Back when the case was ongoing I read a news report on it that included statements from the plaintiffs that (I'm paraphrasing here) UPS continually dispatched them with so much work that the only way they could finish the routes was to work through their lunch. I can't find it now, it's probably cached somewhere on the intra-webz unless I read it in print, which is a possibility.
Honestly, do you think that these guys went through the trouble of filing a lawsuit because they were happy about working through their lunch?[/QUOTE]
Jones:
I cetainly don't know what was in their mind. I assume you don't either. I do have an opinion and I'll give you my reasons. Some is based on my memory, but most is based on documents found.
I think this has much less to do with drivers who were upset about lunch as I believe that they (but mostly their lawyers) took advantage some radical California rulings.
The lawsuit against UPS came after other rulings. This one was not the landmark case. I found documents where the law firm was looking for drivers who "may" have not been afforded their mandated lunch time. At the time there were a tremendous amount of lawyers in California looking for cases.
This was an $87M award for 20,000 drivers. While I did not see the actual award to the lawyers, class action cases usually begin at 1/3 of the settlement as the floor. A few lawyers got almost $30M while 20,000 driver split what's left. Not chump change, but as is the case in most class action suits, its the lawyers that make out.
In published documents, UPS said that this was an anomoly due to the California rulings. If that were incorrect, where are the rulings in other states? If this was about UPS coercing drivers to skip lunch, (and not due to California settlements), where are the other settlements?
BTW, subsequently California rulings have changed the logic and ended up being much less stringent...
So, while I already stated that UPS turned a blind eye to drivers skipping lunch, I don't think that this lawsuit was the result of that. I think its this lawsuit that caused UPS to start paying attention to lunches.
As I recall there were many California drivers who were upset with UPS after this case because they were "forced" to take lunch. If you do a search on BC, I think you'll find some of those threads.
P-Man
P-Man - I worked my entire career in CA with small special assignments in AZ and NV. Your analysis is DEAD-ON. Sorry....anything else is just an opinion.
I don't know what it is like now but back in the day (in Southern Calif), the PTE was set up for 1/2 hour lunch as a default. There were some centers that did have a 1 hour lunch default.
I personally think that the lawsuit was good for UPS and the employees. I do believe that there were management teams that abused the system and individual drivers. This lawsuit brought the problem to a head and gave it much needed attention.
I understand why drivers don't want to take lunch. I understand why they work off the clock.
That being said... the real winners were and still are the lawyers. I have very little respect for the profession JMHO.
The one good thing that happened was that the drivers had to take a lunch which forced UPS to re-evaluate the work load, paid days, etc., etc., etc....