Total Service Disruption today?

[Maui]

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

The law does not require that.
The employer satisfies its legal obligation to provide an off duty meal period to its employees if it:

• Relieves its employees of all duty.
• Relinquishes control over their activities.
• Permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted, 30-minute break.
• Does not impede or discourage them from doing so.

No work and no control over what you do for 30 uninterrupted minutes meets the legal obligation.

 

[DeliveryException]

I'm so glad I'm on vacation this week. I haven't heard how good or bad it is at my station... Now where did I put my beer?

 

[Star B]

The law does not require that.
The employer satisfies its legal obligation to provide an off duty meal period to its employees if it:

• Relieves its employees of all duty.
• Relinquishes control over their activities.
• Permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted, 30-minute break.
• Does not impede or discourage them from doing so.

No work and no control over what you do for 30 uninterrupted minutes meets the legal obligation.

I would argue that when you showed up first thing in the morning isn't a "break", nor is a "break" when you are working 8-9 hours and you take your "break" in an hour and a min after u clock in. Your states labor board would side with you in that case. Working for 4 hours, yeah, a break at the 1.5 hour mark may make sense, but not in an 8 hour day.

 

[Oldfart]

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.

You want to leave the station while on break and drive a your work van to get lunch? WOW!!

So do DOT handlers and any CSA that is certified to drive a FDX van afforded that same privilege?

 

[Maui]

CA has explicit instruction - not in the first or last hour and must occur by the 5th hour.
By law 1 hour and 1 minute meets the standard.

 

[MAKAVELI]

The law does not require that.
The employer satisfies its legal obligation to provide an off duty meal period to its employees if it:

• Permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted, 30-minute break.

 

[Fred's Myth]

CA has explicit instruction - not in the first or last hour and must occur by the 5th hour.
By law 1 hour and 1 minute meets the standard.

Is that a fundamental part of P-S-P employee relations that FedEx brags about?

 

[Star B]

CA has explicit instruction - not in the first or last hour and must occur by the 5th hour.
By law 1 hour and 1 minute meets the standard.

Yes, the rule of the law states that but in reality where I live, that wouldn't fly. The reason why they don't mandate "in the middle" is because some employers go 15, 30, 15 breaks during the workday.. how do you mandate that? You can't.... so they mandate "after one hour and before one hour".

Look, if you want to argue semantics, that's fine, you're going to waste your breath and be thought of more as a troll. What I can tell you is that an employer with ONE break of 30 minutes to 1 hour when you have a workday of greater than 6 hours will not get the support of ANY state labor board when you complain that they are mando'ing you at 1:01 to take a break due to employers lack of work. Sorry, anyone that loses that case probably spelt like diz, yo, man, i gots my brek n they f0rc3d me 2 tak it one hor n 1 minnit in mah shift.

 

[Maui]

Is that a fundamental part of P-S-P employee relations that FedEx brags about?

Small correction: I left CA prior to final adjudication of Brinker. The CA Supreme Court ruled Labor Code Section 512 only requires the break occur by the 5th hour. It may actually be taken at the start of the shift. FedEx policy shows that as a break violation though.

 

[Maui]

Yes, the rule of the law states that but in reality where I live, that wouldn't fly. The reason why they don't mandate "in the middle" is because some employers go 15, 30, 15 breaks during the workday.. how do you mandate that? You can't.... so they mandate "after one hour and before one hour".

Look, if you want to argue semantics, that's fine, you're going to waste your breath and be thought of more as a troll. What I can tell you is that an employer with ONE break of 30 minutes to 1 hour when you have a workday of greater than 6 hours will not get the support of ANY state labor board when you complain that they are mando'ing you at 1:01 to take a break due to employers lack of work. Sorry, anyone that loses that case probably spelt like diz, yo, man, i gots my brek n they f0rc3d me 2 tak it one hor n 1 minnit in mah shift.

See previous post. CA Supreme Court holds it doesn't even have to be one hour.

I've studied employment law. It is amazing what rights people think they have. There are very few protections for workers. Some states like CA have granted far more rights to workers than federal law requires. Then some states like TN afford next to nothing. I was surprised to learn how much common wisdom about what employers can or can not do is completely wrong.

For the record I would like more protections. I'm just letting you all know.

 

[MAKAVELI]

You want to leave the station while on break and drive a your work van to get lunch? WOW!!

So do DOT handlers and any CSA that is certified to drive a FDX van afforded that same privilege?

What do you do on road for your break? Lock the truck up and walk 5 miles to Subway?

 

[Maui]

Argument rests on reasonableness of the opportunity to take a 30 minute uninterrupted break. I guess you could make the claim that more time is required because of not bringing food due to not initially being scheduled and therefore unreasonable to assume one would be able to have a meal due to time constraints and distance. Kind of depends where you are.

