class action lawsuit against UPS

[Iconoclast]

Tieguy - What I have been commenting on is the California class action process where our drivers are joined into this lawsuit whether they wanted to be or not. Joined in even if they were not affected by this issue. There should be a process as there is outside of California where possible litigants are informed and have to physically do something to join the lawsuit.

"Has anyone else gotten the letter from a lawyer developing a class action lawsuit against UPS for preventing drivers from taking breaks and lunches? It was conveniently filed in the liberal court system of California. You will be automatically a member of the suit unless you opt out by letter" -sendagain

Iconoclast - It does appear that people did have a choice in this matter and had the opportunity to opt out.

Tieguy - My second point has been that there is a contractually supported grievance process in place that very few if any California drivers ever took advantage of.

Iconoclast - How on earth do you know that? How could you possibly speak to the number of grievances filed specific to this issue in the state of California? You have absolutely no way to quantify or validate this statement, it is a sweeping generalization on your part and pure conjecture.

Tieguy - The contract should have dictated that this case be heard through the grievance process first. If the litigants exhausted the grievance process and then pursued the case then the teamsters should have been co-defendant in the case.

Iconoclast - Tie, we all know how the rules work. You can cite chapter and verse to try and hinge on a point and potentially sway an argument. But the practical application of some of the rules on a daily basis is folly. It's why you won't get a ticket if you go over 55 miles an hour in 55 mile an hour zone. Ever witness a management person handle a package? why not grieve every single minute of potential abuse of that bylaw, in every center and situation applicable across the country?-because you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Employees have been coerced to work through their lunch, everywhere, every day, most deal with it, and go on with their day, but that doesn't make it right. If it were as simple as hanging this on the grievance process, UPS would not settle-it would fight!! Their attorneys have ALREADY been paid to do just that, regardless of who they have to depose, track down etc. UPS settles these (multiple) class actions for two reasons;

1 - They are in the wrong and if they were to go to trial not only it would cost more - but UPS may then be forced to rely on the grievance process to handle these issues. Sound strange?

2 - UPS knows that this lunch issue is so endemic and so widespread, that if they were to win a case and force individuals to leave this up to the grievance process - it would cripple the business. Nobody would make their number. A good analogy is the millions UPS pays in illegal parking fines every year in large cities, it's against the rules to illegally park your vehicle but it's cheaper than losing customers because you can't serve.

Tieguy -However the super liberal California court system allows a hand full of litigants the opportunity to circumvent the grievance process and enjoin thousands of upsers who do not have to do anything to join the case all into one big fishing expedition.

Iconoclast -Hopefully you have gained some valuable insight as to why UPS allows this to happen. Again, you don't have a lot of confidence in UPS ability to defend itself, they simply do not allow people to use the court system to take money from them and set precedence for further action, regardless of what state that action is filed in.

Tieguy -The process stinks and highlights why there are so many of these BS cases in California. There is not and never will be much sympathy for a UPS in this case but somewhere down the road Californians will have to pay for these lawsuits. Large companies will try to avoid building in that state. In fact many do now.


"Drivers in the state of Washington have won 2 lawsuits in the past 10 years over the lunch issue" - mallrat

"Lawsuits were filed here in Chicagoland about 8 yrs or so ago. Members of the class action got around 2k, the filers of the suit got more" - cachsux

Iconoclast - Obviously legal issues happen all over the country. The fact that there has been more than one incident involving the lunch issue goes a long way to support a couple of key issues here -

This is a widespread problem that many deal with in their daily routine, and you better believe that UPS management is set in their ways on this lunch issue.

Legal precedence has been set on this issue, making class action specific to this issue more prevalent and much more costly for UPS. Which brings us around to my original question Tie, Why did UPS settle these suits?

Tieguy - Points irrelevant here. That has never been my argument.

It should be your argument. If you are stuck on the fact that some received generous settlements as a result of this action, then you are missing the forest for the trees.

