Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 113 posts

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#101

Post by darkerside »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #86
philwelch wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the thing, though. On a global level, poverty is measured by a threshold of whether or not you can sleep through the night without getting bitten by malaria-infested mosqitoes . Gig workers in Western countries aren't anywhere near the left-hand side of the tail. Most of these distributive justice arguments have a nationalistic bent where the global poor don't matter at all.

I agree with you completely, and spent a lot of time in the past decade reading around 80000 Hours, Giving What We Can, Peter Singer, etc. But I do think there are other forms of suffering, for example severe mental suffering that co-occurs with extreme addiction-related problems, combined with poverty conditions that are surprisingly quite bad, even on a world scale, in parts of the US. In general, I think far too l…

But that existential psychological suffering will ALWAYS be there. No matter how we move lines and curves. Some people will always be missing out, and giving them more won't fix it if we provide the same benefit to all their peers as well.

There are other better ways to resolve the vicious psychological cycle you describe, but they're not material.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#102

Post by n4r9 »

lhorie wrote: post #90
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opposing anecdata, my SO's sister had an ivy league degree and spent 3 months looking for jobs until she got the only job she could, front of house work at a bakery. Every other job, service jobs included, turned her down. Another friend with a strong public school degree who floated around for months interviewing until she moved back with her parents, then finally got a job at the local library.

I wonder if over-qualification in resumes plays a role. In the book Nickel and Dimed[1], the author explicitly hid the fact she had higher education even from colleagues. And whereas she complained a lot about working conditions, finding a job per se wasn't a challenge at all (to the point she could even decide between two options at one point), even being restricted to non-intensive labor jobs due to health reasons.…

Over-qualification definitely makes a difference. An employer will be reluctant to hire someone that's likely to snag a higher-paying job in a few weeks.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#103

Post by turc1656 »

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #91
turc1656 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How do we fix bad laws when the wealthy are paying good money for those bad laws?" The wealthy only account for a small percentage of the overall population. It is very easy to change the law if and only if people care enough to do so. But they don't. Because that involves work like protesting, writing to representatives, organizing community events, and maybe recalling mayors of congressional reps with votes of no…

>he wealthy only account for a small percentage of the overall population. It is very easy to change the law if and only if people care enough to do so. But they don't. Because that involves work like protesting, writing to representatives, organizing community events, and maybe recalling mayors of congressional reps with votes of no confidence. They'd rather pretend to be outraged on Twitter, so that they don't have…

Yes, I probably am expecting too much from my fellow countrymen. And that's the issue. I think what we can most likely both agree on, after reading our back and forth, is that the issues you raised are more of the symptom of the illness rather than the actual problem itself. You said yourself the public is ignorant, confused, and disinterested. That's the crux of it. Their lack of concern has led to the current situation and we, as a society, are 100% responsible for our malfeasance/mismanagement. The people who have been able to profit from it are just taking advantage of our collective lack of vigilance.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#104

Post by turc1656 »

gerbilly wrote: post #95
turc1656 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luck is a factor, but usually a small one. I certainly do not agree that it's a major component. But let's say for the sake of discussion, that it is. Just because life isn't fair doesn't mean someone else should be able to vote themselves money from your wallet or command a portion of your labor.

>because life isn't fair doesn't mean someone else should be able to vote themselves money from your wallet Except it happens all the time by unelected leaders of major corporations. For example, when there is no alternative to say Comcast in your neighbourhood and they can charge whatever they want and you need internet access for work, they are taxing you. And I don't know about you but I must have missed the elect…

Those regional monopolies you mention are granted legal rights to the physical property they use to obtain those monopolies. In the case of Comcast they have physical infrastructure that they were granted permission to place onto public and private land. While you may not get to vote for who runs Comcast, you definitely have the option to vote for the people that are involved in the decision-making process that grants those allowances to companies like Comcast. Sounds to me like the issue is government deciding who gets to be a monopoly. And that's why I said the proper course of action is to change the law/policies that are causing the problem.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#105

Post by walterstucco »

n4r9 wrote: post #102
lhorie wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if over-qualification in resumes plays a role. In the book Nickel and Dimed[1], the author explicitly hid the fact she had higher education even from colleagues. And whereas she complained a lot about working conditions, finding a job per se wasn't a challenge at all (to the point she could even decide between two options at one point), even being restricted to non-intensive labor jobs due to health reasons.…

Over-qualification definitely makes a difference. An employer will be reluctant to hire someone that's likely to snag a higher-paying job in a few weeks.

