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

101–110 of 161 posts

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

#101

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

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.

If workers are low-skilled, easily replaceable and practically fungible then realistically speaking why would their employer pay them based on value-added?

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

#102

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

There is an inherent flaw in those algos - they can be played by bots that scan for the best orders, while workers without bots and customers with smaller orders are left hanging. Better to just pay by the hour - you agree to deliver any order thrown at you during your shift.

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

#103

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

cryptonym wrote: post #34
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.

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?

Other than the algorithmic aspect, isn't that basically exactly how the employment market works?

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

#104

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #102

There is an inherent flaw in those algos - they can be played by bots that scan for the best orders, while workers without bots and customers with smaller orders are left hanging. Better to just pay by the hour - you agree to deliver any order thrown at you during your shift.

But then you'd be an employee, rather than an independent contractor; and that would break the business model. No value judgment there, just facts.

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

#105

Post by mistrial9 »

theptip wrote: post #79
biftek wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> you ideally want all the jobs to be good That is… exactly the point I made, when I said: > you don’t want jobs that are strictly better Preference optionality is widely stated to be one of the features that gig workers like about the arrangement. The options you suggest are also valid ways of homogenizing the jobs to reduce variance. > Gamifying peoples livelihood is the problem To be clear Game Theory applies to a…

applied Game Theory in real human history a.k.a. wealth-building, has shown that the biggest empires with the most wealth and the best armies are built with slavery. So slavery did win, again and again and again. I don't think most modern people have any idea how deep and wide the history of slavery is ..

Game-theory is fun when you get good at it for designing markets and products, but let us not lose sight of the crucial discussion.. human beings with real lives are not equal to economic parts.

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

#106

Post by cbsmith »

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 think that's a very fair point, but wouldn't that be true even if Shipt hadn't made any changes?

It feels to me like the problem wasn't the change. For all we know, the change was a net good thing. The bad thing was the context in which the change occurred.

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

#107

Post by SoftTalker »

alwa wrote: post #95
demondemidi wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to fly into Pittsburg and take an Uber to my grandparents house 40 miles away. For years I could always get an Uber but then after the pandemic my trip was rejected so frequently that I had to start renting a car. So basically no one wanted the gig and Uber never told me my ride was unreasonable. Something changed in the algorithm to benefit drivers, Uber, or both, at the expense of the customer, and that info…

I’m curious: would you have felt better if Uber had just rejected your ride request upfront (“Sorry, we can’t offer rides that far” or something)? Or is this attitude of “hey, it’s a long shot, but let’s give it a try and see if anybody takes the job” closer to the attitude you’d like to see? If the latter, how would you communicate that to the users? I had an occasion a long time ago where I needed to request an Ube…

Driving an EV at 110mph is going to sap the range horrendously. The power needed to overcome air resistance/drag is proportional to the cube of the speed.

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

#108

Post by cbsmith »

jtriangle wrote: post #86

>60 percent of workers were making about the same or slightly more under the new scheme. But we felt that it was important to shine a light on those 40 percent of workers Absolutely pathetic investigative journalism on display. This is a hit piece thinly veiled under the guise of being pro worker that fails to support the main point of algorithmic management of gig workers is worse for everyone but the corporation em…

> If anything, they proved that shipt's algo did exactly what it was designed and reported to do, make payments more fair.

They didn't prove that. It's entirely possible the algo was skimming something off the top. It's entirely possible the algo was disproportionately rewarding some people to the detriment of others. A lot of it depends on what one thinks is "fair"... and without transparency, we can't even judge whether it is or not... which itself could be argued is unfair.

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

#109

Post by smabie »

cryptonym wrote: post #34
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.

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?

Sure, this is how negotiate and hiring have always worked.

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

#110

Post by woah »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #84
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eh. Not worth arguing about. Not my area of expertise. That's why I pay an accountant.

Thank you for contributing your wisdom
Post reply on HN