Some Instacart workers to strike over pay that can be as low as $1 per hour(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Some Instacart workers to strike over pay that can be as low as $1 per hour
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/some-instacart-workers-to-strike-over-pay-that-can-be-as-low-as-1-per-hour/
131 comments
> I had tipped her. $20. She showed me her phone with the app on our order. DoorDash told her we had tipped her $6
This is why I almost always tip in Cash. I hand it to the person, in person.
San Francisco's Indian Restaurants (Indian here, and I go to the Indian restaurants here all the time, that's how I know) are notorious for not passing on any of the tips left on the card to the waitstaff, and some even don't give them the cash that's left in a counter tip jar.
I'd previously mentioned this situation on HN and someone told me that I could complain to some Labor organization that will investigate the Restaurant. Anyone have any experience doing this?
This is why I almost always tip in Cash. I hand it to the person, in person.
San Francisco's Indian Restaurants (Indian here, and I go to the Indian restaurants here all the time, that's how I know) are notorious for not passing on any of the tips left on the card to the waitstaff, and some even don't give them the cash that's left in a counter tip jar.
I'd previously mentioned this situation on HN and someone told me that I could complain to some Labor organization that will investigate the Restaurant. Anyone have any experience doing this?
tl;dr: it's wage theft.
I don't have experience doing it, but both of these cases are highly, highly frowned upon and likely to get quick resolution if a complaint is made to the Department of Labor.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/05/legal-for-your...
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/should-supervisor-sh...
I don't have experience doing it, but both of these cases are highly, highly frowned upon and likely to get quick resolution if a complaint is made to the Department of Labor.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/05/legal-for-your...
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/should-supervisor-sh...
Thanks! I'll give this a try!
Seriously!? I go to Indian restaurants in SF all the time and I've only ever paid by card. Do the waiters get to keep the tip if you give it to them with cash?
> Do the waiters get to keep the tip if you give it to them with cash?
In most Indian & Pakistani places, yes. There are some exceptions.
The owner of Raavi on Jackson St takes the cash tips placed in the Tip Jar at closing (so the waiters don't get it even if it's cash). The owners of Little Delhi on Eddy St near the Westfields Mall take all the cash tips for themselves and don't allow the waitstaff to take cash from the patron. I tried giving it to the girl and she said they are not allowed to accept it. So I don't leave anything on card or cash when I eat at Little Delhi.
I feel bad exposing these guys cos the owners are good friends, but this is just plain wrong.
This is the reason I give cash, in person, to the person. Only way to ensure 100% that waitress or waiter gets the $. When I tried that at Little Delhi, the girl said "We are not allowed to take cash" and that's when I found out that the owner eat all the credit card tips, and cash tips placed inside the bill / check folder.
In most Indian & Pakistani places, yes. There are some exceptions.
The owner of Raavi on Jackson St takes the cash tips placed in the Tip Jar at closing (so the waiters don't get it even if it's cash). The owners of Little Delhi on Eddy St near the Westfields Mall take all the cash tips for themselves and don't allow the waitstaff to take cash from the patron. I tried giving it to the girl and she said they are not allowed to accept it. So I don't leave anything on card or cash when I eat at Little Delhi.
I feel bad exposing these guys cos the owners are good friends, but this is just plain wrong.
This is the reason I give cash, in person, to the person. Only way to ensure 100% that waitress or waiter gets the $. When I tried that at Little Delhi, the girl said "We are not allowed to take cash" and that's when I found out that the owner eat all the credit card tips, and cash tips placed inside the bill / check folder.
I frequent Little Delhi the most out of all the Indian places I go to. Sad to hear this.
[deleted]
HEY ITS OP HERE:
I don’t see an edit option so I’ll say here. This comment got a lot of attention so I should clarify. Some are saying this should be a huge story, it’s illegal in CA (where this occurred) etc.
I’m not sure how the DoorDash app works from the Dasher’s perspective, so I was taking her word that the tip was $6. Also I was incorrect on my tip amount - it was 20% which was $14.21 (the order was $92.00 including fees and tip). She did show me an amount under $10 ($6 or $7?) as her pay for this task. She did have to wait for a while at the restaurant because their food was not ready in time, and I was under the impression that the figure she showed me was her total compensation for the delivery. If she in fact received my $14 after as some are suggesting that would be an improvement. She said she was somewhat new to DoorDash so there could have been a misunderstanding, but she was under the impression they had been stiffing her on previous nights as well, so I’m not sure it’s a simple case of her not knowing she would be tipped more later.
Is anyone else here a Dasher who would be willing to confirm tip amounts with some customers? You do enter the tip in to the app before finalizing the order, so they will know.
