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

[brownIEman]

Tourists, when you put your words inside of someone else's quote, it makes it impossible to quote you. I agree with your variable of height, age, weight and such, but doesn't that infringe on the equality of employment in a way?

Yes it does make it impossible. You would think that now with this ODSe aka. Super-Vision, they'd see that the person is still delivering/picking up while supposedly on lunch. Another thing is why is it that no one ever gets a message to slow down when driving too fast. I'm sure that while monitoring routes, supervisors can see that people are speeding. I'm just sayin!

Steve, watching every driver going between every stop live all day? No one has that kind of time.

 

[brownIEman]

I do not agree with you on that one IEMAN.

1. Drivers shouldn't have to work for free to make themselves look good. Working through their lunch hour to make unrealistic numbers is a problem that should be addressed by your department or with their onroad supervisor to find out why they have to work through their lunch to make those numbers. If a previous lunch runner is going to be the standards that a new driver has to make then we have problems.

2. Your mentality of "get the mopst out of the workforve, and then more" is the problem. You want to get it out of the worker, by telling him/her to run his/her lunch hour, instead of finding the best technology and ewquipment to make that possible. A human can only walk so fast, and carry so many packages at one time.

I agree with you, many routes need to be re-studies. The process is on going, and in fact with the new "virtual" time study using mapping software and GPS data, you will find many routes are actually gaining time back. The process takes a lot of man hours and cannot be done overnight.

No, my mentality of get the most and then a bit more is the UPS business model. We pay our people WAY more than any one else in the industry, and we get way more out of our people than anyone else. And guess what? The pay gap is getting bigger. So guess what else has to get bigger for UPS to have ANY shot at being competitive? That is correct, the production gap. So we need more.

One of the problems here is that UPS may be pushing up against the human endurance limits of the business model. Every contract we pay yet more, and we find ways to get yet more. Perhaps we have hit the limit on how much more we can get from people. If so, we are going to have to start paying less or we are pretty much headed the way of GM. It really is that simple.

Don't believe me? Do some research on UPS' share of the small package market over the last 20 years. How much by percentage has UPS market share declined in the past 15 or 20 years?

How many good quality union jobs will we be able to provide when it gets to zero?

 

[stevetheupsguy]

The simple answer here, is that you are simply wrong. No one in IE is trying to force drivers to work off the clock. The allowances for most routes are very challenging. And yes, many of them do not take into account a ton of issues drivers face on many routes and are simply not a good indicator of how well someone should do on that route. Some are the opposite and are too easy. But none of that is the point.

The whole idea of the system is to hold everyone to a very high standard, to get the most possible out of the drivers all the time. Period. How does not enter into it. If a driver chooses to work through lunch as the solution to looking better on paper, that is that drivers choice, and has nothing to do with the IE department. Nothing. Now, if a driver works to his fullest potential, safely and efficiently every day, and still looks bad on paper, who the hell cares? When the sup gets on car with him, his performance will not change one bit. So he gets a lock in ride, and afterward his performance does not change. Unless you are having a time study ride, when you are out there delivering there is no IE standing next to you. You are an adult and a highly compensated professional, you should take responsibility for your own decisions.

By the way, it has been my experience that most drivers who work through their lunch and break do not do so in order to look better for the IE department. They do so because they want to get home to their families that much sooner. In the old days, that was perfectly fine with UPS, including the IE department. It was the courts and the union that said we MUST force drivers to take a lunch.

What you mean is, most young drivers try to impress MGMT/IE by running lunches and most older driver's do it to get home early. This lunch thing would never have been an issue if UPS hadn't taken the lunch out regardless of whether one took lunch or not. The idea that the company would take an hour of pay from someone who did not take lunch is unconscionable and illegal. That's why they had to pay that lawsuit in California.

As far as driver's in their cars before start time, don't even get me started!

Steve, watching every driver going between every stop live all day? No one has that kind of time.

Yet OAO's On Area Observations are done daily. Maybe someone can monitor one driver per center, per day on "Super-Vision" and help people who are erring in their ways, ie not taking lunch, driving to fast, too many miles or any variety of things that could be "wrong". As a matter of fact it would be nice to be observed physically or virtually, and be told what an excellent job one is doing.

 

[brownIEman]

What you mean is, most young drivers try to impress MGMT/IE by running lunches and most older driver's do it to get home early. This lunch thing would never have been an issue if UPS hadn't taken the lunch out regardless of whether one took lunch or not. The idea that the company would take an hour of pay from someone who did not take lunch is unconscionable and illegal. That's why they had to pay that lawsuit in California.

As far as driver's in their cars before start time, don't even get me started!

