If the bill passes, it doesn’t mean you don’t get a lunch break. It just means your employer can tell you that if you don’t want to take one (*wink, wink, nudge, nudge), and you don’t do you…you don’t have to.
Ahhh, sweet freedom….
But seriously. Democrats have a big problem with this, and rightfully so. The Legislature has already turned back the tide on all sorts of workplace protections. Making lunch “optional” (*wink, wink, nudge, nudge) means that some employees that opt in (and who in their right mind would do that without pressure) would be going eight hours without food.
Now I don’t know what kind of work you’re in, but I at least need a snack and a couple of minutes (read 2 15 min. breaks) to take it easy and reset my brain when I’m at work.
But since this is all proposed as “optional” (*wink, wink, nudge, nudge), neither employees nor employers have to opt in.
Which makes you wonder who’s driving the bus on this legislation? I mean, have employees been clamoring to give up their lunch breaks?
Are employers hurt by folks eating rather than shuffling around the office in a calorie deprived state?
I don’t think either of these things are the case.
And in a state that has a very high obesity rate, and knowing that skipping meals causes your body to STORE fat, it seems that while this might be a business friendly bill on the front end, the back end…ie. long term health in an already unhealthy state, might actually HURT businesses.
But good sense never stopped Kelsey from sponsoring a bill, so I’m sure this time won’t be any different.
Of course, it isn’t surprising that this bill isn’t an original thought from a guy that used to mail bacon to legislators he accused of wasteful spending.
Speaking of bacon…isn’t it about time for breakfast? I sure hope Kelsey doesn’t have some devious plan for that meal too…