours. Just as well really, as a teacher I never get one - other than a 15 minute respite from the kids...

 

Plenty of tea breaks in your 13 weeks holiday allocation.

 

Yes a legal requirement to have a break, but not to be paid for it. I am paid for 37.5 hours per week, but my working hours are 08.45 - 17.00 with 45 mins lunch break.

 

And no paid tea break - or just no tea break?

Maybe it's because you are not in the category of low-paid worker. In lower paid Sales & Hospitality positions, the break has normally been 30 minutes and employers generally have paid staff for that, although admittedly it is discretionary. Some are now exercising their discretion by refusing to pay for breaks, some are cutting out other 'perks' - all of which means staff are either back to square one or even worse off. So much for the much-vaunted Living Wage.

 

I think the defined tea-break is a thing of the past outside of factories and places where they need to have much more clearly defined rotas. If I fancy a cup of tea, I just wander out to the Costa in our reception area and get one and take it back to my desk or to my next meeting. I don't drink very much tea and hardly any coffee (too tight to pay Costa prices), so it's not something I think about much - I usually just go for a walk along the canal for 30 mins and then return and have my salad! So I suppose I am paid for a tea break.
Thing that pisses me off the most are those who take a smoking break every half hour or so...

 

I worked for US software companies for most of my working life and was paid a "salary" rather than a "wage". In most of my companies for that salary, so long as I achieved my objectives - whether it was to write software early on or to sell it later on - my hours were pretty flexible. Sure you were expected to turn up at 9am (8am for sales meetings) and stay until at least 5.30 most of the time but if you wanted an afternoon off or a couple of hours for lunch sometimes, it was give and take. I have worked until 1am for every evening in a week - similarly gone home at 4pm every afternoon for a week. If your employer trusted you, then there was no reason to adhere strictly to the 9 to 5.30 regime.

I have to say that towards the end of my last job my lunchtimes grew progressively longer.....

 

Pretty much the same and I work from home 3 days a week! - so today, I started at about 09.15, had no lunch break and just finished my annual "Ethics Training"...now can do some catch up TV

 

my wife lets me have a tea break after emptying the dishwasher, feeding the dogs and taking the rubbish out
its a dog's life!!

 

Informative programme last night on BBC regarding the formation of the EU. Two things stood out for me, one was the playing down of the intention to create political union, this was an aspiration conceived at birth not added later.
Many people, like myself, who voted for just a common market, were not really informed about the ultimate aims although there were warnings from Enoch Powell at the time.

Secondly there were extreme shenanigans going on with the Labour opposition MP's being orchestrated by the remain group, not much has changed there!!

 

Lucky beggar!
When working full time, my contract covered a 35 hour week to be spent at school, from 9:00 - 15:00 with a class & an hour a day for extra curricular (sports clubs etc), collegiate meetings, CPD and set-up time for each day. Unfortunately, that leaves no time for marking bar a 45 minute 'lunch' break & no time for planning & preparation etc or inter-agency meetings - all of which is done out of school, basically in your own time. For example, this is the second week of a two week break and I've spent a good 18 hours already this week planning next term and have yet to finish. Which is silly of me really, as for the last year I've been semi-retired and only work 17.5 hours a week.

 

Sadly when I was working, the technology was not then in place to allow working from home - as my son does these days. I had to lug around a rather meaty laptop in a briefcase full of paper (arm muscle development was considerable) - I could do my job now simply with a tablet and smart phone!

Also "Ethics Training" was off the curriculum as my last company had few of them!

 

I work 35 hours a week, my hours are 9 to 5, so I don't get paid for lunch breaks, which are usually from 1 to 2 but there can be a bit of flexibility if necessary. When you take a half day holiday, it is 3.5 hours, so if you take the afternoon off, you finish at 12.30 and if you take the morning off, you start at 1.30. Despite being a global company, the number of hours in a working week is not the same in all countries - in Luxembourg they (theoretically) work 9 to 6 and I think it's the same in our new offices in Poland.

 

When I had a company in England my factory worked from 8 am to 5 pm Monday to Thursday and 8 am to 4 pm on a Friday with an hour for lunch every day, in other words a 39 hour week. The workshop manager came for our weekly chat and asked if they could reduce the hour for lunch to 45 minutes and finish early on a Friday. I agreed, which gave me a few brownie points on the shop floor, but it did have the effect of creating a feeling that we were working together, rather than the boss and the others.

 

According to the latest survey by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

- Coming second only to the US in the total amount donated, Britain gave a larger proportion of its wealth in aid than 22 other developed nations.
- In 2015 the UK donated £13.21 billion in overseas aid, equivalent to 0.71 per cent of the country's gross national income, the OECD figures showed.
- The UN's target of 0.7 per cent was otherwise only met by the Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway and Sweden, the latter giving 1.4 per cent of its budget.

 

I note the way some of the media have reported this. I can only applaud our Govt for standing by its commitment, which is actually very small in real terms......

 

I'd rather our country spent it on our poor people who have to manage at food banks than give it away to countries who don't spend it properly (not all but most).

I know its in the Daily Fail but its been reported in the times too, EU judges overulling our UK laws.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-multinationals-use-EU-courts-claw-taxes.html

 

I agree on the commitment, but I do not agree on some the countries we send aid to. Interesting that the biggest in terms of % are Northern European

 

I think you need to be fair on Germany here W_Y. According to the figures Germany pays less per year than Britain, but this does not include the 86.66 Billion Euros which Germany has paid in war reparations to Israel (which it is still paying) and also what they pay to Russia for the same reasons. You also discount the fact that Britain (and Germany) are major weapons exporters and so are often helping to create those problems (on the one hand) which they are also paying to solve on the other.