A supervisor stands up to the IE manager...and pays the price

[Jones]

Can you post a source that says the lawsuit was about UPS pressuring drivers to work through their meal period.

I tried to find the actual brief. I found two sources with official documents. Neither one mentioned the pressuring of drivers. They both did say that UPS did not provide the full meal period, and also did not provide the second and third one.

P-Man

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?

 

[pretzel_man]

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

 

[happybob]

Go do a Google search on California Meal and Break periods. You'll see the history of the rulings. You'll also see the the rulings ended up becoming less stringent.

BTW, taking out a meal automatically was a matter of how the timecard was coded. There was (and is) a code that says take out a standard lunch. Another code only took out a lunch if it was coded. Technically, the supervisor should have coded the timecards appropriately.

P-Man

You are right about the time card code P.mam. Only problem was that management would not code 5 anyone, unless is was to the companies advantage. This went on from the time I started in the 80's. If you did not take a lunch and did not put the time in your diad/time card, one hour was still deducted from your pay. The only time the company would allow the code 5's was during peak, usuallt xmas eve, and the day after thanksgiving. That is where/why the California lawsuit was filed.

 

[Bubblehead]

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

There are also drivers that like to come in early and work for free.
This mindset baffles me.
It's my opinion that there is much more deserving organizations in which to volunteer time.
I reiterate an $87 million dollar award speaks volumes to the perceived pressure on drivers to skip their unpaid lunch period.
Overzealous lawyers???
Sure, whatever.

 

[stevetheupsguy]

I asked my sup and they explained the lunch was automatically taken out whether you take an hour or not.

Not here!

You have to request a Code 5 if you do not want your whole lunch taken out.

Not here!

Here they won't touch it anymore without asking first.

 

[happybob]

There is a simple solution. Tell your employees if they don't take a lunch, it will be their choice, and the company will not deduct the one hour pay, EVERYWHERE!

 

[stevetheupsguy]

There is a simple solution. Tell your employees if they don't take a lunch, it will be their choice, and the company will not deduct the one hour pay, EVERYWHERE!

McDonald's in NYC only uses Ketchup on the burgers, while most other McDonald's add both Ketchup and Mustard. These are all McDonald's but different franchises. Good luck getting your franchise of UPS to agree with my Franchise of UPS.

 

[happybob]

McDonald's in NYC only uses Ketchup on the burgers, while most other McDonald's add both Ketchup and Mustard. These are all McDonald's but different franchises. Good luck getting your franchise of UPS to agree with my Franchise of UPS.

Let's hope you haven't let out a secret about your franchise.

 

[UPS Lifer]

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....

 

[UPS Lifer]

There is a simple solution. Tell your employees if they don't take a lunch, it will be their choice, and the company will not deduct the one hour pay, EVERYWHERE!

Your right .... there is a simple solution. Employees who work more than 6 hours a day must take a lunch between the 4th & 6th hour. In California it is a law and the law should be followed. California only requires one half hour (unpaid) for a normal work day under 12 hours.

It should be like this everywhere to protect employees from employer abuse.

 

[soberups]

The problem has never been that we were pressured into skipping our lunches.

The problem has been...that we were pressured into skipping our lunches and doing the work off of the clock.

If I have something important going on after work, I will very occasionally skip my lunch. When this occurs, I enter "lunch 1200-1200" in the DIAD.

I am not falsifying anything, and I am not working off of the clock. I am being fully compensated for all hours worked.

The scam has always been to rig the allowances down to an hour behind reality, use those allowances to dispatch an imposible workload, and then pressure/harrass/threaten the driver into skipping his lunch and doing the work off of the clock in order to make up the time. This is, in a nutshell, UPS's entire business model.

The contract requires that we be paid for all hours worked. Whether or not it is legal or contractually allowed to skip lunch is an entirely seperate issue.

 

[UPS Lifer]

Sober,
There you go again with your conspiracy theory BS! There is no scam and UPS does not rig allowances.

As far as the impossible workload - pressure/harass/threaten the driver and skipping lunch...

Where does your personal responsibility come into the picture?

When do you stop blaming the big old bad company for doing all these terrible things to you?

I could be wrong but it sounds like you have spent most of your life working for UPS. I did too but I have heard the same stories about every company my relatives and friends have worked for the goals incentives are always be tightened.

You will find that no matter where you go you will run into companies that are tightening the screws down periodically. It boils down making a profit for the shareholders.

Companies that are successful will hold their employee accountable. Not many people like to be held accountable!

Sometimes you have to look at what the company does right.

Weigh each side and ask yourself where do the pluses fall. Obviously you have done that or you would be working somewhere else.

But for those that have not....

With UPS you can just be fairly certain the company is going to be here when you retire. You get good benefits - vacation time - and in this day and age something that is extremely rare... a PENSION!

So take your conspiracy theory and place it in the round file where it belongs. Take personal responsibility instead of playing the blame game.

Oh by the way.... the contract does not supersede state or federal law.