Yet OAO's On Area Observations are done daily. Maybe someone can monitor one driver per center, per day on "Super-Vision" and help people who are erring in their ways, ie not taking lunch, driving to fast, too many miles or any variety of things that could be "wrong". As a matter of fact it would be nice to be observed physically or virtually, and be told what an excellent job one is doing.

once again, the taking the lunch out regardless of whether the driver took lunch came from the lawsuit. The court ordered UPS to make the drivers take lunch. The way to make sure, was to look at time cards and make sure lunch was taken out. So UPS centers told drivers that a lunch would be taken out no matter what, and ordered the drivers to take the lunch. Some drivers continued to work anyway.

In my experience, the lunch issue has little to nothing to do with trying to look good on paper and everything to do with getting the hell out of dodge sooner, for any age driver.

Using super-vision as you call it would be a great tool for holding people accountable to doing the job. Except for the fact that that is not allowed in the contract. Technology cannot be used for discipline, it can only be used as a backup to direct observation. Hence the need for OAOs.

 

[stevetheupsguy]

once again, the taking the lunch out regardless of whether the driver took lunch came from the lawsuit. The court ordered UPS to make the drivers take lunch. The way to make sure, was to look at time cards and make sure lunch was taken out. So UPS centers told drivers that a lunch would be taken out no matter what, and ordered the drivers to take the lunch. Some drivers continued to work anyway.

In my experience, the lunch issue has little to nothing to do with trying to look good on paper and everything to do with getting the hell out of dodge sooner, for any age driver.

Using super-vision as you call it would be a great tool for holding people accountable to doing the job. Except for the fact that that is not allowed in the contract. Technology cannot be used for discipline, it can only be used as a backup to direct observation. Hence the need for OAOs.

I think your time frame is off. UPS was taking lunches out, then there was a lawsuit and then UPS demanded that we take our full lunches or reap the discipline. I take my full hour as though it were a religion, daily, at almost the exact time. I will not be bullied into not taking my full lunch, nor will my hurrying to get somewhere deter me from taking a full lunch. There's another thread about this issue where it is discussed to death.

As for "Super-Vision"? The way I see it is like this. Why does everything have to end in discipline? Why can't the person monitoring the screen simply inform the subject of how they were errant in their behavior so's the subject can have a clue as to what is not desired and what was observed? I'm usually more apt to listen to someone that's trying to give me wisdom as opposed to someone pointing a cannon at me.

 

[Jones]

They were taking lunch out of our paid time long before the lawsuit. The lawsuit was a result of that practice, not the other way around.

 

[pretzel_man]

They were taking lunch out of our paid time long before the lawsuit. The lawsuit was a result of that practice, not the other way around.

Here is what happened....

First, UPS for many, many years turned a blind eye to drivers working through lunch. This was especially true in bonus centers. I've heard it called "buying back" an employees lunch. Many bonus drivers liked that practice.

Then, unrelated to the UPS practice comes California ruliings that employers have to give employees an "uninterrupted" meal and rest period. This had nothing to do with UPS, but lawyers solicited employees from everyplace to file.

Early on, some awards were given, stating that not only did employers have to provide a meal and break, they had to monitor and enforce that it was taken. They put the entire burden on the employer at the beginning.

UPS then started monitoring meals and breaks, especially in California. Contrary to what has been posted here, management people were fired if employees didn't get their lunch and breaks.

The legislation has started spreading. UPS has configurations for appropriate DIAD's where the DIAD will not let them work during the meal period.

Its interesting that many employees don't like that.

P-Man

 

[stevetheupsguy]

Here is what happened....

First, UPS for many, many years turned a blind eye to drivers working through lunch. This was especially true in bonus centers. I've heard it called "buying back" an employees lunch. Many bonus drivers liked that practice.

Then, unrelated to the UPS practice comes California ruliings that employers have to give employees an "uninterrupted" meal and rest period. This had nothing to do with UPS, but lawyers solicited employees from everyplace to file.

Early on, some awards were given, stating that not only did employers have to provide a meal and break, they had to monitor and enforce that it was taken. They put the entire burden on the employer at the beginning.

UPS then started monitoring meals and breaks, especially in California. Contrary to what has been posted here, management people were fired if employees didn't get their lunch and breaks.

The legislation has started spreading. UPS has configurations for appropriate DIAD's where the DIAD will not let them work during the meal period.

Its interesting that many employees don't like that.

P-Man

If turning a blind eye is UPS taking an hour out of our time for lunches that we didn't take nor did we document in our DIAD's, then you are correct, because that is what was happening.

 

[Jones]

Here is what happened....

First, UPS for many, many years turned a blind eye to drivers working through lunch. This was especially true in bonus centers. I've heard it called "buying back" an employees lunch. Many bonus drivers liked that practice.

Then, unrelated to the UPS practice comes California ruliings that employers have to give employees an "uninterrupted" meal and rest period. This had nothing to do with UPS, but lawyers solicited employees from everyplace to file.