DS summed it up best early in the thread -

"Tie you are missing the point. years and years of not taking lunch were taken off the checks of millions of upsers that didn’t have time to take lunch " - ds

What do you say about that Tie? Do you deny that it has happened? You seem want to blame the individual here for these transgressions and say that if you don't take your lunch it is your own fault, but that is only looking at one side of the issue. There is cause and effect here.

What about the intimidation from management for "not playing the game" what about the time and energy to go thriough the grievance process every time there is an lunch time incident, what about the divisive politics that occur when you make waves at UPS - all of these are significant factors as to why this ends up as a class action lawsuit, and believe you me they all end up as potential arguments for the attorneys. If nobody in management tampered with anybodys meal break, would you need to file a suit?

 

[tieguy]

Tieguy - What I have been commenting on is the California class action process where our drivers are joined into this lawsuit whether they wanted to be or not. Joined in even if they were not affected by this issue. There should be a process as there is outside of California where possible litigants are informed and have to physically do something to join the lawsuit.

"Has anyone else gotten the letter from a lawyer developing a class action lawsuit against UPS for preventing drivers from taking breaks and lunches? It was conveniently filed in the liberal court system of California. You will be automatically a member of the suit unless you opt out by letter" -sendagain

Iconoclast - It does appear that people did have a choice in this matter and had the opportunity to opt out.

Whats the matter sparky looking to start a fight? I already made the point above that teamsters were automatically enrolled and had to opt out.

Tieguy - My second point has been that there is a contractually supported grievance process in place that very few if any California drivers ever took advantage of.

Iconoclast - How on earth do you know that? How could you possibly speak to the number of grievances filed specific to this issue in the state of California? You have absolutely no way to quantify or validate this statement, it is a sweeping generalization on your part and pure conjecture.

Ok perhaps you are right. Prove it.

Tieguy - The contract should have dictated that this case be heard through the grievance process first. If the litigants exhausted the grievance process and then pursued the case then the teamsters should have been co-defendant in the case.

Iconoclast - Tie, we all know how the rules work. You can cite chapter and verse to try and hinge on a point and potentially sway an argument. But the practical application of some of the rules on a daily basis is folly. It's why you won't get a ticket if you go over 55 miles an hour in 55 mile an hour zone. Ever witness a management person handle a package? why not grieve every single minute of potential abuse of that bylaw, in every center and situation applicable across the country?-because you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Your argument that employees were afraid to file a grievance but somehow found the courage to file a multi-million dollar lawsuit is a litte far fetched, don't you think. In either case my point has been that we have a contract and they should be forced to abide by it not do so when convient for them.

Employees have been coerced to work through their lunch, everywhere, every day, most deal with it, and go on with their day, but that doesn't make it right. If it were as simple as hanging this on the grievance process, UPS would not settle-it would fight!! Their attorneys have ALREADY been paid to do just that, regardless of who they have to depose, track down etc. UPS settles these (multiple) class actions for two reasons;

Interesting point from someone who has never managed or worked in an operation. The lunch rules have also been coerced by our drivers many of which would like to skip lunch and get home sooner. A real management person working this issue would know that you can find five drivers each day who would love to skip lunch for every one who complains about not having the time. You really need to do your homework before making this argument.

The rest of your post is being argumentative simply for the purpose of being argumentative and requires no response.

 

[DS]

The lunch rules have also been coerced by our drivers many of which would like to skip lunch and get home sooner. A real management person working this issue would know that you can find five drivers each day who would love to skip lunch for every one who complains about not having the time. You really need to do your homework before making this argument. [/COLOR]

Tie if every driver was paid for that hour with a code 05,
there would be no lawsuit.

 

[Iconoclast]

Whats the matter sparky looking to start a fight? I already made the point above that teamsters were automatically enrolled and had to opt out.

I didn't appear to me that you made that point. You stated that "There should be a process as there is outside of California where possible litigants are informed and have to physically do something to join the lawsuit." That can be a misleading statement - and you make it sound like people were not informed of their options.

Why do you take that personally? If you post something on a message board, expect that people will comment, discuss, argue, tear apart, what you write. Again, they are not attacking you personally, only the issues you post and the manner in which you post them.

