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

Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 161 posts

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#11

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

LunaSea wrote: post #9
chgs wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In this case would it matter if they were contractors or not?

There is a way of calculating the pay for a job. It is predictable. Publish the algorithm. Want to change it? Great. Update the documentation and then publish that. The workers should be able to calculate exactly what they are owed. They can decide to leave or stay.

Only in America are people deflecting by bringing up the employment status of people when the issue is a lack of transparency designed to allow wage theft.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#12

Post by londons_explore »

jval43 wrote: post #2

Looks 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…

> choose whether or not they want to accept an order."

If the app shows clearly what needs to be done (shop, order list, miles driven), and the pay the worker will earn, and asks if they want to accept, then IMO that's fine.

The business can set those offers however they like, even using a random number generator if they want, and IMO it's morally fine.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#13

Post by casercaramel144 »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #11
LunaSea wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody knows they aren't contractors.

In this case would it matter if they were contractors or not? There is a way of calculating the pay for a job. It is predictable. Publish the algorithm. Want to change it? Great. Update the documentation and then publish that. The workers should be able to calculate exactly what they are owed. They can decide to leave or stay. Only in America are people deflecting by bringing up the employment status of people when t…

[flagged]

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#14

Post by bayindirh »

londons_explore wrote: post #12
jval43 wrote: post #2

Looks 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…

> choose whether or not they want to accept an order." If the app shows clearly what needs to be done (shop, order list, miles driven), and the pay the worker will earn, and asks if they want to accept, then IMO that's fine. The business can set those offers however they like, even using a random number generator if they want, and IMO it's morally fine.

> and IMO it's morally fine.

When it becomes immoral from your perspective?

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#15

Post by febeling »

or_am_i wrote: post #3

I 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…

I had similar thoughts. But let's not overlook the information asymmetry, which contributed to the dissatisfaction. I don't want to live in a world which is controlled unilaterally, and intransparently by a group of people who assume they have a full picture of the situation and assume they understand moral completely, and also don't think it necessary to explain how they think so highly of themselves.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#16

Post by kazinator »

or_am_i wrote: post #3

I 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…

"Only 68% of us are paid within one standard deviation of the mean salary. Don't tell me this is normal!"

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#17

Post by londons_explore »

bayindirh wrote: post #14
londons_explore wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> choose whether or not they want to accept an order." If the app shows clearly what needs to be done (shop, order list, miles driven), and the pay the worker will earn, and asks if they want to accept, then IMO that's fine. The business can set those offers however they like, even using a random number generator if they want, and IMO it's morally fine.

> and IMO it's morally fine. When it becomes immoral from your perspective?

When they offer to pay you X for the job, but then pay you Or if they get you to pay them money upfront (ie. for uniforms) on the basis of 'workers earn $Y per day', but then change the rules so some workers don't earn Y per day and don't offer a refund of the upfront payment to unhappy workers.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#18

Post by moritonal »

Do the worker's even see how much they'll make up front? If not, how is this fair, or even legal? I'm doubtful anyone here would go and work for McDonald's with the agreement being that they pay you what they think you're worth, after the job's done. We all see the asymmetry at play, and how it'd be abused at a moments notice.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#19

Post by Ekaros »

londons_explore wrote: post #12
jval43 wrote: post #2

Looks 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…

> choose whether or not they want to accept an order." If the app shows clearly what needs to be done (shop, order list, miles driven), and the pay the worker will earn, and asks if they want to accept, then IMO that's fine. The business can set those offers however they like, even using a random number generator if they want, and IMO it's morally fine.

I think reasonable thing here would also allow contractors send counter offer. Maybe 10x 100x or 1000x. Then it would be up to side ordering to accept or reject one of those.

Re: Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

#20

Post by qeternity »

p_l wrote: post #8
chgs wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Mostly gray area because gig corps don't like actually treating the workers as contractors, they just like the lowered costs.

I don't follow this? Is this predicated on the fact that gig corps can choose not to work with contractors that don't meet their criteria? If so, how is this different from only using lumber yards that consistently meet your expectations?

Post reply on HN