Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received a large tip

workingwa.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 718 posts

Re: Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received a large tip

#271

Post by DATACOMMANDER »

kevin_b_er wrote: post #101
lixue wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was posted by "Working Washington", so it seems reasonable to look at Washington state law: It requires tipped employees to be paid minimum wage. So does the rest of the west coast, including California (where Instacart has it's HQ). https://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm It is, of course, entirely possible that the worker in question is not on the west coast, but Instacart is still welcome to pay a fair wage…

Washington state law does not apply. All of the State of Washington laws and constitution are fully invalidated and superseded by the American Arbitration Act.

Let’s hope that’s tested in court.

Re: Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received a large tip

#272

Post by lenticular »

matt4077 wrote: post #246
aqme28 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Boycotts essentially never work Is this true?

Check United Airlines stock price. Or Über. Or Exxon. Or Shell. Or Haliburton.

Those are companies that had enormous PR disasters and had short-term stock losses. It didn't even have anything to do with boycotts.

Re: Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received a large tip

#273

Post by holidaygoose »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #265
finnh wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP is also tipping in cash, forcing instacart to pay the full boat and returning tip to its rightful place as additional (and untaxed!) income. Seems like a not-bad approach.

Where did you get the notion that tips are supposed to be untaxed income?

Probably from real life.

Re: Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received a large tip

#274

Post by lenticular »

dabockster wrote: post #252
lenticular wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not necessarily true. Folks in the gig economy are often classed as "independent contractors" and thus are not subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act, including minimum wage laws. They also are not entitled to, nor almost ever receive, reimbursements for work expenses. When you are talking about using your own vehicle and paying for depreciation, mechanical work, and gas, this is considerable. It often winds…

> There is almost certainly a binding arbitration clause. This removes the possibility of individual or class-action lawsuits. But it does not remove the ability of the court to overrule the clause itself. So someone could still sue Instacart knowing that it will be thrown out if the court decides to enforce the clause. In my life experience, these things are almost always up in the air until a judge says otherwise.…

>But it does not remove the ability of the court to overrule the clause itself. So someone could still sue Instacart knowing that it will be thrown out if the court decides to enforce the clause.

Which they will. There's been a few recent cases that have made mandatory arbitration clauses more-or-less bulletproof.

Re: Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received a large tip

#275

Post by fzeroracer »

CameronBanga wrote: post #194
HillaryBriss wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some really don't have options. Unfortunately, in this economy, it's probably more accurate to say "most people really don't have options" rather than "some"

The job market is as strong as it has been in the past ~30+ years?

It's important to keep in mind that a low unemployment rate does not say anything about the overall quality of jobs in the market.

So while it's a 'strong market' in the sense that 'unemployment is low', it could also be examined from another angle. Which is the rise of the gig economy giving people a lot of opportunities for work, but work that comes at a cost of being heavily exploited like with Instacart. Nor does it say anything about whether or not people are holding full time vs part time jobs or the stagnant wage issues.

Re: Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received a large tip

#276

Post by nrook »

techsupporter wrote: post #257
lenticular wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collective action is essentially impossible among consumers though. Boycotts essentially never work. Not only that, but who are you going to use instead of instacart: Amazon Fresh? Uber? Or will you drive yourself to the store and buy it from minimum wage employees who work unstable hours? Also, what do you think the working conditions were like for whoever picked that asparagus?

> Or will you drive yourself to the store and buy it from minimum wage employees who work unstable hours? No, I will get on a bus operated by union-organized employees and travel to a grocery store where employees are also covered by a union and inside the city limits of a city with a reasonable minimum wage and scheduling rules inside a state with mandated paid sick leave. While there, I will likely pay a bit more t…

Washington has no state income tax, which is why their attempts to fund basically any program always seem so out there. If they just taxed like normal states did, they wouldn't look either goofy or regressive every time they tried to raise money.

Re: Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received a large tip

#278

Post by tivert »

berbec wrote: post #183
aqme28 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Boycotts essentially never work Is this true?

No, this is not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_bus_boycott

The consumer collective-action economic effects of that boycott changed nothing. What did change things was the government action it triggered:

> Pressure increased across the country. The related civil suit was heard in federal district court and, on June 4, 1956, the court ruled in Browder v. Gayle (1956) that Alabama's racial segregation laws for buses were unconstitutional. As the state appealed the decision, the boycott continued. The case moved on to the United States Supreme Court. On November 13, 1956, the Supreme Court upheld the district court's ruling, ruling that segregation on public buses and transportation was against the law.

Re: Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received a large tip

#279

Post by bargl »

victor106 wrote: post #256
tedivm wrote: post #10

There's a related blog post up on Medium by this same group (Working Washington) where they placed the same order, once with tip and once without, so people could directly compare. From my perspective Instacart is stealing from its customers and workers by doing this. I'm a huge fan of instacart (my fiance and I use it regularly), but this is definitely going to push me away from the platform. At a minimum I'm going…

Same here. I’ve been using instacart since 3 years almost everyday. But this is it. I am off it. I can’t believe the greed that some companies go to, to take advantage of people struggling to make ends meet. Shame on them

OP mentions the tip 22c and then the rest in cash to show instacart they shouldn't be doing this. I think it's a fair approach to see if they can be persuaded to make the right call.
Post reply on HN