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

The failure of the Domino's 30-minute delivery guarantee

thehustle.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 316 posts

Re: The failure of the Domino's 30-minute delivery guarantee

#231

Post by lupusreal »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #214
everforward wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but some people do need to be informed of how dangerous it is, and doctors can either prescribe weight loss medications or give a referral to a doctor specializing in medical and surgical weight loss. Regardless, it’s something I would expect doctors to nag patients about, the same way my dentist nags me to floss.

Why, if there's proven to be no benefit?

"Proven to have no benefit" in this case only means that most people won't lose weight after being told to. A minority will though, so doctors refusing to tell fat people to lose weight is a disservice to the few who stand a chance of making it. The rest should either be signed up for surgery, drugs, or written off as lost causes.

Re: The failure of the Domino's 30-minute delivery guarantee

#232

Post by anamax »

erinaceousjones wrote: post #41
xvector wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Why are they "double apping", though? Is it perhaps because they are trying to scrape a liveable wage from a flawed gig economy....

They're double-apping because they want more business than they can get from either app alone.

It's unclear why that's a "flaw". If Uber has to pay idle drivers, it has to charge more for rides.

Do you want there to be only one such company?

Do you object when a grocery story carries more than one brand of bread? How about when a given brand of bread has more than one type of bread?

Re: The failure of the Domino's 30-minute delivery guarantee

#233

Post by pc86 »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #222
nradov wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some US states have now adopted "ban the box" legislation which prohibits asking job candidates about criminal history (at least for certain jobs). Of course, it's still tough to explain a 10-year employment gap on a CV. https://www.nelp.org/publication/ban-the-box-fair-chance-hir...

It's also toothless when the employer's insurance company can require a (post-hire) background check to cover the employee and failing it is grounds for canceling the hire. I don't see an obvious solution, because compelling commercial insurance to cover someone with repeat duis/reckless driving/addiction issues in a work truck doesn't feel quite fair, but there needs to be a path to gainful employment for ex-cons if…

I'd be more than happy having a period of time where these things can't be taken into account (like bankruptcy). But if you have repeat DUIs / reckless driving incidents, you've proven that at least currently you can't be trusted to drive safely. Having a job where operating a vehicle as part of your job isn't a human right so I don't see anything wrong with saying "you're not allowed to have this job." Isn't it much more humane to do that in the application process than firing the candidate in their first week because the insurance will not cover them? Isn't it wrong to force the insurance to cover someone at a loss, or force the employer to pay more to cover this person who probably shouldn't be driving anyway?

Re: The failure of the Domino's 30-minute delivery guarantee

#234

Post by pc86 »

lupusreal wrote: post #227
BobaFloutist wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also toothless when the employer's insurance company can require a (post-hire) background check to cover the employee and failing it is grounds for canceling the hire. I don't see an obvious solution, because compelling commercial insurance to cover someone with repeat duis/reckless driving/addiction issues in a work truck doesn't feel quite fair, but there needs to be a path to gainful employment for ex-cons if…

Ideally the insurance company only cares about crimes that are relevant to the job; theft or embezzlement for workers handling cash. DUIs for drivers. Etc. There are certain combinations of crime and job that are sensibly going to be risky, but how do you prevent companies from being overcautious? An insurance company that was more optimally cautious than overcautious won't gain much for it.

Why do you need to "prevent companies from being overcautious?" It's their money they're spending, it's their customer relationships they're putting at risk, it's their liability they're increasing by having someone with multiple DUI convictions driving around the work truck.

Criminal history is not a protected class (nor should it be), there's nothing wrong with a company saying it doesn't want to hire people with criminal histories in the recent past for certain jobs, or any job.

Re: The failure of the Domino's 30-minute delivery guarantee

#235

Post by tyingq »

pc86 wrote: post #233
BobaFloutist wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also toothless when the employer's insurance company can require a (post-hire) background check to cover the employee and failing it is grounds for canceling the hire. I don't see an obvious solution, because compelling commercial insurance to cover someone with repeat duis/reckless driving/addiction issues in a work truck doesn't feel quite fair, but there needs to be a path to gainful employment for ex-cons if…

I'd be more than happy having a period of time where these things can't be taken into account (like bankruptcy). But if you have repeat DUIs / reckless driving incidents, you've proven that at least currently you can't be trusted to drive safely. Having a job where operating a vehicle as part of your job isn't a human right so I don't see anything wrong with saying "you're not allowed to have this job." Isn't it much…

The argument isn't about whether to disqualify someone for a job that involves driving if they have a DUI, at least to me.

I mentioned the Australian system...when the employer sends the candidate name/info and the complete job description, and a government agency replies yes/no. I assume they have some criteria for how long ago the offense was, etc. And that candidates generally know if they apply for a job that's not a good match, they will get a "no".

