Current Events > Personally, I think 1-hour lunch minimum should be an option across all fields.

(+) Yeah! (+)

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.

I drive home for lunch, where I have at most one hour to prepare food and eat.

I just eat leftovers from the night before.

Workers should just train themselves to be robots who don't require human needs

Seems easier than changing the system

Nah fuck that, short lunch gets the day over with faster.

Even with an hour long lunch, your 9:00 to 5:00 is now treated as a 9 to 6:00.

Lunches should be paid if they're mandatory

Murphiroth posted...

Nah fuck that, short lunch gets the day over with faster.

This. Ive done both and theres never been I time I was happy having an hour lunch break.

If youre forced to go to an office, the smart play has always been to take a packed lunch and eat at your desk in about 10-15 minutes, as since lunch is unpaid, that means you only have to stay 10-15 minutes after 5:00 instead of 30-60.

Oh fuck no, not unless this is paid and I'm not just there for another hour.

my old job was blue-collar (aircraft maintenance) and didn't have formal lunch breaks. we just had to eat during less busy moments of the day. some days were so lax that we wouldn't have work for like 1/2 of the day. even when i actually had to do work id take a 15 min smoke break every hour or so. it was sooo refreshing

PraetorXyn posted...

If youre forced to go to an office, the smart play has always been to take a packed lunch and eat at your desk in about 10-15 minutes, as since lunch is unpaid, that means you only have to stay 10-15 minutes after 5:00 instead of 30-60.

That's only if they allow you to do that, they don't want that to be the norm.

Murphiroth posted...

Nah fuck that, short lunch gets the day over with faster.

Agree. I opted out of a half hour lunch actually at my last job. Rather just work and not half to spend 30 min a day unpaid having to be at work. Just eat when I got home.

Sexypwnstar posted...

That's only if they allow you to do that, they don't want that to be the norm.

Why wouldnt they? Theyre not paying for it, I dont see why theyd care how you take your lunch. Ive never encountered a company that did.

lunch break don't start until I sit down

When I eat lunch, it is like a peanut butter sandwich. A 30 minute lunch is plenty of time for me.

my lunch is an unpaid 30-60min depending on the day and i wish i could just not take it at all

if it was paid, then yeah, why not

An hour is way too long unless you're going out of the office for lunch.

Starks posted...

Even with an hour long lunch, your 9:00 to 5:00 is now treated as a 9 to 6:00.

9-5 but with paid break. Still 9-5.

TMOG posted...

Lunches should be paid if they're mandatory

Lunches should be paid no matter what.

If I am not done for the whole day then you should be required to pay me until I am. If you assign me a split shift 7-2 and 4-9 or something that 2 hours should be legally classified as a paid break.

PraetorXyn posted...

Why wouldnt they? Theyre not paying for it, I dont see why theyd care how you take your lunch. Ive never encountered a company that did.

Because they want you there, until the end of your designated time/shift.

If you're working retail or healthcare etc., you want to leave early? You're screwing over the next person because who's coming in for their shift/closing because you keep wanting to leave early.

i used to order pickup from a local restaurant, bring it back to the office, and eat while i worked

like, we could go on lunch breaks if we wanted, but at the very least eating at my desk on a day-to-day basis was good for optics

I used to have 1 hour lunches on my first job. I hated it so much. Why would anyone want to stay an extra hour at work ?