Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back
spectrum.ieee.org
Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back
1–10 of 161 posts
Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back
#2Looks like nothing happened after:
> They asked for a meeting with Shipt executives, but they never got a direct response from the company. Its statements to the media were maddeningly vague, saying only that the new payment algorithm compensated workers based on the effort required for a job, and implying that workers had the upper hand because they could "choose whether or not they want to accept an order."
> Did the protests and news coverage have an effect on worker conditions? We don’t know, and that’s disheartening.
Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back
#3I am not defending Shipt and there is no doubt gig workers are in a very vulnerable position. However, the data analysis results as presented in the article do not support the article's main point. "40% are getting paid at least 10% less" is not unnatural to expect whenever pay is redistributed, especially since some 30+% are getting at least 10% more. Imagine a _hypothetical_ situation where Shipt is 100% on point and driving a fairer version of the algorithm patch removing a way for workers to "optimize" for short, well paid trips, resulting in pay cuts to those who had learnt how to do it, while not changing/increasing pay for everyone else. We would see the same kind of result: some portion of workers would get paid 10% less, some 10% more. This does show that workers are paid differently for the same work they have been doing, but does not prove the change is unfair.
Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back
#4Looks like nothing happened after: > They asked for a meeting with Shipt executives, but they never got a direct response from the company. Its statements to the media were maddeningly vague, saying only that the new payment algorithm compensated workers based on the effort required for a job, and implying that workers had the upper hand because they could "choose whether or not they want to accept an order." > Did t…
[deleted]
Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back
#5I am not defending Shipt and there is no doubt gig workers are in a very vulnerable position. However, the data analysis results as presented in the article do not support the article's main point. "40% are getting paid at least 10% less" is not unnatural to expect whenever pay is redistributed, especially since some 30+% are getting at least 10% more. Imagine a _hypothetical_ situation where Shipt is 100% on point a…
You are looking for this in the article
> It wasn’t a clear case of wage theft, because 60 percent of workers were making about the same or slightly more under the new scheme.
Your statement that "some 30+% are getting at least 10% more" assumes that there is no wage theft - which is not cut in stone.
Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back
#6[deleted]
Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back
#7I am not defending Shipt and there is no doubt gig workers are in a very vulnerable position. However, the data analysis results as presented in the article do not support the article's main point. "40% are getting paid at least 10% less" is not unnatural to expect whenever pay is redistributed, especially since some 30+% are getting at least 10% more. Imagine a _hypothetical_ situation where Shipt is 100% on point a…
You are looking for this in the article > It wasn’t a clear case of wage theft, because 60 percent of workers were making about the same or slightly more under the new scheme. Your statement that "some 30+% are getting at least 10% more" assumes that there is no wage theft - which is not cut in stone.
Aren’t gig workers contractors? Is it wage theft if I negotiate a lower price with my local timber yard?
Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are looking for this in the article > It wasn’t a clear case of wage theft, because 60 percent of workers were making about the same or slightly more under the new scheme. Your statement that "some 30+% are getting at least 10% more" assumes that there is no wage theft - which is not cut in stone.
Aren’t gig workers contractors? Is it wage theft if I negotiate a lower price with my local timber yard?
Mostly gray area because gig corps don't like actually treating the workers as contractors, they just like the lowered costs.
Sometimes that goes afoul when it's ruled that they put requirements that are only valid for employees on contractors.
Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are looking for this in the article > It wasn’t a clear case of wage theft, because 60 percent of workers were making about the same or slightly more under the new scheme. Your statement that "some 30+% are getting at least 10% more" assumes that there is no wage theft - which is not cut in stone.
Aren’t gig workers contractors? Is it wage theft if I negotiate a lower price with my local timber yard?
Everybody knows they aren't contractors.
Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back
#10I am not defending Shipt and there is no doubt gig workers are in a very vulnerable position. However, the data analysis results as presented in the article do not support the article's main point. "40% are getting paid at least 10% less" is not unnatural to expect whenever pay is redistributed, especially since some 30+% are getting at least 10% more. Imagine a _hypothetical_ situation where Shipt is 100% on point a…
You are looking for this in the article > It wasn’t a clear case of wage theft, because 60 percent of workers were making about the same or slightly more under the new scheme. Your statement that "some 30+% are getting at least 10% more" assumes that there is no wage theft - which is not cut in stone.
To clarify, I was basing the "some 30%" on the wage change distribution histogram that comes somewhat further down in the article from the statement you quote.