As someone who recently returned to and left retail while between career jobs, I had forgotten just how stressful 30-minute lunches can be, and I dont think they accomplish enough to truly rest an employee before they get back on their feet.
Herea a few random thoughts:
- The act of preparing your food takes time. Even if youre eating a quick-heat meal (more on that later) youre taking 5-10 minutes just to have your meal in front of you ready to eat. Taking much longer than that forces you to eat your meal fast, which is not great for digestive health in exchange for trying to increase the actual time you have to enjoy your break.
- Shorter breaks IMO encourage compromising on healthy choices. Theres less time to prepare things from scratch, so its more tempting to use freezer meals or fast food to fill the gap. Of course, healthy meal prep and bringing in leftovers is ideal, but youre effectively limiting people who arent competent cooks to rely on unhealthy options more frequently, and youre taking more time outside of work hours to prep healthy meals, which are also limited by how quickly you can reheat or prepare them in your 30-minute window.
- Short breaks dont offer the stress relief they should. If youre doing all of the above and constantly watching the clock, youre not able to truly disconnect for the time you need to feel refreshed.
With a 60-minute lunch, you are able to prepare healthier food or choose healthier restaurants with longer wait times, spend less of a percentage of your break on the prep, and get better benefits on mental health for a longer break. About the only downside I can see is that some folks may want to have the option to leave earlier for the day, so a short lunch can help enable that. Just make it something you can elect in advance and thats addressed, though. Give people the option for a longer lunch and I feel like its almost certain that theyll perform better on the back half of the day.