 

[Dustyroads]

The $87 million dollar judgement that was not overturned on appeal does, indeed, speak for itself. You can blame the lawyers, you can blame it on special rules in California, however, the ruling stands. UPS vigorously defended the company in the suit with lawyers who were, I am sure, compensated just as well as those representing the plantiffs. In fact, the UPS attorneys were paid if they won or lost. I'm curious whether one poster's disdain for attorneys extended to those who are employed by UPS to defend the hundreds of lawsuits that the company faces annually? Regardless, hopefully, both parties to the suit in California learned a valuable lesson about that state's laws concerning time off for lunch. Likewise, we can hope that management and drivers across the country get the correct message from this suit. Take your lunch.

 

[soberups]

Sober,
There you go again with your conspiracy theory BS! There is no scam and UPS does not rig allowances.

As far as the impossible workload - pressure/harass/threaten the driver and skipping lunch...

Where does your personal responsibility come into the picture?

.

When I first started as a driver, it was almost 2 years before I actually took a lunch.

The route I was on typically went out with an 11 hr day, with at least 9 hrs worth of business and pickup stops. It was designed by my management team to be "lunch proof."

At that time, the policy in our district was that one hour would automatically be deducted from the drivers pay for lunch...whether any lunch was taken or not. You could not take a 1/2 hr lunch without management approval---which was never given.

When I asked my sup why I couldnt just enter "no lunch" on my timecard he explained to me that I had to "earn" a lunch, and that "if you are working at a brisk enough pace it wont matter anyway because you will make that money up in bonus. The union requires you to put an hour lunch on your timecard, so blame them. If you dont have time to take lunch, you need to improve your methods."

I was young and naive and I wanted to be a "good" employee, so I made the mistake of trusting and believing my supervisor. So for 2 years I skipped my lunch and breaks, wrote in a 1 hr lunch on my timecard, and made about 15 or 20 minutes of "bonus" per day.

Then when the route got "timestudied", it lost almost an hour. So not only was the "bonus" gone, but even if I continued skipping my lunch and breaks I would still be at least 45 minutes "overallowed".

It was at that point when it finally dawned on me that I was getting screwed and manipulated by a management team and an IE dept who had been lying to me all along.

So as far as personal responsibility goes, I had no one to blame but myself. I was ignorant of the contract, and stupid enough to think that management was actually being honest with me and had my best interests at heart. Its not a mistake I will make again.

 

[JimJimmyJames]

Sober,
There you go again with your conspiracy theory BS! There is no scam and UPS does not rig allowances.

As far as the impossible workload - pressure/harass/threaten the driver and skipping lunch...

Where does your personal responsibility come into the picture?

When do you stop blaming the big old bad company for doing all these terrible things to you?

I could be wrong but it sounds like you have spent most of your life working for UPS. I did too but I have heard the same stories about every company my relatives and friends have worked for the goals incentives are always be tightened.

You will find that no matter where you go you will run into companies that are tightening the screws down periodically. [Intentionally highlighted] It boils down making a profit for the shareholders.

Companies that are successful will hold their employee accountable. Not many people like to be held accountable!

Sometimes you have to look at what the company does right.

Weigh each side and ask yourself where do the pluses fall. Obviously you have done that or you would be working somewhere else.

But for those that have not....

With UPS you can just be fairly certain the company is going to be here when you retire. You get good benefits - vacation time - and in this day and age something that is extremely rare... a PENSION!

So take your conspiracy theory and place it in the round file where it belongs. Take personal responsibility instead of playing the blame game.

Oh by the way.... the contract does not supersede state or federal law.

This is all really simple. The company gives everyone too much work. This is done on purpose in order to achieve maximum productivity. This fact has been admitted to on this forum by management.

Many drivers, in order to meet production numbers that have had "the screws turned", work through lunch in order to avoid harrassment. Or they do so to get home at a reasonable hour.

This is not a conspiracy, these are the facts.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

When I first started as a driver, it was almost 2 years before I actually took a lunch.

The route I was on typically went out with an 11 hr day, with at least 9 hrs worth of business and pickup stops. It was designed by my management team to be "lunch proof."

At that time, the policy in our district was that one hour would automatically be deducted from the drivers pay for lunch...whether any lunch was taken or not. You could not take a 1/2 hr lunch without management approval---which was never given.

When I asked my sup why I couldnt just enter "no lunch" on my timecard he explained to me that I had to "earn" a lunch, and that "if you are working at a brisk enough pace it wont matter anyway because you will make that money up in bonus. The union requires you to put an hour lunch on your timecard, so blame them. If you dont have time to take lunch, you need to improve your methods."

I was young and naive and I wanted to be a "good" employee, so I made the mistake of trusting and believing my supervisor. So for 2 years I skipped my lunch and breaks, wrote in a 1 hr lunch on my timecard, and made about 15 or 20 minutes of "bonus" per day.

Then when the route got "timestudied", it lost almost an hour. So not only was the "bonus" gone, but even if I continued skipping my lunch and breaks I would still be at least 45 minutes "overallowed".

It was at that point when it finally dawned on me that I was getting screwed and manipulated by a management team and an IE dept who had been lying to me all along.