Iconoclast - How on earth do you know that? How could you possibly speak to the number of grievances filed specific to this issue in the state of California? You have absolutely no way to quantify or validate this statement, it is a sweeping generalization on your part and pure conjecture.

Ok perhaps you are right. Prove it.

I can't prove it, that was my point - neither can you. We don't know what was done as far as the grievance process went. Again, that is why I took issue with what you posted. I can only surmise that there were grievances filed on this issue, it is just too widespread not to have been addressed in that system at some point or another. Perhaps someone from California can enlighten us on this fact, but I certainly can't speak to those specifics, but... neither can you.

Your argument that employees were afraid to file a grievance but somehow found the courage to file a multi-million dollar lawsuit is a litte far fetched, don't you think. In either case my point has been that we have a contract and they should be forced to abide by it not do so when convient for them.

The entire impetus for a letter going out to inform employees of a suit is because that most employees who were affected by class action have no idea it is being filed. Class action is generally filed on all encompassing issues where the court would be loathe to hear cases individually of people whose rights have been violated on the same issue.

Most of these people don't have a clue that the action has been taken until after they receive notice of such. Most people deal with this lunch issue the best way they can every day, many of them bring a small plastic igloo cooler and eat a few sandwiches randomly between stops. Still, they shouldn't have their time adjusted illegally.

It also doesn't mean that the people who collaborated with the attorneys and started this process didn't go through the grievance process first and received absolutely no resolution. You and I have no proof of that whatsoever.

Again, if the illegal pratice didn't go on, and UPS isn't culpable for its actions, they would not have settled, period. However, This is not a black and white issue, there is a lot of grey.

Interesting point from someone who has never managed or worked in an operation. The lunch rules have also been coerced by our drivers many of which would like to skip lunch and get home sooner. A real management person working this issue would know that you can find five drivers each day who would love to skip lunch for every one who complains about not having the time. You really need to do your homework before making this argument.


Some history on this -A few years ago, Tie and I were in a discussion on this board about the ERI. At the time I was working in virtual office, taveling 90% of the time. I participated in the ERI with other members of my group who were also working virtually on the same initiative/special assignment, but I didn't receive direct feedback because I had nobody reporting to me, (unless you count customers of course) and TIE ran with the fact that UPS didn't trust me to lead people, and he has made assumptions on that very point whenever that scenario fits his argument, like right here.

UPS is not going to put me in the operation for the same reason they probably won't put you in Business development-it is way outside of each of our core competencies. You have no idea who I have reporting to me and what my responsibilities are, and I have no idea about yours, which is why I don't make sweeping generalizations about what you do every day.

That doesn't mean that we are not both informed about the way the company works and each of us has equal right to comment on the issues-

Why is everything a personal affront to you TIEGUY???

The rest of your post is being argumentative simply for the purpose of being argumentative and requires no response.

Then why did you respond to it in the first place. Of course it can be construed as argumentative-I disagree with your point of view, the way you present your discussion and the arguments you have developed to support your points, but I am not calling you names, or attacking you personally, only the issues at hand.

 

[Iconoclast]

Good point DS - You have a great way of getting to the core of the issue!!!

 

[tieguy]

Tie if every driver was paid for that hour with a code 05,
there would be no lawsuit.

DS if every driver who was shorted an hour filed a grievance as they are supposed to then there would be no lawsuit.

In this case a handfull of drivers intitated a class action and drew everyone else in the state of california into the case. The very least that should be required of those drivers who were dragged into the case should have been them physically enrolling in the class action and their physically listing the number of lunchs if any they were shorted.

Again I'm not arguing the results of the lawsuit I am arguing the process.

 

[tieguy]

Whats the matter sparky looking to start a fight? I already made the point above that teamsters were automatically enrolled and had to opt out.

I didn't appear to me that you made that point. You stated that "There should be a process as there is outside of California where possible litigants are informed and have to physically do something to join the lawsuit." That can be a misleading statement - and you make it sound like people were not informed of their options.

Why do you take that personally? If you post something on a message board, expect that people will comment, discuss, argue, tear apart, what you write. Again, they are not attacking you personally, only the issues you post and the manner in which you post them.

