Live data from Hacker News

Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

bloomberg.com

351–360 of 398 posts

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The no-left-turns rule isn't crude, it's an incredibly valuable (and incredibly obvious) optimization. A mapping service that tells me to turn left in downtown San Francisco at rush hour is literally worse than useless. In many cases, if I follow its directions blindly, not only will I be delayed, I'll delay the traffic around me. It's mind-boggling that Google, Apple, and other consumer-grade routing providers haven…

It's crude because it's too general. Making three right turns might be the right choice on a busy street in SF, but on a side street in a quiet suburb, making a single left is normally the better choice.

Sure. So add a slider to the configuration page: "Avoid left turns when practical."

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpaid internships?

Well, you got me there so I gave you an upvote. Temporarily bartering labor for skills training is a complexity I hadn't accounted for.

Yeah, a rather extreme example, and of course we hope they are being sufficiently well compensated in experience, though we know that's not always the case.

As another example, there's the people working 70 hour weeks across 3 jobs - no one of those is paying what's necessary to sustain the employee.

Moreover, if you're okay with high turnover, there may be people willing to work for you unsustainably for a time just to lower their burn rate.

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#353
post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of this discussion is to shine a light on how ignorant the OP's question was. The original question was whether a person could live off $40/day. But that's not what OP really meant was it? What they meant to ask was whether or not a person could live OP's approximate standard of living on $40/day. And the answer to that is obviously not. If you make more than $34k/yr you're in the global 1%. Virtually no on…

> SNAP is a subsidy for every industry that sells products that people on SNAP might purchase You're missing my point. SNAP is a direct subsidy to Walmart not because they sell food, but because many of their workers cannot live where they live without being enrolled in SNAP due to the low pay. SNAP subsidizes Walmart by supplementing workers' paychecks.

It sounds like you are suggesting that wages should be set at a minimum level that is strictly above any government assistance. So if you have a job, you are disqualified from any assistance what so ever, and all the government assistance should be focused on people without jobs, essentially to bring them to that minimum.

That's similar to what welfare was like before welfare reform in 96 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_...

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#354
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hope you never get sick and have to call in, your car never breaks down, and you never have a medical emergency!

If you get seriously sick 3X (5 time even) that amount won't save you. But as things stand now you'd have free(ish) healthcare anyway. Car? What car? You are walking, biking, riding the bus. It's doable, barely, just barely and there will be troubles if anything comes up.

Would that qualify as life or merely survival? Can a person under these conditions become a parent? Can someone in this situation raise a healthy kid?

I doubt it.

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#355
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting view. You mention many problems. Most of them can be solved with data gathering - what's this unmarked address, which is the relevant unit, what the right access path, which workers do and don't give a shit, etc. and with the right app, and so many employees, you can gather all that data relatively fast, assuming some repeat orders. Heck, maybe do that with augmented reality via phone, to make it dead sim…

Turn by turn directions are used sundays for Amazon. Gps in the scanner screams at the deliverer if the address is "far away" (eg 2.5 miles from location) like instead of 25 Hickory trail they are at 25 hickory lane or 25 highland st. And still carriers get it wrong. Every Sunday. Remote help from another employee? First, if that other employee is off the clock they cant help. Repeat knowledge of family/address makes…

I think it's also a worker quality issue. FedEx has never had an issue finding my apartment, being on time and the package has never "just disappeared but we swear it was delivered!"

UPS or USPS? Not so much. I'm in the Bay Area but I've noticed the same trend in both Vancouver and the Denver area so I do think it could be a widespread thing. The UPS people just don't seem to care as much or be as competent as the FedEx people.

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#356
post #9

> Workers can opt in to earn extra money by making deliveries using their own cars. They’re assigned packages based on where they live so the route aligns with their commute home The headline makes it sound coercive but that actually sounds like an efficient use of time and energy (less big trucks on the road, less miles driven, more money for people who want it). I wouldn't mind dropping a few things off on my way h…

Yeah, huge difference between "deliver this on your way home or your fired" and "if you want some extra money, deliver this on your way home." Not much difference between this and, say, LaserShip, aside from it being a small part of the overall job.

True.

Hey, you haven't been doing any home deliveries lately, is everything ok? Oh, well we have to reduce your shifts next week.