So as far as personal responsibility goes, I had no one to blame but myself. I was ignorant of the contract, and stupid enough to think that management was actually being honest with me and had my best interests at heart. Its not a mistake I will make again.

This is exactly what is happening to me and I havent hit 30 days yet.

The only thing that can be done is TAKE YOUR HOUR between 4th and 5th hour, and let ctr know that you will not get those businesses delivered before your pickups. And for most drivers this is suicide, be prepared for harrassment, correct?

Average 70-80 stops, all or 95% business until 3:30pm. It is literally impossible to run off the airs and get done before that. Pickups start at 3:30pm. So where is the time to take a lunch? I was told that I had to "break it up" in pickups for take it in the building whenever after 6pm.

 

[Jones]

This is exactly what is happening to me and I havent hit 30 days yet.

The only thing that can be done is TAKE YOUR HOUR between 4th and 5th hour, and let ctr know that you will not get those businesses delivered before your pickups. And for most drivers this is suicide, be prepared for harrassment, correct?

Average 70-80 stops, all or 95% business until 3:30pm. It is literally impossible to run off the airs and get done before that. Pickups start at 3:30pm. So where is the time to take a lunch? I was told that I had to "break it up" in pickups for take it in the building whenever after 6pm.

Are you trying to qualify? If so you will probably just have to suck it up until you make seniority as a driver. It kinda sucks but that's the way it is. Once you're in and you no longer have that possible DQ hanging over your head, settle down and do it right.

 

[HEFFERNAN]

After all the dust has settled in California, are drivers delivering less stops than before the lawsuit? I would doubt it.

Plus, I'm sure most to all drivers are returning later to the buildings on average to compensate. That's how its been in CT. Telematics and the recession has added 10-20 more stops per route than 4 years ago when PAS/EDD was introduced.

Our 2 centers don't care if you take a lunch or not, as long as you put in the diad an hour lunch, they don't look in your direction. If you take an hour and 5 minute break, you'll be in the office tomorrow. Sad state of affairs.

 

[dilligaf]

Are you trying to qualify? If so you will probably just have to suck it up until you make seniority as a driver. It kinda sucks but that's the way it is. Once you're in and you no longer have that possible DQ hanging over your head, settle down and do it right.

Jones, I understand what you are saying but does not have to be done this way.

This is exactly what is happening to me and I havent hit 30 days yet.

The only thing that can be done is TAKE YOUR HOUR between 4th and 5th hour, and let ctr know that you will not get those businesses delivered before your pickups. And for most drivers this is suicide, be prepared for harrassment, correct?

Average 70-80 stops, all or 95% business until 3:30pm. It is literally impossible to run off the airs and get done before that. Pickups start at 3:30pm. So where is the time to take a lunch? I was told that I had to "break it up" in pickups for take it in the building whenever after 6pm.

Sleeve, it is NOT the only thing that can be done. It is what you choose to do. I'm sorry but I do not agree with this principle of letting the company screw you because you are trying to make seniority. I refused to fall into that when I was on probabtion. I filed on 9.5's (much to the dissappointment of my BA but he backed me on it), I took my lunches during the time that I was supposed to and if there were any service issues I let them deal with it (just to clarify, I was not perfect in doing this but I did it more often than not). They got the hint and it didn't take long. Did I get more harrassment? I don't know but I damn sure didn't get a less harrassment. The harrassment didn't end until this year, 3+ years later. Probation didn't seem to have anything to do with the harrassment.


It hasn't been that long ago and I do understand the stress your are feeling trying to get the rte done and trying to make seniority. I felt it then and there are still days when I feel it (the stress anyway). It gets better.


PS........... The hilited part, I would file on that, I would report it, I would scream bloody murder. That is BS. They cannot make you break up your lunch. I would be calling the 800 number, HR mgr, everyone and anyone. That is the biggest crock of crap and I personally wouldn't let them get away with it. Probation or not.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Jones, I understand what you are saying but does not have to be done this way.

Sleeve, it is NOT the only thing that can be done. It is what you choose to do. I'm sorry but I do not agree with this principle of letting the company screw you because you are trying to make seniority. I refused to fall into that when I was on probabtion. I filed on 9.5's (much to the dissappointment of my BA but he backed me on it), I took my lunches during the time that I was supposed to and if there were any service issues I let them deal with it (just to clarify, I was not perfect in doing this but I did it more often than not). They got the hint and it didn't take long. Did I get more harrassment? I don't know but I damn sure didn't get a less harrassment. The harrassment didn't end until this year, 3+ years later. Probation didn't seem to have anything to do with the harrassment.


It hasn't been that long ago and I do understand the stress your are feeling trying to get the rte done and trying to make seniority. I felt it then and there are still days when I feel it (the stress anyway). It gets better.


PS........... The hilited part, I would file on that, I would report it, I would scream bloody murder. That is BS. They cannot make you break up your lunch. I would be calling the 800 number, HR mgr, everyone and anyone. That is the biggest crock of crap and I personally wouldn't let them get away with it. Probation or not.

With a good union backing you can do that in your qualification period. I do not have that leveling of the playing field. Our center steward is an extension of management. Ask HappyBob. He speaks at PCMs, enough said.