If an employee is not taking a lunch hour (and was not asked to work through their lunch hour) and ends up with over 40 hours in a week, do we have to pay them OT pay?

yes.

I would defer to the HR experts, but you may want to check your states' wage and hour laws. Even though the employees are voluntarily working (or at least at their desk) through lunch, some state laws may "require" time off - away from the job.

If they do not show time off, and you get audited, there may be some significant issues.

FlaBkr make a good point. I have known people who work for companies that specifically require them to take their break and lunch periods. No doubt it is most likely to avoid the issues FlaBkr mentions.

I don't know about other states, but Massachusetts Wage and Hour Laws require a minimum of one half hour (paid or unpaid) break for every six hours worked (non-exempt staff only).

Our policy is that employees must take a 30 minute lunch each day to be reflected in their clocked hours. I have been told that this is a Ky requirement which could get us into trouble if audited by the State. We are also entitled to a 10 minute paid break for each 4 hours worked. Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that all employees take a luch break and for addressing any emmployee that works through.

I think that lunch hours should be at least about an hour or an hour in a half long so that people don't have to rush there food down. It would be a whole lot easier.

I don't know how other schools work, but here at safford high school during lunch hours we are able to leave off campus and go eat lunch somewhere else. Our lunch is only 45 min and I think that we at least need more time than that because there are a lot of people who leave and all of the fast food places are packed and it takes a while to get our food and eat.

I love lunch hour we just seem not to have enough time

i think that by giving high schoolers more time for lunch would minimize car accidents. 45 miutes is to short for lunch for everyone to get out of the parking lot, wait in line at a restaraunt, eat and then rush back to the school. Safford high school needs longer lunch hours!!!

In Texas and Oklahoma it is urban legend that breaks and lunch periods are required. You can require people to work as many hours as you want without any break. However whether you'd have any employees if you required them to work more than 8 hours without a break is another issue.

You should check your personnel policy and see if they require staff members to take lunch breaks away from the work area.

I know we have had to purchase lunch for tellers when the teller line is plagued by illness and short staffed. They take very short lunch periods under these conditions. We do buy lunch and they choose what they want to eat. I suspect it's whatever gives them the least indigestion from eating so fast.

(Hand Up) May I go to the restroom please?

Your State's laws will address this requirement under wage and hour rules. In NH, the law requires the employer to provide a 30 minute lunch or eating period after 5 hours of consecutive work. The 30 minute lunch or eating period is UNPAID. The NH laws do not require an employer to provide a "break" period; that would be the 15 minute coffee break. We, however, choose to provide the "coffee break" which is a PAID 15 minute coffee break in whatever portion of the day that is longest for the employee to break up the consecutive hours of work. For example: An employee works an 8 hour day. S/he comes in at 8:30 and leaves at 5:00. The 30 minute lunch is scheduled for 2:00. That means that the morning hours worked = 5 1/2, and the afternoon hours worked = 2 1/2. For this employee, the coffee break is scheduled for the morning, so that the break effectively "breaks-up" the 5 "consecutive" hours of work which requires a lunch period of at least 30 minutes. By providing breaks, this eliminates the required 30 minute unpaid lunch period. We, of course, provide an unpaid lunch period, however, if the employee is bogged down and wishes to work the lunch period, they can do so without violating State law. We of course pay them. Same is true if we require an employee to work a lunch period because we're short staffed. In that case, we go one further and pay for lunch also. The price of a sandwich goes a long way in keeping employees happy. We would be violating wage and hour laws in NH if we did what Princess Ene's company does. We can't dock an employees pay under NH law, and leave it up to the employee how they will spend the time.

This is a common misconception in the Commonwealth of Virginia, too! Virginia law does not require that employees be given a designated amount of time for lunch for so many hours worked. Employees can work 10 hour days and we are not required to offer a lunch break. The only requirement is that we pay them for the overtime if they work more than 40 hours in the work week. Which brings up another interesting point...

In Virginia, the employer can decide when the work week begins and ends. For example, a work week might begin at 12:01 A.M. Wednesday morning and end at Midnight on Tuesday. It doesn't have to be Sunday through Saturday.

In banking, it is sometimes helpful to set up a work week this way. On a typical Sunday through Saturday workweek, your employees would probably start running into overtime during your busiest times (Friday evenings or Saturday mornings) when you couldn't afford to send them home. If you had a workweek that ran from Wednesday to Tuesday, it would be more feasible to send them home on an "off" or not-so-busy day.
Just a thought.

What about nap breaks? I'd LOVE a half hour to an hour after my hour long lunch break to close my eyes a bit. I'd be a lot more useful if I could rest! I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this...

Well I dont know about anyone elses bank but if an employee in my branch wants to work their lunch hour unless specificly asked, they better clock out first cause all heck is gonna break loose if they are over their alloted hours. My tellers including myself are not allowed over 37.50 hours per week and we are strictly monitored for that. Our manager can make an exception but she rarely does. That is one thing I have to keep a tight reign on is my schedule.

Why 37.5 hours? What's with the 2.5 hours there - why not 40? Too easy to run into overtime?

I just thought that was interesting. How did they come to the conclusion to end at 37.5?

Well maybe you should try righ?????????

I dont know. Thats one of those management things I guess. All I know is its 37.50 hours per week.

37.5 is a benchmark used by employers to qualify an employee as "full time". I doubt that any employee joining the discussion above is paid 37.5 in vacation hours and I doubt that your benefits are pro-rated based on 37.5 hours. My guess is that you all receive 40 hours of vacation time per vacation week and you receive the same benefits as a 40 hours per week employee. By keeping employees at 37.5, an employer can still qualify you for full time (40 hour) benefits, and have wiggle room of 2.5 hours per week in work from you without paying overtime. You can choose to see this as a negative - you'll work 2.5 hours more than 37.5 some weeks and you won't get overtime. Or you can see it as a positive - you only work 37.5 hours per week but enjoy the benefits of a 40 hours per week employee.