August 3, 2007 Work rule for meals on front burner By Dale Kasler Sacramento Bee     Labor and management are clashing again over California's rules governing on-the-job meal breaks and rest periods.     Spurred by a state Supreme Court decision that expands the penalties for making workers skip lunch, employers are asking the state for more flexible rules. Labor leaders say the rules shouldn't be changed.     "We're talking about people just wanting flexibility," said Lara Diaz Dunbar of the California Restaurant Association, addressing a forum on the issue convened by the state labor commissioner Thursday.     But Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, said flexible rules would give employers the opportunity to pressure workers to skip meal time. "Those workers need more protection, not less," he said.     The forum, held at California State University, Sacramento, was called by newly appointed Labor Commissioner Angela Bradstreet to sort out an issue that's simmered off and on for years. She called the state's current regulations "confusing and conflicting" and has scheduled a second forum Thursday in Northridge.     Generally speaking, workers in California must be given a 30-minute meal break for every five hours of work, plus 10-minute rests every four hours. The matter turned controversial in late 2004, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed new rules that said employers merely had to offer workers the opportunity to eat after five hours.     After union leaders protested that these rules would leave workers vulnerable to coercion, Schwarzenegger dropped the idea.     The issue has flared up again, courtesy of an April ruling by the state Supreme Court. The case involved a clothing store manager in San Francisco who was ordered to work through his lunch and rest breaks for two years.     The penalty under California law was clear: An hour's pay for every day the law was violated. What wasn't clear was how far back in time the damages extended.     A previous labor commissioner had ruled that workers were entitled to only a year's worth of compensation. The court, though, ruled that employees could collect pay going back three years. It awarded the San Francisco employee $64,000.     Against that backdrop, hospital officials, restaurateurs and other employers said they need greater leeway in alloting meal breaks. They said employers are trying to comply with the law but feel vulnerable to litigation.     Susan Sarinas, business manager for two Melting Pot restaurants in the Sacramento area, said managers are being forced to discipline workers who prefer to shorten their breaks or work through them altogether.     "It's just a logistical nightmare," she said at the forum. "How do you manage it when the people themselves don't want to take a break?"     Trucking executive Mike Lindeman, of Valley Aggregate Transport Inc. in Yuba City, said drivers prefer "eating on the fly" and the current rules amount to "criminalization of normal behavior."     Workers, however, said giving companies wiggle room will lead to abuses.     "If I don't have a (guaranteed) lunch break, I don't eat," said Linda Doppe of Antioch, a member of the United Steelworkers. "We need to protect our lunch breaks."     Copyright © The Sacramento Bee