Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
class action lawsuit against UPS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="gandydancer" data-source="post: 179714" data-attributes="member: 9310"><p>California Order 9-2001 for the Transportation Industry 11(b) reads "An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than ten(10) hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total hours worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee only if the first meal period was not waived." 11(d) reads "If an employer fails to provide an employee with a meal period...the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay...for each workday that the meal period is not provided."</p><p> </p><p>Note that the employee can agree not to take his meal break only under certain restricted conditions and that the employer must pay the employee the 1 hours's pay penalty even if the employee agreed not to take the meal break, provided that the employee's agreement was not in accordance with the restricted conditions.</p><p> </p><p>In other words, it is the policy of the State of California that if the company does not REQUIRE it's employees to take the required meal breaks the company will be fined one hour's pay for each day on which that occurs, and that the fine will be paid to the relevant employee, whether or not the employee objected.</p><p> </p><p>In this case UPS' obligation to pay fines has been (tenatively) established by class action suit, the amount has been agreed to at $87 million, and the employees due the fines established...well, roughly. More roughly than it ought to have been (see my previous posts), but it would be rough in any case.</p><p> </p><p>So, if the mechanism decides you are due less fines than the law calls for...basically, you're SOL. The company is refusing to release payroll records in a way which would make it practical to contest the allocation the company came up with. But half a loaf is better than none, particularly since you weren't expecting any. And if they're going to to pay you more...well, you've said one should as a matter of personal integrity decline to accept it (the agreed mechanism says it goes to charity, although Kershaw says he wants to divvy it up among the accepting drivers if the declined amount is large enough). And I say that's BS. Anyone woo's worked for THIS company as a driver for any length of time has experienced enough uncompensated grief that any windfall component of this payment is just a down payment on what's due.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gandydancer, post: 179714, member: 9310"] California Order 9-2001 for the Transportation Industry 11(b) reads "An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than ten(10) hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total hours worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee only if the first meal period was not waived." 11(d) reads "If an employer fails to provide an employee with a meal period...the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay...for each workday that the meal period is not provided." Note that the employee can agree not to take his meal break only under certain restricted conditions and that the employer must pay the employee the 1 hours's pay penalty even if the employee agreed not to take the meal break, provided that the employee's agreement was not in accordance with the restricted conditions. In other words, it is the policy of the State of California that if the company does not REQUIRE it's employees to take the required meal breaks the company will be fined one hour's pay for each day on which that occurs, and that the fine will be paid to the relevant employee, whether or not the employee objected. In this case UPS' obligation to pay fines has been (tenatively) established by class action suit, the amount has been agreed to at $87 million, and the employees due the fines established...well, roughly. More roughly than it ought to have been (see my previous posts), but it would be rough in any case. So, if the mechanism decides you are due less fines than the law calls for...basically, you're SOL. The company is refusing to release payroll records in a way which would make it practical to contest the allocation the company came up with. But half a loaf is better than none, particularly since you weren't expecting any. And if they're going to to pay you more...well, you've said one should as a matter of personal integrity decline to accept it (the agreed mechanism says it goes to charity, although Kershaw says he wants to divvy it up among the accepting drivers if the declined amount is large enough). And I say that's BS. Anyone woo's worked for THIS company as a driver for any length of time has experienced enough uncompensated grief that any windfall component of this payment is just a down payment on what's due. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
class action lawsuit against UPS
Top