Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received a large tip • Hacker News Board

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

#611

Post by kamaal » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 7:09 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #587

glangdale wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Instacart closes down because of this kind of shitty behavior, people may learn a thing or two, and the next company in this space might decide that wage theft is not going to be part of their competitive advantage.

Sure, and meanwhile these workers don't get paid anything. There are ways to fix things without shutting it all down.

>>There are ways to fix things without shutting it all down.

Same arguments were used to suppose slavery. If we make slavery illegal, where will slaves work apart from cotton farms?

There are other jobs to do, it doesn't mean we have to allow blatant injustice to go on, in exchange for profits. All the while using a moral arguments to justify it.

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

#612

Post by stolsvik » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 7:10 AM UTC

jlarocco wrote: post #522

thaumasiotes wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I, as a tipper, feel that I have been defrauded when this happens It is standard (though not universal) practice for restaurant staff to pool and divide tips, which would appear to be the same thing from a defrauding-the-tipper perspective. I'm more upset about this line from Instacart: > We include tips in the calculation [of pay for deliveries] so that you can get a more accurate picture of what your earnings wil…

Tip pooling/sharing is different in a few significant ways, though. First, restaurant staff always know ahead of time if they have to share tips. And their hourly compensation, as ridiculously low as it may be, is never adjusted to compensate for higher than normal tips. And, finally, in most restaurants the tip pool is also split up with bussers, bartenders, and hosts who don't always make tips of their own, but sti…

If the restaurant pays you less due to the expectation of significant tipping, then I do have a bit hard time too see why the practice of Instacart and restaurants differ that much. I guess you need to be American to understand this tipping logic.

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

#613

Post by Buge » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 7:11 AM UTC

loeg wrote: post #593

Buge wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, minimum wage for servers is lower than for people who don't get tips. But it's still illegal to lower a person's wage below what was advertised because the person got a tip.

I think you're confused. You're describing "server wage" laws, in which employers are free to steal tips up to the difference between real minimum wage and server wage per hour. In effect, servers in these states make above minimum wage during peak times and at most minimum wage off-peak. But they have to work off-peak or they don't get scheduled for peak hours. In WA, this form of wage theft is illegal. Your stateme…

I don't see how my previous comment was confused. It was drawing a distinction between "server wage" and what Instacart is doing.

I never claimed "server wage" laws apply to this situation.

Also, the term "wage theft" seems like it doesn't apply to "server wage", because "server wage" is a construct specifically created by the law, whereas wage theft is something that's illegal.

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

#614

Post by FakeComments » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 7:15 AM UTC

stolsvik wrote: post #612

jlarocco wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tip pooling/sharing is different in a few significant ways, though. First, restaurant staff always know ahead of time if they have to share tips. And their hourly compensation, as ridiculously low as it may be, is never adjusted to compensate for higher than normal tips. And, finally, in most restaurants the tip pool is also split up with bussers, bartenders, and hosts who don't always make tips of their own, but sti…

If the restaurant pays you less due to the expectation of significant tipping, then I do have a bit hard time too see why the practice of Instacart and restaurants differ that much. I guess you need to be American to understand this tipping logic.

Instacart is dynamically adjusting down wages in response to tips; restaurants have a fixed wage, with a legislated minimum — even if it accounts for average tips.

The difference is that one allows the customer to dynamically adjust the wages in response to service; while in the other the company is pocketing that variance themselves, rather than passing it on to workers.

It’s simply fraud to pretend one situation is the other — there’s a distinct and meaningful difference in who pockets tip variance.

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

#615

Post by ampersandy » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 7:21 AM UTC

seancaptain wrote: post #502

Hi. I'm a Fast Company reporter, and we've been investigating this and many other issues for about a week, including asking Instacart to explain them all. Stay tuned for a full report this week or early next. Thanks, Sean Captain @seancaptain

Would love to see the article expanded on with a legal analysis of the situation.

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

#616

Post by dependsontheq » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 7:39 AM UTC

LyndsySimon wrote: post #179

wonderwonder wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe we should tokenize it and put it on the block-chain :)

You say that in jest, but this sort of thing really is a potential use for the tech. Imagine a widget where every link in the supply chain is paid proportionately, instead of each layer trying to skim what they can. If a salesperson sells the product for 10% more, they get 10% more commission - and the distributor gets 10%, and the manufacturer, and the producer of the raw materials, and the transportation provider,…

Their jobs might have different value for this to happen at all. Usually that’s exactly what the market does, assign value. The 10% margin sounds in general fair but depends on so many factors, margin on what? Production, Research, Investment ?

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

#617

Post by ultraluminous » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 7:50 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #528

maxerickson wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you maybe need to write a book about why you think a server sharing their tips around is equivalent to a corporation reducing wages based on tips. I don't see how any shorter treatment would be a sufficient explanation. I mean, imagine the scenario where the server just buys a line cook a drink to say thank you. Fraud!

> I mean, imagine the scenario where the server just buys a line cook a drink to say thank you. Fraud! That would be a case of the server getting the money and deciding to buy something for the cook. Whereas in an actual tip-sharing restaurant, the server gets his share of the tip pool after the cook's share has already been taken out. He doesn't get a choice in the matter. This is generally not what the people givin…

The point being made that you're repeatedly ignoring is that that in this scenario the staff gets the tips. Only the staff. In no point in time, whether it's individual tips or tips sharing, does the restaurant receive any part of the tips pool.

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

#618

Post by SZJX » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 7:56 AM UTC

alasdair_ wrote: post #584

loeg wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And their hourly compensation, as ridiculously low as it may be, is never adjusted to compensate for higher than normal tips. This varies by state. Google "server wage" and your blood will boil. It's illegal in WA, though — servers make standard minimum wage and employers can't take servers' tips.

It’s somewhat bullshit that the people who did all the work making the tasty meal get nothing, while the person handing it to you gets 20 percent. Especially when Seattle minimum wage is $15/hour and tips cannot count as part of that.

I've also wondered about it (though I know that bring a server is still by no means an easy task). I think Freakonomics had an episode on topping and reported (advertised?) some restaurants that split the tip between servers and cooks, or just don't let the customer tip but pay their employees more, upfront.

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

#619

Post by franciscop » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 8:05 AM UTC

Verdex wrote: post #501

franciscop wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree, I think money is a fairly poor incentice for increasing the level of community and might even do the opposite and make it too profit-based. I think everyone should be putting the extra effort on treating others with care instead! That increases the feeling of community. Got those lovely nuggets? Buy there again, tell their manager how great the service was, and be a great customer. Also, treat better t…

(psst, this series of responses are kind of a joke)

What do you mean series? And I'm not joking, it's how it works in Japan and it seems to be working great here

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

#620

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 8:08 AM UTC

pishpash wrote: post #577

dragonwriter wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now they're getting minimum wage and I still feel the need to tip. I'm not sure that your dislike of your own sense of obligation is sufficient cause for a legal prohibition on tipping. I think you should be free to tip (though employers should likewise be free to prohibit employees from accepting tips, and should have fewer reasons not to do so than they currently do.) OTOH, I would get behind (and meant to includ…

What sense of "obligation" are you referring to? If it is obligatory then it definitely should be outlawed, because it becomes false advertisement of prices.

> What sense of "obligation" are you referring to?

The sense of “sense of obligation” in play when one says “I feel the need to tip”, as I would have thought was obvious by the quoted bit I responded to.

> If it is obligatory then it definitely should be outlawed

It is not actually obligatory (except where it is advertised as required, in which case there is no false advertising), even if some people have a sense of obligation which demands tipping.