ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
to feel annoyed by colleague?(37 Posts)
I work full time. I leave work at 430 most days as this was approved by my manager as I only take 30mins for lunch, so can go home earlier(though I often take a very short lunch) or not at all and still have to leave at 430, no earlier.
One of my colleagues works part time and finishes at 2pm every day (works 845-2pm). However, he has no lunchbreak as he agreed this with boss/HR as an employee working under 6 hours per day is allowed to do this apparently. All fine there. But what I find annoying is he still goes to the cafe downstairs and buys lunch and eats it at his desk?!
I know this may seem trivial, but essentially he is doing exactly the same as me and many others for lunch, but whereas I lose half an hours pay he doesn't. Surely if he finishes at 2 and has chosen to take no break then this is unfair, he should either eat lunch after he's finished his shift or take an official break?
Maybe I'm being petty here and should forget it, but it annoys me when I'm at work everyday...
This just such a non-issue - there are work problems, and this isn't one.
As long as this man is working as he eats (he could be googling bollocks all day, who knows), what's the problem? People make cups of tea, gossip in the canteen, go out for fag breaks - all technically 'breaks' but not really.
I may be wrong, but um sure someone working those hours is entitled to a 10min break. Yabu anyway, its a quick working lunch not a full blown dinner hour
So as everyone else has mentioned, why don't you ask to do the same? Or is it he's actually earning less than you?
op eating at your desk is not a lunch break. The fact that you choose to eat your lunch at your desk doesn't mean that others who do are having a lunch break.
So, no, he isn't doing anything wrong.
Try working in an office where people are allowed to go for ten minute fag breaks as often as they want. We have people who are out there every hour. Calculate that for lost work time which they're still getting paid for. Management won't address.
It's impossible to sit at your desk during lunch in my office. They will know I'm taking my lunch and happily Mumsnetting but someone will still come up with work stuff so I end up having to deal with it.
I'm not allowed to take no lunch break as I'm full time, thirty minutes is the minimum whether I take it or not.
Hohoho, I agree about the long smoking breaks too.
I think when my colleague agreed his hours with hr it was thought he would have lunch at 2, when he finished his shift. But as he's a non smoker and doesn't take lots of other breaks I agree iabu and thanks for all who have put this into perspective for me.
YABU. I do exactly the same as your colleague. We don't get actual tea breaks because we are allowed to go and make tea/ go to the shop/ go to the toilet when we need to. 2 colleagues on my team smoke so they pop off at least 3 times during the day.
It is the law that you have to take a 30 min break after 6 hours work, so working FT you have to take a lunch break (and if you choose not to you are a) being a bit stupid and b) breaking H&S rules which could get your manager in trouble).
Actually I felt a bit guilty last week because we didn't have anything in at home for me to take for lunch so I had to walk to the sandwich place in another building. I'm aware I don't have a lunch break. But your thread has reminded me that the full timers who do get a lunch break choose to go to the shop/ coffee shop during the morning, and don't clock out. So everyone is doing the same.
I keep my nose out of what the smokers are doing so I would expect other people not to be clocking me (except my own manager who would be the only person entitled to quiz me).
You would have a field day with me. I take breaks whenever I feel like it for however long it suits me. Your colleague seems v proper.
OP in my workplace he would be entitled to 2 x 15 min breaks which could be used together back to back over lunch to allow him to eat.
All workplaces are different but the minimum break time he is entitled to is 15 mins - time he is using legitimately to go buy his food. What he does in his break time is irrelevant. At least he is back at his desk and available for calls, emails instead of swanning off for ages like some piss takers.
I can see your point OP. Legally you are allowed to work for up to 6 hrs without a break so on 3 days a week I work 9 - 2.30 without a break.
However I can't go that long without eating so I try to bring my lunch most days with me so whilst I do eat at my desk I am still working. Sometimes I forget/don't have time so have to nip down to the canteen to get something. So shoot me.
In my defence I am made to act above the grade I am paid and manage two contractors who are paid significantly more than me so I think the company can stand me the five minutes or so that I take to get my lunch. Also they arrive in on the dot of nine whereas I'm generally in 15-20 mins earlier and quite often have to work over my paid p/t hours.
In your case I wouldn't let it bother me. You already have a good deal because you get to leave 30 mins early. I bet a lot of other people only have time to take 30 mins for their lunch but don't get that so I would just be grateful for what you have and keep out of it.
All this is the fault of the workplace culture not the individual person. I don't know what you do, but if it is a question of getting work done rather than hours sitting at your desk, who cares? I suppose I can see why people get a bit annoyed at people going off for endless fag breaks, but nipping off to buy a sandwich? really?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.