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#357
post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of this discussion is to shine a light on how ignorant the OP's question was. The original question was whether a person could live off $40/day. But that's not what OP really meant was it? What they meant to ask was whether or not a person could live OP's approximate standard of living on $40/day. And the answer to that is obviously not. If you make more than $34k/yr you're in the global 1%. Virtually no on…

> SNAP is a subsidy for every industry that sells products that people on SNAP might purchase You're missing my point. SNAP is a direct subsidy to Walmart not because they sell food, but because many of their workers cannot live where they live without being enrolled in SNAP due to the low pay. SNAP subsidizes Walmart by supplementing workers' paychecks.

I understand your point, I was just pointing you to a different perspective. Wal-Mart makes far more money from SNAP recipients as customers than it potentially saves in wages. I personally do not believe SNAP saves Wal-Mart any wages at all.

I'll circle back to the question I asked several levels ago. If SNAP suddenly disappeared, do you believe that would cause Wal-Mart to raise its wages? If not, then your point is moot since it's not saving Wal-Mart any wage costs.

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#358
post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this is "off-the-clock, off-site" work. It has the potential to be extended in a way that it much harder to quantify and regulate. My, and many others', biggest concern is that the workers at Wall-Mart often need their job for subsistence; it's often not a job that they feel they can say "no" to. So if this gets extended from "Do this only if you want to make some side money," to "Doing this greatly influence…

> This is late stage capitalism, pure and simple. What is late stage capitalism, and why is this representative of it?

The idea is that capitalism will lead, inexorably, to fewer big companies and fewer people who control those companies. Those fewer companies and people will have more and more power, the people at the other end of the spectrum (e.g. unskilled workers) will have less and less power, over time.

Wall-Mart has a lot of power; its workers almost none. In fact most of its workers are kept part-time so that they don't have benefits and more than half of the full-time hourly make less than $25,000/year[1]. Remember that almost 60% of Americans don't have $500 in savings. These people are often terrified of losing their job.

The notion of using workers to make deliveries is representative of late stage capitalism in that at first it sounds like Wall-Mart is letting its employees "hustle" for a bit more money, but instead it's really putting itself in the situation where it can leverage its employee's circumstances. Note that, even in this proof-of-concept stage, the risks and insurance costs are already passed to the workers[3].

Please note that I don't think Wall-Mart as a company is particularly evil or would ever try to not pay its workers for this service -- on the contrary, they will certainly, always compensate. My concern is that that compensation will not cover the costs when all variables are factored in and that while it might start as voluntary, if it's indeed profitable, that would start to be pushed toward a work culture pressure of, "Do you want to keep your job? Deliver this at a net loss to you."

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-23/more-than... [2] http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/pf/americans-lack-of-savings [3] https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/walmart-begins-testing-usi...

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#359
post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is late stage capitalism, pure and simple. What is late stage capitalism, and why is this representative of it?

The idea is that capitalism will lead, inexorably, to fewer big companies and fewer people who control those companies. Those fewer companies and people will have more and more power, the people at the other end of the spectrum (e.g. unskilled workers) will have less and less power, over time. Wall-Mart has a lot of power; its workers almost none. In fact most of its workers are kept part-time so that they don't have…

"Note that, even in this proof-of-concept stage, the risks and insurance costs are already passed to the workers[3]."

Where is that stated in the article? I couldn't find it.

Re: Wal-Mart will pay employees to deliver packages on their way home

#360
post #66

I think my biggest complaint is that someone making minimum wager or near minimum wage will value money above their time, so many will take this opportunity. Most will take up any reasonable opportunity to earn a few extra dollars. However, this takes away from time that could be spent with family or used to better their skills. The working poor are in a tough position and this program takes advantage of that.

Why is it our job to determine how much time they chose to spend working? It seems kind of condescending to say that we shouldn't give them the choice to make a bit more money because we think they should spend more time with their families.

I think my point is that they are given the choice, knowing that it is a choice they do not have the luxury to pass up. Just a frustrating situation that these employees will then continue to work outside of their normal work hours. I'm sure many will be grateful for the extra money, I'm sure many pick up shifts or maybe drive for a ride hailing service on the side. That is time they're not building a relationship with their kids, helping them succeed in school, etc. That sucks. It's a shitty situation.
Post reply on HN