In the US system, even for a job where driving is not involved, the employer gets the full record and gets to decide what to do with that information with whatever arbitrary opinions they have.

Re: The failure of the Domino's 30-minute delivery guarantee

#236

Post by cess11 »

Nasrudith wrote: post #215
cess11 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's much broader than that. Having people with little to no understanding of work evaluate and exercise power over it has been foundational for capitalism since its beginning.

What hasn't that been foundational towards? I think that goes back all the way to god-emperors of the first cities.

Could you give some examples?

Re: The failure of the Domino's 30-minute delivery guarantee

#237

Post by happytiger »

locallost wrote: post #26

Chilling ending to the article: > Gig drivers don’t face an edict for speed like past Domino’s drivers, but Wells says the requirement to be fast is built into the job, with drivers hurrying to make financial incentives, avoid bad ratings, and ensure the food is warm upon delivery. Annoying corporate policy replaced by society taking a wrong turn to being driven by ratings on the I internet - that we unlike the bad p…

This is just a social credit system designed to control behavior, but attached to your workplace instead of your person.

The proof is simple. If you move this system from a single workplace to multiple workplaces with an ID for the worker, you get social credit.

This is a system that many governments and corporatists are in love with, as it generally “punishes troublemakers” without having anyone who’s a lawsuit target get overly involved. In my opinion, social credit systems are repression and totalitarianism masquerading as systems of personal responsibility.

Re: The failure of the Domino's 30-minute delivery guarantee

#238

Post by tyingq »

pc86 wrote: post #234
lupusreal wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally the insurance company only cares about crimes that are relevant to the job; theft or embezzlement for workers handling cash. DUIs for drivers. Etc. There are certain combinations of crime and job that are sensibly going to be risky, but how do you prevent companies from being overcautious? An insurance company that was more optimally cautious than overcautious won't gain much for it.

Why do you need to "prevent companies from being overcautious?" It's their money they're spending, it's their customer relationships they're putting at risk, it's their liability they're increasing by having someone with multiple DUI convictions driving around the work truck. Criminal history is not a protected class (nor should it be), there's nothing wrong with a company saying it doesn't want to hire people with c…

Collectively, blackballing people with a criminal past has negative effects not just for those people.

Re: The failure of the Domino's 30-minute delivery guarantee

#239

Post by pc86 »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #208

I was a delivery driver for Dominos during that time. My manager (bless her heart, truly) was always saying "DO NOT SPEED OR BE DANGEROUS"; we had literally zero incentives to be on time, or at least we weren't punished if we weren't. The markup on delivered pizza at THAT time was in the 800% range, so a free pie now and again wasn't going to hurt that much. A lawsuit over a crash probably would, though. I suspect I…

This strikes me as one of those things where scale works against incentives. If you own one store, you're making good money. There's little reason to push your managers to try to drive that margin to 810% by eliminating the occasional free pizza.

But when you own a dozen stores (like one of the stories in the article) all you see are numbers, you don't care, you push as hard as you can to "drive efficiencies" and you end up with managers who are getting yelled at because they're at 97% sub-30m delivery instead of the 98.5% goal or whatever. And then you have a manager pulling a pizza out of a car wreck and giving it to another driver.

Re: The failure of the Domino's 30-minute delivery guarantee

#240

Post by c22 »

sneak wrote: post #90
c22 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The insane thing is people trying to make a livable wage off of "gigs". We should stop pretending this is or ever can be reasonable full-time employment. Driving for apps is something you do on the weekend to supplement your day job, or during school hours as a stay at home spouse or whatever.

The only people pretending that this is reasonable employment are the people willing to treat it as such - ie the delivery drivers. “We” aren’t.

But in this very thread people are saying things like

"It should not be considered okay for there to be jobs that cannot earn a decent wage ... since we ... see people working these jobs full time."

"...for most people, these "gigs" are actually jobs. Qualifying them as "gigs" and saying that people shouldn't depend on them just allows you to feel better about not paying the true cost for the goods/services you are consuming."

and "...the gig economy model ... can be fixed by simply reclassifying these workers as employees."

We can redefine the set of "we" all we want, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a not-uncommon viewpoint amongst more than just delivery drivers.

Unfortunately the truth of the matter is that the service provided by these jobs is simply not worth enough to support a living wage and the pool of competing candidates willing to do the job is high. The only way to have "our" cake and eat it too requires perpetually subsidizing this line of work with either public funds or funds from increasingly disgruntled investors.

I haven't ordered food from an app in years since the sub-par experience of waiting over an hour for some cold and congealing phad thai is simply not worth the premium when I can order directly from the restaurant, pick it up myself and achieve a better overall experience.

Post reply on HN