Employment is pretty simple. An employer is supposed to compensate a worker for their time. When said worker is off the clock, they can do whatever the hell they want with their time. You either pay someone for their time or you dismiss them from their duties. Demanding that people stay at work while they're off the clock? Not to get all hyperbolic, but that lowkey sounds like slavery to me.
Redditors shared their indignation at OP's situation in the comment section.
“Conversely, if you are not allowed to leave, you don't have to clock out.” added u/snark_attak.
“'Your child is now property of carl's jr'” joked u/Substantial-Ball-911.
“'Your kids are starving. Carl's Junior believes no child should go hungry. You are an unfit mother your children will be placed in the custody of Carl's Junior'” riffed u/Twobuttsandafart.
“Idiocracy was the nicer version of the dystopia we got. At least kids were taken care of.” said u/KingApologist.
“They're also legally required to provide a lunch in some cases.” said u/SporkWolverine, “What a conundrum.”
“If they do that though you are getting a burger and fries every day for lunch which isn't exactly a healthy meal.” replied u/elebrin.
“They likely didn't write you up because they would have been putting in writing that they're telling employees that they can't leave the building while *not on the clock.” replied u/throwawaystriggerme, “Having that kind of a paper trail is great evidence when someone brings a time card fraud complaint to the labor board for not paying people who are required to be there. They probably were just hoping you got scared for your job and just complied like the rest of the employees.”
“Do you at least get a free sandwich?” asked u/SunflowerJYB.
“I worked at McDonald’s once. Lunch was free to a certain extent. You’d be responsible for the difference depending on what you wanted.” replied u/TeeBrownie.
“Devious. I like this.” replied u/McOctipus.
“r/MaliciousCompliance” commented u/DoomEmpires.
“Noted” OP replied.
Visit the original thread here.