Shipt’s algorithm squeezed gig workers, who fought back • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by theptip » Thu, Jul 04, 2024, 1:29 PM UTC

A clear case of adverse selection in the old pricing model.

From a game-theoretic perspective in a gig marketplace you don’t want jobs that are strictly better, else sophisticated market participants (workers) will select the best ones leaving chaff - and a worse experience - for the less sophisticated participants.

What you are looking for is preference optionality, eg one Uber driver might prefer not to do very long trips, another might prefer it, and you ideally get paid fairly for either.

In this case as others have noted, it doesn’t actually sound like an unfair change. Perhaps communications could have been better though.

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

#52

Post by amanaplanacanal » Thu, Jul 04, 2024, 1:30 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #41

p_l wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Your favorite web search engine is your friend here.

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

#53

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Thu, Jul 04, 2024, 1:40 PM UTC

braza wrote: post #22

febeling wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inher…

I will admit that it is an interesting idea. I am not sure it would work well as a lot of the power ( and pressure to adjust as needed ) suddenly would move to the fine-tuning portion of the process to ensure human at the top can approve 'right' decisions. I am going to get my coffee now.

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

#54

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Thu, Jul 04, 2024, 1:45 PM UTC

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.

Uber solves one part of the equation. As I have recently learned, ride sharing apps just allow you to get in touch with the customer. In some countries, apparently, the drive will 'work with rider' outside app control. It is a weird cat and mouse game.

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

#55

Post by usernamed7 » Thu, Jul 04, 2024, 1:45 PM UTC

mhh__ wrote: post #25

This style of writing headlines really irks me

I didn't have a problem with it. the style that really does irk me are ones that reveal nothing useful, like if this was titled just "fighting back"

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

#56

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Thu, Jul 04, 2024, 1:46 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #50

astrange wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And yet, I almost wonder if that would not be a better system overall.

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

#57

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Thu, Jul 04, 2024, 1:51 PM UTC

Marbling4581 wrote: post #27

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.

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?

Is morality relevant to the equation? If it is, whose morality? And who gets to be arbiter of those morals?

At least with laws, there are clear adjudicators on the issues at hand.

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

#58

Post by gabesullice » Thu, Jul 04, 2024, 1:55 PM UTC

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.

Hence the regulation would force Uber (and ultimately the customer) to make it worth their while.

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

#59

Post by p_l » Thu, Jul 04, 2024, 1:59 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #41

p_l wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There are possible frauds from both employer and employee side, but I will list some common "landmines" of miss-classification, though beware that they are picked across different jurisdictions and I do not remember which apply where. All examples are possible items that can be decided to be part of misclassification, usually from contractor to effective employee:

- requiring specific dress code is non-enforceable on contractors in many places

- contractor is not required to provide specific person to fulfill the job, only a person of appropriate qualifications (it's valid for there to be a check on those qualifications)

- in UK case, contractor might be asked to prove that they have a substitute to work in their place!

- [Poland, possibly other] having only one client is not illegal, but can be grounds for investigations and if it's your only client where you work for equivalent of full-time job, it will be evidence for tax fraud

- You can not enforce working hours on contractors in most jurisdiction, only specific deliverables (taking part of work meetings is deliverable, requiring availability in general of specific person at specific times can be grounds for reclassification)

- above is often linked with "gig economy" - rules regarding "contractors" needing to pick up available jobs etc. are often considered illegal skirting of employment law.

As sibling comment mentioned, more is available from your local (too) friendly search engine. And employment lawyers and HR specialists.

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

#60

Post by biftek » Thu, Jul 04, 2024, 1:59 PM UTC

theptip wrote: post #51

A clear case of adverse selection in the old pricing model. From a game-theoretic perspective in a gig marketplace you don’t want jobs that are strictly better, else sophisticated market participants (workers) will select the best ones leaving chaff - and a worse experience - for the less sophisticated participants. What you are looking for is preference optionality, eg one Uber driver might prefer not to do very lon…

No, you ideally want all the jobs to be good. With the old model it was clear what the floor for getting something delivered was. Target could have instead adjusted order minimums or shrunk delivery zones instead.

Gamifying peoples livelihood is the problem.