It has been answered, you just don\\\'t appear to agree with the answer. That is, of course, your right.
I asked how it personally affected your friend. You did not mention any personal effect. One job I had during college was working as a security guard where I did little else during the night but sit in the guard shack at the entrance to the property. I would sometimes go a couple of hours without a vehicle coming in. I did not get a break, but I spent 80% of my time reading the newspaper while listening to the radio. It had no effect.
I also worked construction labor in the sweltering heat. I needed periodic breaks to go sit in the shade, drink some water and have a snack. I needed a lunch break to refuel and rest.
That\\\'s hardly an argument. Millions of people dealt with being slaves for centuries without complaint or issue. Our society passed a law requiring minimum break periods for employees because our society decided it was unacceptable to work under conditions where they were not given these breaks. The breaks are the employee\\\'s legal rights. The \\\"problem\\\" is that the employer is infringing on their rights.
LOL. Slaves had no complaints or issues?
You are merely arguing from the position that the law is justified in every circumstance. A significant percentage (if not the majority) of the world disagrees. Before I would complain, I would seriously consider just how much effect it has on me. It is basic risk analysis because complaining entails a risk. If it did not, you would not be asking.
Of course. And the law only requires employers to take all reasonable steps to meet these minimum breaks. I queried my friend as to whether this was an exceptional situation because the store has only recently opened and they said that no, they had been told this would be the permanent arrangement in the store. I don\\\'t think anyone would have issue with missing breaks on an unusually busy day or if they were short-staffed or something, but to have it as the permanent arrangement is a different situation altogether.
I have no intention of revealing sufficient information that my friend\\\'s workplace could be identified. They work in retail, doing the sorts of things that are done in retail stores. That\\\'s sufficient information for this thread.
That seems a bit paranoid, especially since your society has deemed it unacceptable.
There is no question as to what should be done. Remind the boss of the law. If he fails to comply, take it to the proper authority. Society will have his back, right? They do not want slaves.
If I can work a shift with a single 15 minute break without any adverse effects beyond knowing that the law says I should get more breaks, I would simply do it. I have never been unemployed for three years. In fact I have only had one job interview in my life where I did not get an offer. My work ethic is such that I do what it takes to get the job done. I am not concerned with rules just for the sake of them being rules.
My friend\\\'s position is not sole charge; I think the total staff in the store is in the region of 10 or 12 so there\\\'s plenty of people to cover for breaks. The affect on the business or customers should be negligible.
Can your friend take a piss break?
My one proper stint in retail was in a much bigger store with much less staff, and breaks were never an issue (and that was before those breaks were obligatory).
My immediate assumption when my friend raised the issue was that it was an unusual arrangement for just that day, because of particular circumstances. I assumed that because I\\\'ve never, ever heard of a business failing to provide employees these basic breaks. Even with sole-charge stores it\\\'s normal practice here that the employee simply closes the store for the duration of their break. It has been a common sight all my life to see very small businesses with a little sign on the door saying \\\"back in 10 minutes\\\". In fact it\\\'s common enough that you can buy professionally manufactured signs of various types for specifically that purpose.
I cannot imagine being in a shop by myself and closing it for 10 minutes just for the sake of taking a 10 minute break. I would do it if I needed to hit the head, but beyond that, I would not.
My final answer to your question is that if it is not causing any hardship beyond the mental anguish of knowing the law says it should be otherwise, I would be grateful to have a job after three years and keep my mouth shut. I would work hard, earn the respect of my boss, and only then would I try to get things changed.