Iconoclast - How on earth do you know that? How could you possibly speak to the number of grievances filed specific to this issue in the state of California? You have absolutely no way to quantify or validate this statement, it is a sweeping generalization on your part and pure conjecture.

Ok perhaps you are right. Prove it.

I can't prove it, that was my point - neither can you. We don't know what was done as far as the grievance process went. Again, that is why I took issue with what you posted. I can only surmise that there were grievances filed on this issue, it is just too widespread not to have been addressed in that system at some point or another. Perhaps someone from California can enlighten us on this fact, but I certainly can't speak to those specifics, but... neither can you.

Your argument that employees were afraid to file a grievance but somehow found the courage to file a multi-million dollar lawsuit is a litte far fetched, don't you think. In either case my point has been that we have a contract and they should be forced to abide by it not do so when convient for them.

The entire impetus for a letter going out to inform employees of a suit is because that most employees who were affected by class action have no idea it is being filed. Class action is generally filed on all encompassing issues where the court would be loathe to hear cases individually of people whose rights have been violated on the same issue.

Most of these people don't have a clue that the action has been taken until after they receive notice of such. Most people deal with this lunch issue the best way they can every day, many of them bring a small plastic igloo cooler and eat a few sandwiches randomly between stops. Still, they shouldn't have their time adjusted illegally.

It also doesn't mean that the people who collaborated with the attorneys and started this process didn't go through the grievance process first and received absolutely no resolution. You and I have no proof of that whatsoever.

Again, if the illegal pratice didn't go on, and UPS isn't culpable for its actions, they would not have settled, period. However, This is not a black and white issue, there is a lot of grey.

Interesting point from someone who has never managed or worked in an operation. The lunch rules have also been coerced by our drivers many of which would like to skip lunch and get home sooner. A real management person working this issue would know that you can find five drivers each day who would love to skip lunch for every one who complains about not having the time. You really need to do your homework before making this argument.


Some history on this -A few years ago, Tie and I were in a discussion on this board about the ERI. At the time I was working in virtual office, taveling 90% of the time. I participated in the ERI with other members of my group who were also working virtually on the same initiative/special assignment, but I didn't receive direct feedback because I had nobody reporting to me, (unless you count customers of course) and TIE ran with the fact that UPS didn't trust me to lead people, and he has made assumptions on that very point whenever that scenario fits his argument, like right here.

UPS is not going to put me in the operation for the same reason they probably won't put you in Business development-it is way outside of each of our core competencies. You have no idea who I have reporting to me and what my responsibilities are, and I have no idea about yours, which is why I don't make sweeping generalizations about what you do every day.

That doesn't mean that we are not both informed about the way the company works and each of us has equal right to comment on the issues-

Why is everything a personal affront to you TIEGUY???

The rest of your post is being argumentative simply for the purpose of being argumentative and requires no response.

Then why did you respond to it in the first place. Of course it can be construed as argumentative-I disagree with your point of view, the way you present your discussion and the arguments you have developed to support your points, but I am not calling you names, or attacking you personally, only the issues at hand.

Again this case has been discussed and debated ad nauseam. I don't know how I could possibly add any more to this discussion or rephrase my points any better.

 

[Iconoclast]

DS if every driver who was shorted an hour filed a grievance as they are supposed to then there would be no lawsuit.

Again- How do you know what was filed and what wasn't. Do you believe that people are coerced not to file? Do you think that the coercion was a key point in this case?

The chicken comes before the egg here Tie-the grievance process is set up to help in cases where rules are being broken. You seem to blatantly disregard the fact that UPS management broke the rules FIRST and you hinge your argument on blaming someone for not grieving something AFTER -AGAIN, AFTER, they have been wronged - Do you see the duplicity in that TIE????


In this case a handfull of drivers intitated a class action and drew everyone else in the state of california into the case. The very least that should be required of those drivers who were dragged into the case should have been them physically enrolling in the class action and their physically listing the number of lunchs if any they were shorted.


That is not how the legal system works. The legal system allows for class actions because it groups people into a segment whose rights have been violated, THAT IS THE COMMON THREAD HERE, WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, not because you live in a specific state.

