Over the weekend, my partner and I grabbed coffee from a popular coffee chain, and we witnessed something that stuck with us. One barista, completely alone, was running the entire shop: taking orders both in person and over the delivery apps, making drinks and cleaning up, all while staying calm, smiling and composed.
Despite a constant stream of customers, she never had a lunch break or a moment to herself, not even to use the restroom or to wipe her sweat. Her quiet resilience spoke volumes, but it also exposed a deeper issue brewing behind the counter.
Under our labor laws, workers are not machines. Rest is not a reward; it is a right.
Article 85 of the Labor Code provides that it shall be the duty of every employer to give employees not less than 60 minutes time-off for their regular meals. This provision mandates a minimum of one hour for a regular meal break for employees. No worker should be forced to eat hurriedly behind the counter or skip meals due to understaffing. Yet, in this barista’s case, being the only person on duty made a proper meal break impossible.
Short rest breaks are recognized and protected under the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code and supported by jurisprudence. These brief pauses are compensable time and are crucial for an employee’s physical and mental well-being. These breaks also contribute to increased productivity. Denying even these brief pauses, or forcing workers to delay basic needs, such as peeing, is not just inhumane; it is a violation of labor standards.
As I would naturally give the benefit of the doubt, I’d say that it is unjustifiable for employers to simply regard that short-staffing as their cost-saving measure or a temporary setup or operational challenge. Employers must understand that profitability cannot come at the cost of legality.
Under Article 100 of the Labor Code, employers cannot reduce or eliminate benefits already enjoyed by employees, including rest periods. Moreover, Article 4 even provides that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the Code shall be resolved in favor. In essence, this provision reflects the constitutional policy of protecting the working class from abuse and exploitation.
To coffee chains, fast-food giants, retail stores, and small businesses alike, cutting staff to save on wages, while ignoring the legal implications and human consequences, is not sustainable. Your workers are the face of your brand and thus, their well-being should be at the top of your priorities. Acknowledge their hard work by providing them with more than just praise; back it up with compliance with lawful rest periods and fair wages.
To consumers and customers, let’s continue to uplift kind and competent workers. Remain compassionate. But let’s also learn to ask the harder questions. Ask why is she the only one here? Has she taken her restroom break already? Has she eaten?
And to policymakers and labor compliance officers, stories like this are not rare. They’re just rarely reported. It’s time to look beyond the surface and investigate the conditions that allow indifferent labor practices.
On our end, we reached out to the coffee chain, and within the hour, they responded and assured us that they would look into the matter. We can only hope that the next time we pass by for a cup of coffee, we’ll see her there, not alone this time, but with a teammate, both smiling, not in spite of exhaustion, but because they are finally seen, supported, and treated right.
