I hate that HR will confront me now and then about not clocking out for entire lunches.. being +/- a minute on a 30m break. Sorry, I got **** to do. Yet, every salaried person in here comes and goes as they please. Ex: Boss left at 11am today to go downtown for lunch. Two hour lunch? Sure. I don't take a full 30m and get scolded.
I think we discussed this before in this thread. At least in CA (and likely in NY) they are legally obligated to give you 30 minutes off for lunch if you're paid hourly.
So here's what happens. They have to offer you a 30 minute lunch. You don't necessarily want to take it, because of whatever personal reason you prefer. Maybe you like to leave 30 minutes earlier. Maybe you're just not a lunch person (I'm not). So you tell your employer that you really don't care about taking a full 30 minutes for lunch for [insert reason here].
Then down the line, they fire you for some reason. And you go lawyer up and sue them for violating wage and hour restrictions. When they say that they *offered* you 30 minutes for lunch and that you didn't want it, you lie and say that they're making that up. They pressured and harassed you into skipping or shortening your lunch break. And in a pro-worker state like CA or NY, they can't prove that they didn't pressure you, so they end up losing the case.
Not that you'd ever do this, of course. But other people have done this.
So employers don't make it optional. They say that you HAVE to take 30 minutes off for a lunch break. Because they don't want to be sued without a paper trail absolutely proving without a shadow of a doubt that you voluntarily and without any pressure are waiving your 30 minute lunch break for [insert reason here].
It sucks. But that's why they do it.