Why do the courts do this?

Beause the law does not want you to file for every lunch that you were violated on, that is exactly why they have class action-so individuals will not file lawsuits for every single incident regarding - misaligned cell phone bills, lunch break violations, consumer product failures, etc etc etc.

The attorneys look at the issue, make reasonable assumptions about its breadth and scope, measure their opposition and their legal viewpoint and file their cases according to the parameters of class action. Recepients of class action awards are governed by similar large sweeping parameters, not whether or not someone deserves to be paid for 2500 missed lunches.

Again I'm not arguing the results of the lawsuit I am arguing the process.

You did argue the results of the lawsuit, while you take some umbrage with the state of California, and how unfair it is that so many benefit from this, most of your contributions to this thread are very judgmental with respect to the results of the lawsuit and the people favored by those results.

Tieguy resonse to daddaj -my , my such a harsh response from someone who joined a "i'm too stupid to take my lunch" lawsuit and got rewarded with money he did not earn or deserve in any way. The next thing you and the other california thieves will tell me is that you have integrity. ROFLMAO -

you reference the fact that he joined the lawsuit above, but you have nothing to say about the process of joining - You do however, have a problem with the result of the lawsuit, telling daddaj that he "didn't deserve the money or earn it in any way"

You had similar comments for Helen and others, all the while, seemingly OK with the process of how they were selected to benefit from the largess of the suit. If it was actually the legal process that defines class action that you have a problem with -why call people thieves and question their integrity??

 

[tieguy]

DS if every driver who was shorted an hour filed a grievance as they are supposed to then there would be no lawsuit.

Again- How do you know what was filed and what wasn't. Do you believe that people are coerced not to file? Do you think that the coercion was a key point in this case?

Like I said I'm comfortable with my point on this subject. Prove me wrong if you can. Again for about the 100th time anyone being represented in a class action lawsuit should be required to physically join the lawsuit and should be required to present evidence attesting to how they were harmed personally. Its a simple point that you seem to be struggling with. The validation of the grievance process would then be certified as part of the process. I really have no interest in expanding this discussion outside of those parameters.

 

[dave_socal]

Like I said I'm comfortable with my point on this subject. Prove me wrong if you can. Again for about the 100th time anyone being represented in a class action lawsuit should be required to physically join the lawsuit and should be required to present evidence attesting to how they were harmed personally. Its a simple point that you seem to be struggling with. The validation of the grievance process would then be certified as part of the process. I really have no interest in expanding this discussion outside of those parameters.

You know what Tieguy I'm going to cash that freaking check when it gets here in June and as I posted before and so would anyone offered a piece of this pie including YOU! Then after cashing that check I'm going to buy you a super expensive designer tie and it's going to be a color to match your envy, that way maybe you might give us all a rest from your dogmatic rabidity over this topic. Look in the mirror and here is what I think you might see http://www.shinyfire.com/feats/fantastical/ugly-tie-shinyfire.jpg now go push some pencils around you crazy office blogger

 

[tieguy]

You know what Tieguy I'm going to cash that freaking check when it gets here in June and as I posted before and so would anyone offered a piece of this pie including YOU! Then after cashing that check I'm going to buy you a super expensive designer tie and it's going to be a color to match your envy, that way maybe you might give us all a rest from your dogmatic rabidity over this topic. Look in the mirror and here is what I think you might see http://www.shinyfire.com/feats/fantastical/ugly-tie-shinyfire.jpg now go push some pencils around you crazy office blogger

Dave ,

I honestly don't care what you do with the check and I certainly don't want any ties. This is a message board where we are allowed to discuss and debate topics. I have been debating a class action process where people are enjoined without having to prove they were harmed. If you honestly feel the company denied you some lunchs in feeders then feel free to spend your lunch money on whatever you like.

 

[Iconoclast]

Like I said I'm comfortable with my point on this subject. Prove me wrong if you can. Again for about the 100th time anyone being represented in a class action lawsuit should be required to physically join the lawsuit and should be required to present evidence attesting to how they were harmed personally. Its a simple point that you seem to be struggling with. The validation of the grievance process would then be certified as part of the process. I really have no interest in expanding this discussion outside of those parameters.