 

[MAKAVELI]

Argument rests on reasonableness of the opportunity to take a 30 minute uninterrupted break. I guess you could make the claim that more time is required because of not bringing food due to not initially being scheduled and therefore unreasonable to assume one would be able to have a meal due to time constraints and distance. Kind of depends where you are.

No it really doesn't depend on where you are everyone is afforded the same rights( CA ). Now if every station had a cafeteria where one could secure a hot meal without leaving the premises you can make a case forcing an unpaid break. Simple fact is most of my coworkers and I would guess a majority of drivers plan on taking their breaks during the middle of the day where they can go get some food or go home for lunch. The whole point of a meal break is for rest and food not to cut hours in an operation plain and simple.

 

[Maui]

No it really doesn't depend on where you are everyone is afforded the same rights( CA ). Now if every station had a cafeteria where one could secure a hot meal without leaving the premises you can make a case forcing an unpaid break. Simple fact is most of my coworkers and I would guess a majority of drivers plan on taking their breaks during the middle of the day where they can go get some food or go home for lunch. The whole point of a meal break is for rest and food not to cut hours in an operation plain and simple.

Where in the law is a hot meal required? Or going home? Or a cafeteria? A space is required for on-duty meal breaks, which are paid anyway.

When I was in CA most drivers took break between the 4th or 5th hour typically. We had extended routes and the drivers just parked in a safe space off the road and took a break. There was no where to go except the truck or just outside of it. Most people would have preferred to take a break later, but CA law would not allow them to wait until reaching a better location.

I'm not convinced that Brinker would disallow the break based on the ruling. It clearly meets 3 of the 4 points required and the only debate would be reasonableness when it was initially unplanned and even that is weak as nowhere in the law does it state that employers are required to provide food for off-duty meal breaks. Your argument rests on that food availability. Clearly, there is no interruption of the 30 minutes. The claim rests on whether it can be a meal break if you have difficulty obtaining food. I'm not sure of the employers obligation there.

 

[MAKAVELI]

Where in the law is a hot meal required? Or going home? Or a cafeteria? A space is required for on-duty meal breaks, which are paid anyway.

When I was in CA most drivers took break between the 4th or 5th hour typically. We had extended routes and the drivers just parked in a safe space off the road and took a break. There was no where to go except the truck or just outside of it. Most people would have preferred to take a break later, but CA law would not allow them to wait until reaching a better location.

I'm not convinced that Brinker would disallow the break based on the ruling. It clearly meets 3 of the 4 points required and the only debate would be reasonableness when it was initially unplanned and even that is weak as nowhere in the law does it state that employers are required to provide food for off-duty meal breaks. Your argument rests on that food availability. Clearly, there is no interruption of the 30 minutes. The claim rests on whether it can be a meal break if you have difficulty obtaining food. I'm not sure of the employers obligation there.

If one has to leave the premises to obtain a meal that is interrupted. Like I said before it's objective and a CA judge would most likely side with the employee in this instance.

 

[Oldfart]

What do you do on road for your break? Lock the truck up and walk 5 miles to Subway?

While on road is 1 thing. Leaving the station and going on break while driving a company van is another.

Noticed you didn't address my other question. Do you believe DOT certified CSA and DOT handlers or anyone that has gone thru defensive driving class should get to drive a company van from the station everyday when they go to lunch?

5 miles or 5 minutes? Do people still adhere to that rule? That rule was out of date in 98. As long as we are back in our area within the hour, we go where we want.

 

[Maui]

If one has to leave the premises to obtain a meal that is interrupted. Like I said before it's objective and a CA judge would most likely side with the employee in this instance.

According to whom? Leaving is 100% voluntary. This contradicts the law, which says employers MUST allow employees to leave. It is objective and your argument is that an employee’s choice would burden the employer. Can you cite case law supporting this claim? Brinker allows “early breaking” in CA

 

[Star B]

If one has to leave the premises to obtain a meal that is interrupted. Like I said before it's objective and a CA judge would most likely side with the employee in this instance.

You just have to be 100% relieved of duty. Whether you are sitting in the cafeteria or at Subway, that's your break. You knew it took 10 minutes to drive to subway, 10 minutes back, so you only have 10 minutes to eat. You could have made the choice to brown bag it.

 

[MAKAVELI]

According to whom? Leaving is 100% voluntary. This contradicts the law, which says employers MUST allow employees to leave. It is objective and your argument is that an employee’s choice would burden the employer. Can you cite case law supporting this claim? Brinker allows “early breaking” in CA

Brinker is a case that involves a restaurant. Totally different industry and meal break issues.

 

[MAKAVELI]

You just have to be 100% relieved of duty. Whether you are sitting in the cafeteria or at Subway, that's your break. You knew it took 10 minutes to drive to subway, 10 minutes back, so you only have 10 minutes to eat. You could have made the choice to brown bag it.

Not when the break is unscheduled. Like I said I know of no one reprimanded for not going on break while waiting for freight.