Live data from Hacker News

Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back

spectrum.ieee.org

31–40 of 161 posts

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

#31

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.

Having never used Shipt, I also find that part unclear:

> Target… offered same-day delivery from local stores. Those deliveries were made by Shipt workers, who shopped for the items and drove them to customers’ doorsteps. Business was booming… and yet workers found that their paychecks had become… unpredictable. They were doing the same work they’d always done, yet their paychecks were often less than they expected.

Edit:

> On Facebook and Reddit, workers compared notes. Previously, they’d known what to expect from their pay because Shipt had a formula: It gave workers a base pay of $5 per delivery plus 7.5 percent of the total amount of the customer’s order through the app. That formula allowed workers to look at order amounts and choose jobs that were worth their time. But Shipt had changed the payment rules without alerting workers. When the company finally issued a press release about the change, it revealed only that the new pay algorithm paid workers based on “effort,” which included factors like the order amount, the estimated amount of time required for shopping, and the mileage driven.

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

#32

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]

Not one of those reasons constitutes a valid excuse. Holy cow.

"Surely in a hotly competitive market" there is no need to hypothesise about what "surely" would happen according to some wishful thinking. We know from countless past observation exactly what happens in any market of low skill low investment labor, wages go straight to the level of the most desperate willing to be slaves and make nothing at all, because there always are enough of those for everyone else to take advantage of, and having no money they have no power to demand better. They can't afford lawyers and ad campaigns and lobbyists and politicians, and they can't afford to strike, and that same wonderful magic market means there is no one better to work for, all employers are essentially the same. Unions and strikes do exist, some places where they are allowed to, and it's always a big news story and a miracle when they actually accomplish even 10% of what they needed to once in a blue moon.

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

#33
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…

Few things are more internet than people telling half truths and whole lies to try and get their way.

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

#34
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.

They can set offers however they like and you are free to not accept.

If the algorithm detects that you are likely to accept for little money and short you with lower offers compared to other users, is it still morally fine?

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

#35
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 "contracto…

It's amazing that anyone would even try to say that.

From now on I'm going to pay my rent according to a secret algorithm of my own devising and my landlord will just have to hope I'm generous this month. I can't have him gaming the lease agreement by only providing the things it says!

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

#36

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.

This is the question. All the ethical concerns are almost superfluous if the provider knows how much they're gonna earn, at a minimum, before they accept the gig. It's either worth it to them or it isn't.

If anything shoud be a regulation, this feels like the one to add: platform opportunities must estimate and prominently display the estimated time to complete the task and the minimum payout after platform fees.

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

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Looks like shipt/target successfully converted gig work back from a percentage of revenue (percentage of cart value) to a task based rate. Workers lose when they can't capture value proportional to the revenue generation they support, only in proportion to their hours of labor.

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

#38

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.

They can set offers however they like and you are free to not accept. If the algorithm detects that you are likely to accept for little money and short you with lower offers compared to other users, is it still morally fine?

Unsure, but why would they do that? Why risk paying more by making a higher offer elsewhere before making a lower offer?

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

#39
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Looks like shipt/target successfully converted gig work back from a percentage of revenue (percentage of cart value) to a task based rate. Workers lose when they can't capture value proportional to the revenue generation they support, only in proportion to their hours of labor.

It depends on the proportions.

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

#40

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.

I think they do.

We use Shipt regularly and it’s a bit different than the other delivery apps. I now have a collection of favorite shoppers. While jobs still go to the pool, these people have a first shot at my order. I’ve learned the general availability of my favorites and tend to place orders when I think there’s a high chance they’ll be available to shop the order.

While it’s still not me selecting an individual contractor, it’s not the randomness of other apps.

Post reply on HN