In the 1990 governments survey,
separate data were tabulated for
police and firefighters. Four of 10
full-time protective services workers
had paid lunch time (averaging 40
minutes)—the highest incidence
observed among occupational groups
studied—and half had paid rest time
plans (averaging 33 minutes).

Part-time employees

In 1990, data for part-time
employees were included for the first
time with the publication of data for
small private establishments and
State and local governments. As is
generally the case with employee
benefits, the incidence of paid rest
and lunch breaks was lower for part-
time workers than for full-time
workers. Among part-time govern-
ment employees, 34 percent had paid
rest time and 3 percent had paid
lunch time in 1990. Similar results
were obtained in the 1990 small
private establishment survey; paid
rest time was granted to 27 percent
of part-time employees and paid
lunch periods to 5 percent. The
results of the 1992 surveys were
virtually identical.

The 1991 survey of medium and
large private establishment found
that 56 percent of part-time employ-
ees had paid rest periods, while 2
percent had paid lunch time. The
1993 survey reported 59 percent of
part-time workers had paid rest
breaks, while the percent of employ-
ees with paid lunch remained
constant at 2 percent.

Union status

EBS started publishing data on
full-time workers by union and non-
union status in 1992. The surveys
found that there was no significant
differences in the incidence of paid
rest time among union and non-
union government employees, but
non-union employees in small
establishments were less likely to
have paid rest time (47 percent) than
were unionized ones (66 percent).
In 1993, data by union status were
published for the first time for

medium and large private establish-
ments. Results were similar to those
recorded for the 1992 small estab-
lishment survey. Unionized employ-
ees (74 percent) were somewhat
more likely to have paid rest breaks
than non-union ones (66 percent).

The situation was different for
paid lunch time. Union status
appeared to make little difference in
the incidence of paid funch time in
private industry. In State and local
governments, however, unionized
workers were somewhat more likely
(12 percent) to receive paid lunch
periods than non-union workers (8
percent).

Geographic areas

Data for full-time employees by
geographic area were made available
with the release of 1993 data on
medium and large private establish-
ments. The data were published for
the Nation’s four geographic regions
as defined by the Bureau of the
Census. Paid rest periods were most
common in the West at 82 percent,
followed by the North Central region
(72 percent), the South (69 percent),
and the Northeast (49 percent).!
The situation was reversed for paid
lunch time. The incidence of paid
lunch periods was most common in
regions where paid rest breaks were
least common. Fifteen percent of the
full-time employees in the Northeast
had paid lunch time, followed by the
South (9 percent), North Central (7
percent), and the West (3 percent).

Goods- and service-producing
industries

As with geographic differences,
data for full-time employees in
goods- and service-producing
industries were also only published
for 1993.2. The survey found that
employees in goods-producing
establishments were more likely to
have both paid lunch and paid rest
benefits than employees in service-
producing industries. Twice the
proportion of goods-producing
employees had paid lunch periods
(12 percent) than service-producing

employees (6 percent). Paid rest
time also was more common in
goods-producing establishments,
with 74 percent of employees
receiving paid rest periods, com-
pared with 63 percent of their
counterparts in service-producing
industries. A possible explanation
for this difference is that union
employees, who are concentrated in
goods-producing industries, have a
higher incidence of paid rest breaks
than their non-union counterparts.

Other data on paid lunch and
rest time

BLS also tabulated the incidence
of employee benefit plans in small
independent businesses.> Although
sharp differences were noted for
some types of employee benefit
plans, the incidence of paid rest and
paid lunch time was virtually the
same in small independent busi-
nesses as among small establish-
ments as a whole.

BLS also examined benefit
incidence among State and local
governments. Employees of State
governments were much more likely
to receive formal paid rest time plans
(72 percent) than were those of local
governments (46 percent). The
situation was reversed for paid lunch
periods, where local government
workers were three times more likely
to have this benefit (13 percent) than
were State government employees (4
percent). These patterns are largely
due to the influence of teachers, who
comprise a large proportion of the
local government work force, and
who are more likely than other
employees to receive paid lunch
periods but less likely to have paid
rest breaks.

Eliminating the collection of
data on paid lunch and rest
benefits

The EBS is a study of individual
benefits and benefit provisions,
rather than a single output such as
an index. As such, considerable
latitude exists in the choice of data
to be studied. In spite of this, strict

Compensation and Working Conditions December 1996 22

TTT


Table 1. Average minutes per day for
pald lunch time and pald rest time, full-

BRBUNRRE (TEE
BRBVseey |FeE

Occupational data

Changes in the way in which
occupational groups were defined
have made it difficult to compare
occupational data prior to 1989 with
data published later. Through 1989,
EBS private establishment data were

published according to the following
three occupational categories:
Professional and administrative
employees, technical and clerical
employees, and production employ-
ees. In 1990, the occupational
categories became professional,
technical, and related employees,
clerical and sales employees, and
blue-collar and service employees.
Additionally, occupational data are
often not comparable between
private establishments and State and
local governments, because the
government survey combines
professional and clerical employees
into one occupational group so that
teachers, a significant portion of
State and local government employ-
ees, can be published separately.
(See table 3.)

