11–20 of 111 posts
I'm just imagining one of the wag investors asking "What's to stop your walker who lives nearby the dog's owner, just doing the walk independently with the person they've built trust with?" And the answer is "you have a shitty business model and this should have killed it years ago"
If I recall correctly, when an employer signs up with a headhunter service to bring resumes, you're also agreeing to a 1 year term of exclusivity. Often resumes are shared without a name or other basic identifying information until you agree to meet with them. If you end up hiring them anytime from then to 1 year out, you pay the headhunter their fee. Seems fair, only because the headhunter needs to make a buck. Base…
Seems like a relationship built on deep mutual mistrust!
I spoke to a recruiter once who wouldn't tell me the company she was hiring for, presumably to stop me going directly. But it was a ludicrous situation because of course I'm not going to agree to spend my time interviewing with an unknown company!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no way this is going to hold up in any kind of court. A 50-100$ fine might have flown under the radar, but 1000$ is enough incentive for taking this to a small claims court.
> There's no way this is going to hold up in any kind of court. The terms of service also include a binding arbitration clause. In my limited understanding (Not a lawyer), how the arbitrators come to their conclusion need not have any basis in law, and in the vast majority of cases, and will not get reexamined by a real court. I fear there is a real possibility for someone to be forced through a Kafkaesque nightmare…
Also wouldn't hold up.
I'm just imagining one of the wag investors asking "What's to stop your walker who lives nearby the dog's owner, just doing the walk independently with the person they've built trust with?" And the answer is "you have a shitty business model and this should have killed it years ago"
For a dog-walking app (or many others, such as say house-cleaning) - you want an introduction to people locally, repetitively. Once you're happy with what you got through the app, you don't want the app.
Maybe what "Wags" should focus on is the broader scope of "I want a local tradesman to do something repetitively".
Provide introductions, take a nominal fee, allow end-user to change if they're unhappy (and take a very low fee for all the happy people)
Did it take this long to realize that "gig economy" was all about employee arbitrage and the destruction of the bottom 1/5 of employees to 'day laborer with requirements of employees'?
Uber steals tips by 'lowering pay' of a ride. Same with Lyft. Same with that food delivery service. They're all alike: 'abuse the worker cause they're here - they don't have other choices'.
And all the while people "agree" to these abortions of contracts. Contracts usually have to be agreed to by someone of sound mind. So why isn't the threat of being hungry, homeless, medical care-less, and such not considered a invalidation of contracts? It's akin to a gun pointed at your head; it instead leads to poverty and homelessness.That has longer and just as severe ramifications.
Here is the clause in Section 11: As a Pet Owner, you acknowledge that Wag! is in the business of connecting Pet Owners and Pet Care Providers, and that said business is how Wag! earns its income. As a result, Pet Owner agrees that if Pet Owner solicits a Pet Care Provider to provide off-platform pet care services to Pet Owner whom Pet Owner first met and/or learned about through the Wag! platform, Wag! is entitled t…
It's worse, apparently they also try to charge the walker (=contractor). Which is a wholly different bowl of trouble. Charging the pet owner is anti-competitive unenforceable nonsense, charging the pet walker means a lawsuit for back pay and taxes given the obvious misclassification as contractors.
So any Wag "contractors" in a few employee protective states might be able to make a case.
I'm just imagining one of the wag investors asking "What's to stop your walker who lives nearby the dog's owner, just doing the walk independently with the person they've built trust with?" And the answer is "you have a shitty business model and this should have killed it years ago"
I don't know. Both Wag and Rover have fund-raised $300M from investors. I would think they'd have responded to that line of questioning at least once.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no way this is going to hold up in any kind of court. The terms of service also include a binding arbitration clause. In my limited understanding (Not a lawyer), how the arbitrators come to their conclusion need not have any basis in law, and in the vast majority of cases, and will not get reexamined by a real court. I fear there is a real possibility for someone to be forced through a Kafkaesque nightmare…
> The terms of service also include a binding arbitration clause. Also wouldn't hold up.