I think it's more subtle than that.

If you're over qualified for the job you're applying I'd be more inclined to think that you'll leave as soon as something better comes up.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#106

Post by gerbilly »

turc1656 wrote: post #104
gerbilly wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>because life isn't fair doesn't mean someone else should be able to vote themselves money from your wallet Except it happens all the time by unelected leaders of major corporations. For example, when there is no alternative to say Comcast in your neighbourhood and they can charge whatever they want and you need internet access for work, they are taxing you. And I don't know about you but I must have missed the elect…

Those regional monopolies you mention are granted legal rights to the physical property they use to obtain those monopolies. In the case of Comcast they have physical infrastructure that they were granted permission to place onto public and private land. While you may not get to vote for who runs Comcast, you definitely have the option to vote for the people that are involved in the decision-making process that grant…

>Sounds to me like the issue is government deciding who gets to be a monopoly.

That sounds great except in practical terms there's little that can be done.

Who cares if it's government to blame or the corporations, the problem remains the same.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#107

Post by pitaj »

conductr wrote: post #75
pfortuny wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read Dickens to get an idea of what human beings can “accept” to make a “living” for their families.

I think optionality is a key difference. In Dickens' day, every job was a factory job and they all sucked. I'm pretty sure Deliveroo riders have other min wage options if they disagree with how Deliveroo wants to run it's business. Not to say that I fully agree with Deliveroo's choices if they are represented correctly, but I do agree with their ability to make those choices

Yet more and more people kept moving into cities because the factory jobs that "all sucked" were better than subsistence farming.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#108

Post by pitaj »

roel_v wrote: post #4
kop316 wrote: post #2

Serious question: If the conditions are just that bad, why even bother to work for them? There seems to be some sort of equilibrium to me where if it gets bad enough, no one will simply want to do this job, and choose to take some other low paying job (e.g. retail, fast food, etc.).

That's true to a certain extent, but experience (19th century beginning-of-industrialization) has taught us that the floor (i.e., the equilibrium) is bad enough that we don't want that sort of circumstances. In other words, it turns out that people want to work to eat so badly that they'll put up with working 14-hour days and letting their 10 year old children work in factories that literally kill 10's of them per ye…

So which is better? People not eating, or people working in bad conditions?

Keep in mind that early industrialization was mainly subsistence farmers moving into cities to hugely improve their lives. Child labor was the norm, especially on farms, so children working in factories was an improvement. Do you think that accidents didn't happen to kids subsistence farming with their families or starving to death in central Europe?

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#109

Post by rorykoehler »

parliament32 wrote: post #55
rorykoehler wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me personally riding my bike around delivering food would be far preferable to working in a restaurant or bar. Depends on your personality I guess.

"Far preferable" enough that you'd settle for under minimum wage and a variable paycheque? If so, you are exactly the reason companies like Deliveroo exist. They appeal to the whole "but you'll be so free cruising around on your bike delivering food at your own pace!" mentality.

Yes still far preferable. The wage in a restaurant often comes out below minimum wage too anyways.

Re: Interview with Deliveroo couriers appealing bargaining-rights decision

#110

Post by lokedhs »

rorykoehler wrote: post #109
parliament32 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Far preferable" enough that you'd settle for under minimum wage and a variable paycheque? If so, you are exactly the reason companies like Deliveroo exist. They appeal to the whole "but you'll be so free cruising around on your bike delivering food at your own pace!" mentality.

Yes still far preferable. The wage in a restaurant often comes out below minimum wage too anyways.

Can you explain how a salary can come out below minimal wage? Isn't the point of the minimum that it's that, a minimum?
Post reply on HN