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

41–50 of 161 posts

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

#41

Post by robertlagrant »

p_l wrote: post #28
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Can you give an example?

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

#42

Post by robertlagrant »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #30
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.

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

You're taxed on what you're paid. The government doesn't do a parallel calculation and tax you on that.

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

#43

Post by robertlagrant »

rbetts wrote: post #37
londons_explore wrote: post #17

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.

> Workers lose when they can't capture value proportional to the revenue generation they support, only in proportion to their hours of labor.

Time-based contracts are pretty normal. I imagine most people on the planet are on them. There are exceptions - e.g. sales commissions - but to say that workers lose on the thing that most people do requires at least some elaboration.

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

#44

Post by dsr_ »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #40
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.

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…

So... they've turned it from "we provide a good quality service at a fair price" to "over time you will have a chance to pick favorites, but not consistently".

That's enshittification for your use of the service, and enshittification for the workers, too.

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

#45

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

robertlagrant wrote: post #42
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I suspect that the government needs to know what to tax, and obfuscated pay, means obfuscated taxes. You're taxed on what you're paid. The government doesn't do a parallel calculation and tax you on that.

But what you don’t get paid, the company keeps, and it may come under different tax rules.

My experience is that governments are quite interested in where the money goes.

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

#46

Post by astrange »

gabesullice wrote: post #36
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.

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.

Uber doesn't do that because the drivers wouldn't take ones they don't like.

Remember, consumers are using platform apps like Uber because they don't trust the drivers on the other side.

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

#47

Post by astrange »

rbetts wrote: post #37
londons_explore wrote: post #17

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.

What if the revenue generation is negative? It's not worth it to profit share in every business, because some of them are unprofitable.

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

#48

Post by tbrownaw »

astrange wrote: post #46
gabesullice wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Uber doesn't do that because the drivers wouldn't take ones they don't like. Remember, consumers are using platform apps like Uber because they don't trust the drivers on the other side.

> Remember, consumers are using platform apps like Uber because they don't trust the drivers on the other side.

Oh, I thought it was because "push button to summon car" is, like, super convenient.

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

#49

Post by sweezyjeezy »

dsr_ wrote: post #44
SkyPuncher wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So... they've turned it from "we provide a good quality service at a fair price" to "over time you will have a chance to pick favorites, but not consistently". That's enshittification for your use of the service, and enshittification for the workers, too.

Not sure I understand your argument - from a customer perspective why is the service worse, and why do you believe that it has BECOME worse?

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

#50

Post by imtringued »

astrange wrote: post #46
gabesullice wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Uber doesn't do that because the drivers wouldn't take ones they don't like. Remember, consumers are using platform apps like Uber because they don't trust the drivers on the other side.

People use platforms because it would be very silly to have an app on the play store for each driver.
Post reply on HN