"This has nothing to do with the budget or stimulating the economy," said Barry Broad, a lobbyist for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and other labor unions. "It doesn't help the economy to lower 20 million people's wages during a recession."
But business groups disagree.
Hampering business with overly restrictive labor laws that don't encourage them to grow isn't going to be good for the economy or the deficit-plagued budget, said William Dombrowski, president of the California Retailers Assn.
"There isn't a large employer in the state who hasn't been sued," he said. "That tells you that the law as written is flawed, because not every employer in the state is a rogue who is trying to screw people out of meal breaks."
Employers have learned the hard way that it can be costly "to let employees exercise common sense" about when they should or shouldn't take breaks, said Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce.
But one labor expert demurs. Employers are losing lawsuits "because they broke the law" and "provide incentives to managers to shave labor costs," said Nelson Lichtenstein, a historian and director of the Center for the Study of Work, Labor and Democracy at UC Santa Barbara. "When you eliminate a lunch break or overtime, what you are doing is chipping away in a petty fashion at the take-home pay of the workers."
--
marc.lifsher@latimes.com
