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

21–30 of 161 posts

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

#21

Post by bryanrasmussen »

qeternity wrote: post #20
p_l wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>I don't follow this?

The implication of the parent poster seems to be that there are legal requirements regarding contractors and legal requirements regarding employees but gig corps would prefer to treat their workers as one or the other class depending on which is to their benefit - which would be against the law because of the aforementioned concept "legal requirements".

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

#22

Post by braza »

febeling wrote: post #15
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.

> 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

I have thought about this topic for a while at the time that I worked with Law data (e.g. Family Law and Military Law), and I just came to the conclusion that several societal institutions and it's agents are inherently intransparent, even in situations where some "illusionist transparency" (there's transparency, but the magician deviates your attention to another side) is given (e.g. judiciary system, under-the-table political agreements, etc.).

That's one of the reasons I would like to have a more algorithmic society with human in the loop calling the final shots and placing the rationale on top. An algorithm will have human and institutional biases but in some sort, you can explain part of it and fine-tune it; a human making the final call on top of a given option would need to explain and rationally explain its decision. At best a human actor will use logic and make the right call, at worst it will transparently expose the biases of the individual.

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

#23

Post by Herrum »

casercaramel144 wrote: post #13
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

I don't think the reasons you are listing are valid at all.

1. If they can game it, they should. If that's a problem, then Shipt should fix their algorithm.

2. It's fine to data wrangle your way to an automated model for e.g. your company's growth projection or for predicting where you can best expand to find more customers. It's not okay to use it to unilaterally change pay agreements with your workers or "contractors".

3. The right of an individual to know what they're getting paid for their work outweighs any company's nebulous claim of its algorithm being a trade secret or something vague like that. Can you imagine businnesses actually operating like this? "You can't know what we'll pay you for this job, its ~~seeeecret~~. Just trust us."

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

#24

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

casercaramel144 wrote: post #13
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

Just listen to yourself.

You’re arguing that it’s sometimes legitimate to hide payment information. So I can hire someone for a job, and only I know what the job is worth. The worker just has to try it out and see if their valuation of the job is the same as my valuation?

The fact that some, maybe most, are making more money is irrelevant. The organisation can change the value of a particular job at any time and simply say “the algorithm made me do it”.

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

#26

Post by oefrha »

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…

> 40% are getting paid at least 10% less

That statement is wrong either way. Looking at the graph, ~22% got a >10% cut while ~36% got a >10% raise. Overall ~43% got a cut while ~57% got a raise. And if there’s any doubt, later on they dropped the “at least 10% less” qualifier for the 40% figure in text:

> But we felt that it was important to shine a light on those 40 percent of workers who had gotten an unannounced pay cut through a black box transition.

Can’t believe they (accidentally? intentionally?) screwed up the very first concrete figure given in the article. Guess what, discussion is now based on the wrong figure.

Also, the y-axis of the plot is labeled “number of workers” when it should be “percentage of participating workers”, unless they had exactly 100 participants (they say they had 200+). Lousy presentation.

I’m all for transparency, obviously.

Edit: In addition, since participation is entirely voluntary, common sense tells me that the data they gather should skew more negative, since people negatively affected are much more likely to participate.

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

#27

Post by Marbling4581 »

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.

What if there's discrimination built in to the system? Maybe a business is willing to pay white people more, or women less. They can do that while still following your framework. Is that moral?

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

#28

Post by p_l »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #21
qeternity wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

>I don't follow this? The implication of the parent poster seems to be that there are legal requirements regarding contractors and legal requirements regarding employees but gig corps would prefer to treat their workers as one or the other class depending on which is to their benefit - which would be against the law because of the aforementioned concept "legal requirements".

Exactly this - there are differences in what you can require from someone on employment contract and external contracting company (whether that company is single person or not) and effectively making one category into another without actually reclassifying (like employing as employee) is considered fraud in most places.

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

#29

Post by mft_ »

febeling wrote: post #15
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.

It's an interesting question, as we have a spectrum from 'little to no transparency' through to 'full transparency' (which is pretty rare), and in the middle sits the usual approach of 'communications-team-led messaged quasi-transparency'. Difficult to know (without more info) where Shipt would have appeared on this spectrum, but given the issue, they're probably somewhere towards the 'insufficient transparency' end.

What's silly in this case is that (as others have pointed out) the new algorithm seems to have been reasonably equitable, with a genuine redistribution of payments, rather than just a cut overall. Shipt could have avoided this whole situation with a straightforward explanation of the changes, together with a few examples of the cases/jobs in which people would earn more or less.

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

#30

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

moritonal wrote: post #18

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.

IANAL, but I suspect that there's US law, specifying that there needs to be a clear, transparent formula for pay.

Even convoluted ones, like commissions for sales, or shared tips, are covered by law. I do know this, as I know a number of salespeople and servers.

I suspect that the government needs to know what to tax, and obfuscated pay, means obfuscated taxes.

Post reply on HN