The incidence of paid lunch time

varied considerably among occupa-
tional groups, with blue-collar and
service employees more likely to
have paid lunch and rest benefits
than their white-collar counterparts.
The exceptions were professional
employees in the 1992 small
establishment survey and teachers in
the 1992 State and local government
survey, both groups of whom had a
slightly higher incidence of paid
lunch time.

The incidence of paid rest time
varied considerably by occupation.
(See table 3.) As with paid lunch
time, private sector blue-collar and
service workers were more likely
than white-collar workers to receive
paid rest breaks. Among State and
local governments, teachers were
much less likely to be granted paid
rest time than other workers.

Table 2. Average minutes per day for paid lunch time and paid rest time, full-time employees in small private

establishments and State and local governments, selected years, 1987, 1990, and 1992
‘State and local ‘Small private
governments establishments
Year Paid lunch Paid rest Paid lunch Paid rest
time time time time
m4 29 U) cu)
«6 29 7 27
aw 2 Kia c)
Table 3, Percent of full-time employees with paid lunch time and paid rest, 1991-92
Medium and Small ‘State and
large Private local
Occupation governments,
1901 1992 1992
5 12 6
4 8 4
1 8 13
58 40 68
oT a 20
7t 56 a

21 Compensation and Working Conditions December 1996



guidelines are followed and consid-
erable care is taken when survey data
changes are made. The choice of
benefits and provisions are based on
the employee and employer percep-
tions of a benefits’ worth, the
timeliness of the topic, the presence
of varying characteristics to be
tabulated, and the degree to which
the benefit plans’ incidence or
details change over time. Finally, in
deciding what data elements to
include, the Bureau balances the
usefulness of publishing the infor-
mation against the costs of assem-
bling the data.

Paid lunch and rest benefits were
dropped from the survey because
they did not meet several of these
criteria. First, there was little
interest from the public for the
published data. Second, paid lunch
and rest benefits are rarely in the
news and infrequently discussed
among policy makers. Third, data
on the incidence and average
minutes per day for both paid lunch

" Geographic regions are defined as follows:

Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Penn-
sylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont; South—Ala-
bama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Lovins Maryiand,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, wee vin Vir-
ginia; North Central—Iinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ne-

and paid rest were very consistent
over time. As a result, the EBS was
publishing nearly identical data
survey after survey. Finally, by
freeing resources used to collect and
publish paid lunch and rest data,
other benefits or benefit provisions
that our users find more useful can
be published.

Conclusion

The survey must constantly
evolve to reflect the changing needs
of data users. The elimination of
paid lunch and rest benefits is such a
Teflection.

In addition, one of the goals of
the emerging COMP2000 survey
program (see related article on page
9 of this issue) is to monitor develop-
ments in the compensation field.
Periodically, the Bureau may survey
paid lunch and paid rest time to
determine if these benefits have
changed in their prevalence or in
their characteristics.

—Endnotes—

braska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wis-
consin; West——Alaska, Arizona, California, Colo-
rado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon, Utsh, Washington, Wyoming.
?Goods-producing ‘industries include ‘manu-

23 Compensation and Working Conditions December 1996

Technical Note

Paid lunch and rest data have been
collected since the inception of the
Employee Benefits Survey in 1979.
Tnitially, the survey compared Federal
benefits with those in private industry,
and its uses have expanded over the
years. EBS data are now used to
formulate policy, develop compensa-
tion packages, as well as in academic
Tesearch. The survey also has many
more and varied data users than in the
past, including the business commu-
nity, State and Jocal governments, and
research organizations.

Since 1990, the survey has
published data on small private
establishments and State and local
governments for even-numbered
years, and on medium and large
private establishments for odd-
numbered years. These benefits
were last published for small private
establishments and the State and
local governments for 1992 and for
1993 for medium and large private
establishments.

4 The survey of small private establishments
includes two types of businesses, those that are
independent, for example a dry cleaners, and those
that are a segment of a larger organization, for
example a sales office for a large national manu-
facturing firm, In general, the incidence of ben-
fits (other than paid rest and lunch time) for small
independent businesses was lower than the inci-
dence of businesses that are part of a larget orga-
nization,



Paid Lunch and Paid
Rest Time Benefits:
Highlights from the
Employee Benefits
Survey, 1979-93 sy Heer smeson

lightly more than half of the Nation’s nonagricultural workers receive paid rest

breaks, and about 1 in 10 are granted formal paid lunch time. After 15 years of

surveying these benefits, the Employee Benefit Survey (EBS) concluded their
publication with the release of 1993 data on medium and large private establishments,
published in 1994. These benefits were eliminated from the survey due to budgetary
constraints, lack of change over time in the publishable data, and limited public interest,
among other factors. This article reviews the accumulated data on paid lunch and rest
periods, and explains why these benefits were dropped from the EBS surveys.

