A question on breaks again.


Well-Known Member
Obviously since the class action. UPS is no longer allowed to take the hour away from you automatically.

So some of us obviously have been pushing the issue and doing our work, not stopping for the lunch, only to take our paid breaks. Then punching and going home to our families an hour earlier then normal.

It's been boiling for a bit and now it seems they are going to force the issue of lunch back on us...as it is in the contract that is not the issue.

Our issue is that we have a remote building with 5 routes working out of it that for all intensive purposes is part of our building. They are assigned to us. Their inbound and outbound all effect our numbers and our cover drivers cover their routes.

Since they have a later start time and they used to pull the commercial stop deal - they have been allowed to run all day take no lunch. Come back to their remote building essentially ending their day of work. They call into the center and the OMS adds an hour to their time at the end of the day for their break. Then they go home with their boards and punch them out an hour later.

That is for all intensive purposes a paid lunch as they are for all purposes - done for the day.

In a talk with me the center manager alluded to the fact that with EDD their routes are now set up so they CAN get their lunch in during the day. Though I was also advised by the center manager not to fight that fight.

My point is...and let me know if I'm wrong - if they are allowed to then we are allowed to. Same center and all. I should be able to come in....give them my board, tell them to punch me out in an hour and go home, correct?


Staff member
I agree. The fact that the center manager advised you not to "fight that fight" means it's a fight worth fighting. File on it.


I don't know which state are you in and I'm not a driver. What I know is some states' labor law, such as Kentuky's, require workers to take a lunch break(not paid) after working 4 hours if you work 8 hour shift, otherwise it's a "Meal Violation" and employor is punishable by law. So the incetive here is not money but legal compliance.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
As was pointed out to me...I made a snafu :)

It should have read "or all intents and purposes" not "for all intensive purposes".

Lol....should have proof read it.

VT has no state law requiring anything other then what is adequately needed to eat.

It's not about taking, not taking the lunch. It's about equality. The remote is part of our center, if they are allowed. We should be allowed.

I see it that way...just seeing if I'm wrong here.

Southern VT....