A quick question within the parameters of what you are willing to discuss. If the process for participation in a class action lawsuit is a question of legal procedure-not a UPS issue, labor issue or contract issue, but a legal issue-why hold people responsible for that process?

If the law requires, as it currently does, that you are not required to present evidence attesting to how you were harmed, why begrudge those who benefit from the law.

If you get a traffic ticket and the day you go to court you find that the cop was on the take, and they are going to throw out all the tickets he wrote in the period that they can prove the cop was dirty- are you going to take it upon yourself to make sure that you are prosecuted for your infraction? -No, you are going to walk.

Again for about the 100th time anyone being represented in a class action lawsuit should be required to physically join the lawsuit and should be required to present evidence attesting to how they were harmed personally. Its a simple point that you seem to be struggling with.

I am not struggling with it - It is not the law, it is actually one chapter of this morass that appears to be black and white - you may not like it, but you can't be angry at people who benefit from something that they had no control over, and you certainly shouldn't personally attack them for it.

 

[tieguy]

A quick question within the parameters of what you are willing to discuss. If the process for participation in a class action lawsuit is a question of legal procedure-not a UPS issue, labor issue or contract issue, but a legal issue-why hold people responsible for that process?

This is where people hold theirselves responsible and where their personal integrity kicks in. If they know they did not skip any lunchs and were not therefore affected then they should opt out of the lawsuit.

If the law requires, as it currently does, that you are not required to present evidence attesting to how you were harmed, why begrudge those who benefit from the law.

The principles of personal integrity should always be a step above the law of the land.

If you get a traffic ticket and the day you go to court you find that the cop was on the take, and they are going to throw out all the tickets he wrote in the period that they can prove the cop was dirty- are you going to take it upon yourself to make sure that you are prosecuted for your infraction? -No, you are going to walk.

poor example.

black and white - you may not like it, but you can't be angry at people who benefit from something that they had no control over, and you certainly shouldn't personally attack them for it.

I'm sorry I didn't realize I was being "angry" with anyone. I thought I was commenting on a class action process that is seriously flawed.

 

[gandydancer]

DS if every driver who was shorted an hour filed a grievance as they are supposed to then there would be no lawsuit.

Any time UPS forces you to file a grievance to get what you're already owed the company is stealing your time. So if the company had any integrity it would, when you win a grievance, pay you extra for the extra time you had to spend to get what you were already owed. Right, Tieguy?

 

[brownmonster]

I have to side with Tie on this. Take your lunch at noon, call and say you can't get your business's off. Put ball in their court. Do it day after day. Or if you work too late after 3 days file. The company agreed to this stuff and you should take advantage of it if you so desire. We have plenty of squeeky wheels getting the dispatches they wan't just to keep em quiet.

 

[DS]

Any time UPS forces you to file a grievance to get what you're already owed the company is stealing your time. So if the company had any integrity it would, when you win a grievance, pay you extra for the extra time you had to spend to get what you were already owed. Right, Tieguy?

One more point about the code 05 issue.The decision to authorize you for a code 05 changes from center to center,
from manager to manager.
(since I`ve been here we`ve had everyone from hitler to ghandi)Oftimes when you call for help they
say just keep going,I`ll get back to you.
Thats when we have to do what brownmonster suggests.
Stop.Take lunch.Miss businesess,come back just under 12 hrs.
until they clue in.Every Friday I hear all the new guys that are
trying to make full time,complaining that they were shorted on
the promised code 05`s.Would it be wise for them to file grievances when they are at the mercy of the ones they are grieving against? I dont disagree with you tie about the grievance procedure,but the paperwork involved for every driver to submit specific days and times etc.would not leave much time left to deliver packages.

 

[tieguy]

Any time UPS forces you to file a grievance to get what you're already owed the company is stealing your time. So if the company had any integrity it would, when you win a grievance, pay you extra for the extra time you had to spend to get what you were already owed. Right, Tieguy?