Background

At its inception in 1979, the
survey was limited to medium and
large private establishments (those
with 100 or more employees). In
1986, the EBS expanded its scope to
include most civilian nonagricultural
employees.

‘When the State and local govern-
ment survey was introduced in 1987,
paid lunch and paid rest benefits
were included; and they were also
part of the first survey of small
private establishments (those with
fewer than 100 employees) intro-
duced in 1990.

During the 15-year period paid

Hilery Simpson is an economist in the Divi-
sion of Compensation Data Analysis and Planning,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Telephone (202) 606-
6207.

lunch and paid rest benefits were
collected, the EBS increased the
scope and detail of its published
data. When the survey was initiated,
it included incidence data on paid
lunch and rest periods by occupa-
tional group for full-time employees
of medium and large private estab-
lishments. By 1982, more detail
was available, including data on the
average minutes per day allowed for
each benefit. The increase in scope
was followed by

an increase in detail. Data for part-
time employees were first published
in 1991. The following year, data
were published by union and non-
union status; and in 1993, by
Census regions and for goods-
producing and service-producing
industries.

Full-time employees

In 1979, full-time employees in
medium and large private establish-
ments were six times more likely to
receive paid rest time compared to
paid lunch time. (See chart 1.)
Results were similar for 1993,
when about two-thirds of employees
were granted rest breaks compared to
about one-tenth with paid lunch
periods. Full-time employees in small
establishments and State and local
governments also had a higher
incidence of paid rest than paid lunch
time. (See charts 2 and 3.) In 1992,
the most recent year available, 9
percent of small private establishment
employees received paid lunch time,
while 49 percent had paid rest time.
Similar results were found in the 1992
State and local government survey.

Compensation and Working Conditions December 1996 18

TTT


100

80

60

40

20

Chart 1. Percent of full-time employees in medium and large private establishments with pald
lunch time and paid rest time, selected years 1979-93

87 68

9 14 9 10)

13) 40 |
[ie

10 14 10 8

GE GG GE ee eS
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1988 1989 1991 1993
Paid lunch Paid rest
time time

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

0

Chart 2. Percent of full-time employees in State and local governments with paid lunch time
and paid rest time, selected years, 1987, 1990, and 1992

56

53

+7

WW

|

10

|

1987

1990

1992

|| Paid lunch
time

Paid rest
time

19 Compensation and Working Conditions December 1996



Paid lunch time is a formal
paid period allowed by the
employer for employees to eat
lunch during the work day. To be
reported as a paid lunch plan in
the survey, the time must be
included in the work schedule
and the employer must have
considered it a formal benefit.
(nformal or “casual” plans are
excluded from the EBS. In
addition, data on unpaid lunch
periods are not collected because
they are outside the work sched-
ule.)

Paid rest time is a formal
period during the work day, away
from primary job duties, usually
lasting 10-15 minutes per
occurrence. This time is most
often used for coffee breaks, but
formal time for clean-up, wash-
up, and preparation tasks are also
included in the EBS definition.
Like paid lunch time, paid rest
time must be included in the work
schedule and be considered a
formal benefit to be included in
the survey.

Paid lunch and rest data have
changed little over time. Consider-
ing changes in survey scope and in
data collection techniques, as well as
sampling error, small changes in the

* data from one year to the next were

not significant. Between 1979 and
1993, the percentage of full-time
employees in medium and large
Private establishments with paid
lunch or rest time varied no more
than a few percentage points.
Similar stability was found in the
small establishment and State and

local government data.

Chart 2 shows the percentage of
full-time employees in State and
local governments with paid lunch
and rest time. However, due to
changes in survey scope and collec-
tion techniques, 1987 data are not
strictly comparable with data for
1990 and 1992. In 1992, the last
year these data were published, 53
percent of full-time employees in
State and local governments received
paid rest time and 10 percent
received paid lunch periods. Al-
though, full-time employees of
medium and large private establish-

ments were more likely to have paid
rest time (68 percent), there were no
significant differences in the
incidence of paid lunch time (9
percent).

Chart 3 shows incidence data for
full-time employees of small private
establishments. In 1992, the last year
that these data were published, 49
percent of the full-time employees
had paid rest and 9 percent had paid
lunch time.

Length of lunch and rest
periods

Like data on incidence of these
benefits, data on the length of paid
lunch and rest periods showed little
variation over time. (See table 1.)
By 1991, paid rest averaged 28
minutes per day and paid lunch table
shows averaged 26 minutes per day,
a slight increase over the 1982 data.
(Data on average minutes per day
were not published in 1993.) The
changes reported for 1982 through
1991 were not significant. Provi-
sions were similar in small private
establishments and State and local
governments. (See table 2.)

Chart 3. Percent of full-time employees In small private establishments with pald lunch

and paid rest time, 1990 and 1992

60
50

49

40

30

20

10

1990

1992

Paid lunch
time

Paid rest
time

Compensation and Working Conditions December 1996 20

TTT