Total Service Disruption today?

[MAKAVELI]

You said leave the station. If management says we're Starting the belt and have 75 minutes of work. We expect a 45 minute delay until the remainder of the freight arrives. We will stop the belt and everyone will take a 30 minute break.

At that point you are relieved from duty and on break. You may not perform work, which would include using a company vehicle. If you choose to leave you have to get your own transport. Using a company vehicle would not be an option.

A meal break is exactly that a meal break. You cannot force somebody to take an unscheduled meal break and then expect them to use all of their time going to get a meal that is the definition of control thus making that break in on duty break and should be paid. This is one of the reasons why we have the 5 minute 5 Mile rule while on Road. We certainly can use a company vehicle then to go get food.

 

[Maui]

You CAN. That doesn’t mean you should.

 

[MAKAVELI]

You CAN. That doesn’t mean you should.

That is not uninterrupted.

 

[Maui]

Yes it is. No one would force you to leave. Only to take the break and relieve you from your duty.

There is bad info in this thread. I’m just giving the correct info. Some, maybe even most seniors will stay in delay. Some will require breaks. This can be enforced and is consistent with policy and the law.

Think about this. If the senior requires a break and 98 of 100 comply, what should be the consequence for the other 2? Not all of the other 98 wanted a break. I contend it is insubordination and failure to follow directive. Completely unfair to the others.

 

[Operational needs]

Yes it is. No one would force you to leave. Only to take the break and relieve you from your duty.

There is bad info in this thread. I’m just giving the correct info. Some, maybe even most seniors will stay in delay. Some will require breaks. This can be enforced and is consistent with policy and the law.

Think about this. If the senior requires a break and 98 of 100 comply, what should be the consequence for the other 2? Not all of the other 98 wanted a break. I contend it is insubordination and failure to follow directive. Completely unfair to the others.

And yet in all my 25 plus years at FedEx, I have NEVER heard of anyone being disciplined for not taking a break while waiting for freight. Managers at my station would be ecstatic if they could get 98% of couriers to take that break.

 

[59 Dano]

There is guidance from Corporate HR that this is correct. It is 100% correct and a GFT would stand on current policy. Could it get overturned on Step 3? Possibly, but that would also mean a rewrite of corporate communication and policy.

I had direct knowledge and/or involvement with 10 to 12 GFT claims filed on this type of break issue. All were overturned, and I think all were overturned by step 2. May have been one or two that weren't overturned until the final step.

The only way this carries any weight is with your semantic argument of "they can mandate you take a MEAL BREAK due to a lack of work but they can't make you take a NON-MEAL BREAK due to a lack of work." If it requires invoking a nuanced semantic argument to justify violating the point of a meal break because it's an expeditious way for a manager to deal with an issue of labor hours -- it's a bad way to conduct business.

There's a reason why this crap doesn't survive GFT.

 

[MAKAVELI]

Yes it is. No one would force you to leave. Only to take the break and relieve you from your duty.

There is bad info in this thread. I’m just giving the correct info. Some, maybe even most seniors will stay in delay. Some will require breaks. This can be enforced and is consistent with policy and the law.

Think about this. If the senior requires a break and 98 of 100 comply, what should be the consequence for the other 2? Not all of the other 98 wanted a break. I contend it is insubordination and failure to follow directive. Completely unfair to the others.

What constitutes an on duty or off duty break is an objective one. I'm pretty sure of Court would side with the employee in this instance.

 

[Maui]

Where in the west, Rocky Mountains? What time was a normal pull?

As early as 1655 as late as 1824. Multiple locations.

 

[59 Dano]

And those schedules change everywhere due to sick calls and other operational challenges. Management can and does still require breaks and mandates when they will be taken.

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. Making someone take a break during a delay doesn't get the freight there any sooner.

 

[59 Dano]

I agree with this. However, it does not prevent management from requiring breaks at a given time.

It does not allow management to demand breaks on a whim, either.

 

[outtatime]

As early as 1655 as late as 1824. Multiple locations.

Last shuttle leaves for the ramp at 2145 around here. East coast.

 

[Maui]

I had direct knowledge and/or involvement with 10 to 12 GFT claims filed on this type of break issue. All were overturned, and I think all were overturned by step 2. May have been one or two that weren't overturned until the final step.

The only way this carries any weight is with your semantic argument of "they can mandate you take a MEAL BREAK due to a lack of work but they can't make you take a NON-MEAL BREAK due to a lack of work." If it requires invoking a nuanced semantic argument to justify violating the point of a meal break because it's an expeditious way for a manager to deal with an issue of labor hours -- it's a bad way to conduct business.

There's a reason why this crap doesn't survive GFT.

I think it’s best to stay in a 43. If I had the documents I’d share them as to what is allowed per HR. There are plenty of seniors that enforce it.

 

[59 Dano]

Think about this. If the senior requires a break and 98 of 100 comply, what should be the consequence for the other 2? Not all of the other 98 wanted a break. I contend it is insubordination and failure to follow directive. Completely unfair to the others.

I contend that something that's wrong doesn't become right simply because you get a compliance rate of 98%.

 

[Maui]

What constitutes an on duty or off duty break is an objective one. I'm pretty sure of Court would side with the employee in this instance.

What would be on duty?

And yet in all my 25 plus years at FedEx, I have NEVER heard of anyone being disciplined for not taking a break while waiting for freight. Managers at my station would be ecstatic if they could get 98% of couriers to take that break.

At a station with far more employees than that I'd say that percentage held.

 

[59 Dano]

I think it’s best to stay in a 43. If I had the documents I’d share them as to what is allowed per HR. There are plenty of seniors that enforce it.

Let me guess: HR says they can demand a meal break, but not any other kind of break. Which means the manager goes to Joe at 0845 and tell him to take his meal break, and he replies that he ate breakfast at 0730 and isn't hungry, and the manager tells him to take a meal break anyway. Stupid, and if that's an example of the "guidance" that corporate HR is giving out on this issue, unsurprising.

 

[Maui]

I contend that something that's wrong doesn't become right simply because you get a compliance rate of 98%.

I agree it doesn't follow the spirit of meal breaks. It is unhelpful to take a break after only 1-2 hours and then work for 8 or more consecutive hours. It is spelled out that management CAN do just that. If GFTs overturn it, then it should be amended.

 

[59 Dano]

I agree it doesn't follow the spirit of meal breaks. It is unhelpful to take a break after only 1-2 hours and then work for 8 or more consecutive hours. It is spelled out that management CAN do just that.

Not as a matter of policy as published and provided to the people to whom this applies. And to repeat, it is expressly stated that breaks are not to be demanded simply because the work isn't there.

There's a reason why it doesn't survive GFT.

 

[Operational needs]

What would be on duty?


At a station with far more employees than that I'd say that percentage held.

I’m at one of the largest stations in the country. They’d never get 98% as long as the present crew is there. The more dumb young ones and foreign born people they hire, their chances improve.

 

[MAKAVELI]

What would be on duty?


At a station with far more employees than that I'd say that percentage held.

An unscheduled break where the employee does not have time to go off premises to get a meal.

 

[Star B]

The great meltdown continues. Again no plane..... everyone is now mandated to show up all week, they pulled out the "Operational Distress/Emergency" card this AM.

Which sucks because I lose my day off this week being a wheel swing.