Early on, some awards were given, stating that not only did employers have to provide a meal and break, they had to monitor and enforce that it was taken. They put the entire burden on the employer at the beginning.

UPS then started monitoring meals and breaks, especially in California. Contrary to what has been posted here, management people were fired if employees didn't get their lunch and breaks.

The legislation has started spreading. UPS has configurations for appropriate DIAD's where the DIAD will not let them work during the meal period.

Its interesting that many employees don't like that.

P-Man

They were turning a blind eye because they were taking that lunch out of the drivers paid day whether he/she worked through lunch or not. The lawsuit in California was a result of drivers being pressured to work through their unpaid lunch. That's just a fact.

 

[pretzel_man]

They were turning a blind eye because they were taking that lunch out of the drivers paid day whether he/she worked through lunch or not. The lawsuit in California was a result of drivers being pressured to work through their unpaid lunch. That's just a fact.

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

 

[Jones]

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

That's all very well, but the relevant ruling here was in Cornn v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
UPS was deducting meal periods from the driver's paid day and then pressuring the drivers to work through those unpaid meal periods.

 

[pretzel_man]

That's all very well, but the relevant ruling here was in Cornn v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
UPS was deducting meal periods from the driver's paid day and then pressuring the drivers to work through those unpaid meal periods.

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

 

[stevetheupsguy]

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

Talk about throwing their own kind under the bus!

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

I'm proof right here, P-Man. I was pressured to do all the work, skip lunch and that very same lunch hour was still deducted from my timecard. This went on for several years till I got wise and put my foot down. Now I take lunch regardless of whether I'm hurrying to get off of the clock or not, and a full hour at that.

 

[Bubblehead]

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

While you may not find the verbiage in any lawsuit transcripts or rulings, I have to believe the $87 million award speaks volumes as to the perceived environment that caused these employees to work through an unpaid meal period.

Come on P-Man, are you seriously trying to make the case that this was volunteer work by charitable employees.

 

[pretzel_man]

Talk about throwing their own kind under the bus!

I'm proof right here, P-Man. I was pressured to do all the work, skip lunch and that very same lunch hour was still deducted from my timecard. This went on for several years till I got wise and put my foot down. Now I take lunch regardless of whether I'm hurrying to get off of the clock or not, and a full hour at that.

Steve,

The original post said that the LAWSUIT was about UPS pressuring drivers to work off of the clock. That is what I was responding to.

I gave the history of how UPS has handled meals and breaks and how that related to lawsuits.

If you have the brief from the lawsuit, I'd be interested in reading it.

BTW, I think you also took my comment on how timecards are coded out of context. (the "under the bus" comment). There was (and still is) an implication that the systems take out an hour lunch automatically, no matter what. I was pointing out that there is a method for not deducting the hour lunch.

P-Man

 

[Bubblehead]

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

While you may not find the verbiage in any lawsuit transcripts or rulings, I have to believe the $87 million award speaks volumes as to the perceived environment that caused these employees to work through an unpaid meal period.

Come on P-Man, are you seriously trying to make the case that this was volunteer work by charitable employees.

Sorry about the double post, didn't want it to get lost on a previous page.

 

[stevetheupsguy]

Steve,

The original post said that the LAWSUIT was about UPS pressuring drivers to work off of the clock. That is what I was responding to.

I gave the history of how UPS has handled meals and breaks and how that related to lawsuits.

If you have the brief from the lawsuit, I'd be interested in reading it.

BTW, I think you also took my comment on how timecards are coded out of context. (the "under the bus" comment). There was (and still is) an implication that the systems take out an hour lunch automatically, no matter what. I was pointing out that there is a method for not deducting the hour lunch.

P-Man

It's not that way anymore, P-Man. When they started this new thing of having to put your hour of lunch in, it won't automatically do it if you don't take a lunch, put in a time or simply forget. I've gotten phone calls after getting home to ask if I took lunch and from what time, when I have forgotten. They are not allowed to enter the information on their own if you don't give it to them, thus the discipline.

 

[pretzel_man]

It's not that way anymore, P-Man. When they started this new thing of having to put your hour of lunch in, it won't automatically do it if you don't take a lunch, put in a time or simply forget. I've gotten phone calls after getting home to ask if I took lunch and from what time, when I have forgotten. They are not allowed to enter the information on their own if you don't give it to them, thus the discipline.

Steve,

In one of the posts I wrote on this, I mentioned that there are different ways to configure the DIAD. That's what you are seeing I think.

The old standard lunch configuration still exists, but I hear it will go away...

P-Man

 

[UnconTROLLed]

It's not that way anymore, P-Man. When they started this new thing of having to put your hour of lunch in, it won't automatically do it if you don't take a lunch, put in a time or simply forget. I've gotten phone calls after getting home to ask if I took lunch and from what time, when I have forgotten. They are not allowed to enter the information on their own if you don't give it to them, thus the discipline.

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

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

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

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