The grievance process was put into place by the teamsters and by UPS to allow you the means to address any issues where you feel you were not treated fairly or where UPS did not follow the contract. You could clearly argue that UPS provided you with the means to hold them accountable. In this case my point has been that many drivers never had lunch issues or if they did they did not use the grievance process first.

Thats one part of this issue the other is 4 or 5 drivers who apparently had issues with the lunch issue filed a class action and were allowed to draw in the 4 or 5 thousand drivers who work in the state of california. Those additional drivers never actually had to enroll and they never had to prove they too were harmed by UPS.

 

[hoser]

Back on topic please, we're all getting tired of this bickering...

I'm not, I'm sitting here with a bowl of popcorn

 

[tieguy]

One more point about the code 05 issue.The decision to authorize you for a code 05 changes from center to center,
from manager to manager.
(since I`ve been here we`ve had everyone from hitler to ghandi)Oftimes when you call for help they
say just keep going,I`ll get back to you.
Thats when we have to do what brownmonster suggests.
Stop.Take lunch.Miss businesess,come back just under 12 hrs.
until they clue in.Every Friday I hear all the new guys that are
trying to make full time,complaining that they were shorted on
the promised code 05`s.Would it be wise for them to file grievances when they are at the mercy of the ones they are grieving against?
I dont disagree with you tie about the grievance procedure,but the paperwork involved for every driver to submit specific days and times etc.would not leave much time left to deliver packages.

Sup says can you skip lunch, I'll buy your lunch.

driver says ok.

driver says sup I'm short my hour lunch.

sup says Oh well.

next week sup says driver can you skip your lunch , I'll buy your lunch?

What does the driver say this time? Hard to add up to 3000 events unless the driver is a total idiot.

What would bug me about this whole scenario is I know there are drivers who will fanagle every opportunity then can to skip lunch and get paid for it. Road closures, traffic problems, staffing shortages etc are worked to sell their lunchs back. Many of those types of drivers also collected checks in california. In fact many of those drivers may have been the reason we conceeded and settled. I'm sure our delivery sups do not keep good records on why drivers did not take lunch. I'm sure our sups were more then happy to buy the lunchs to make service on packages. It made their jobs easier. We then pull our records and show these drivers not taking a lunch and have no documented idea why.

 

[gandydancer]

...4 or 5 drivers who apparently had issues with the lunch issue filed a class action and were allowed to draw in the 4 or 5 thousand drivers who work in the state of california. Those additional drivers never actually had to enroll and they never had to prove they too were harmed by UPS.

California Order 9-2001 for the Transportation Industry 11(b) reads "An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than ten(10) hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total hours worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee only if the first meal period was not waived." 11(d) reads "If an employer fails to provide an employee with a meal period...the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay...for each workday that the meal period is not provided."

Note that the employee can agree not to take his meal break only under certain restricted conditions and that the employer must pay the employee the 1 hours's pay penalty even if the employee agreed not to take the meal break, provided that the employee's agreement was not in accordance with the restricted conditions.

In other words, it is the policy of the State of California that if the company does not REQUIRE it's employees to take the required meal breaks the company will be fined one hour's pay for each day on which that occurs, and that the fine will be paid to the relevant employee, whether or not the employee objected.

In this case UPS' obligation to pay fines has been (tenatively) established by class action suit, the amount has been agreed to at $87 million, and the employees due the fines established...well, roughly. More roughly than it ought to have been (see my previous posts), but it would be rough in any case.

So, if the mechanism decides you are due less fines than the law calls for...basically, you're SOL. The company is refusing to release payroll records in a way which would make it practical to contest the allocation the company came up with. But half a loaf is better than none, particularly since you weren't expecting any. And if they're going to to pay you more...well, you've said one should as a matter of personal integrity decline to accept it (the agreed mechanism says it goes to charity, although Kershaw says he wants to divvy it up among the accepting drivers if the declined amount is large enough). And I say that's BS. Anyone woo's worked for THIS company as a driver for any length of time has experienced enough uncompensated grief that any windfall component of this payment is just a down payment on what's due.