I don’t see an edit option so I’ll say here. This comment got a lot of attention so I should clarify. Some are saying this should be a huge story, it’s illegal in CA (where this occurred) etc.
I’m not sure how the DoorDash app works from the Dasher’s perspective, so I was taking her word that the tip was $6. Also I was incorrect on my tip amount - it was 20% which was $14.21 (the order was $92.00 including fees and tip). She did show me an amount under $10 ($6 or $7?) as her pay for this task. She did have to wait for a while at the restaurant because their food was not ready in time, and I was under the impression that the figure she showed me was her total compensation for the delivery. If she in fact received my $14 after as some are suggesting that would be an improvement. She said she was somewhat new to DoorDash so there could have been a misunderstanding, but she was under the impression they had been stiffing her on previous nights as well, so I’m not sure it’s a simple case of her not knowing she would be tipped more later.
Is anyone else here a Dasher who would be willing to confirm tip amounts with some customers? You do enter the tip in to the app before finalizing the order, so they will know.
That seems weird, since I would expect to have seen something about that in the NYT, WSJ, or at least TechCrunch. I did some quick Googling and according to the DoorDash Reddit, your tips are only shown to you at the end of the shift and they are grouped together so you can't tell how much each person tipped you: https://www.reddit.com/r/doordash/comments/6dkjjw/tip_questi...
Are you sure you weren't just looking at the $6 delivery fee and your tip would be added later?
Are you sure you weren't just looking at the $6 delivery fee and your tip would be added later?
Your story is a great reminder to why tipping is pointless (among many other reasons, such as [1]) If you do decide to tip, you should hand the person you want to have the money cash -- that's the only way you can be for sure they're gonna get it.
[1] http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/27/
[1] http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/27/
Cultural thing: I tip the pizza guy €2. Because it IS a tip. He still gets his hourly wage from Domino's. Also its still mostly kids doing that job.
As I understand it in the US tips have replaced standard payment.
I'm sure the gig economy will drive my country into the gutter sooner or later though. Can't stop progress.
As I understand it in the US tips have replaced standard payment.
I'm sure the gig economy will drive my country into the gutter sooner or later though. Can't stop progress.
That would however mean the delivery person will believe you intend to tip zero until you actually do. Not discussing whether it is right or not, but I assume that could affect the received service.
Given that the vast majority of situations in which you tip (notably waiters, waitresses and other staff) result in the tip being given after service, and not before, I'm OK with that.
Absolutely, but there is one main difference: in those scenarios you do not communicate the tipping beforehand. A more similar scenario would be to go to a restaurant, annouce that you will pay no tip, and then when you leave change your mind.
The delivery person will be able to see your intentions of tipping zero, as nothing else is communicated.
The delivery person will be able to see your intentions of tipping zero, as nothing else is communicated.
Huh? It's very common to tip delivery people in cash. I remember not that long ago when there wasn't even another option -- you'd order the phone and then pay in cash (including tip) when the delivery driver arrived.
In those scenarios you do not communicate the tipping beforehand. This time the delivery person can see that you intend to tip zero, until you prove that wrong by actually tipping.
4sure.
The psychopaths are running the show now. I don't use any of these nonsense delivery apps.
VC money can't make up for their weak numbers and incompetence. They gotta push up revenue in other ways.
The delivery business is wildly unprofitable and just runs on VC money. As soon as this economic cycle is all over they'll probably all be out of business.
Ya, there is this ridiculous notion that, like Uber, you can just subsidize until they've run everyone else out of the market.
But in reality, if Uber or door dash or whoever take over their respective markets and then back up prices, people will stop using them just as quickly as they started and smaller, cheaper competitors will pop right back up.
You don't exactly need a multi-million dollar war chest to start delivering food.
But in reality, if Uber or door dash or whoever take over their respective markets and then back up prices, people will stop using them just as quickly as they started and smaller, cheaper competitors will pop right back up.
You don't exactly need a multi-million dollar war chest to start delivering food.
Unless they find an economy of scale solution, like driverless or automated deliveries that have huge upfront costs but once achieved leaves you with a dominant position for decades.
Call me crazy, but when I use one of these services, I expect the service to be reflected in the price.
I often wonder what uplift the U.S. economy gets because consumers are lured by an initial low price that doesn't include service fees, taxes, gratuities, etc. It's like an accepted form of bait-and-switch, which is a proven tactic that increases sales.
I'm sure it has some effect but it's certainly diminished by the fact that everyone is aware of the markup and it's the same everywhere.
Great questions that behavioral economics studies.
The answer is that the perceived utility varies on how you perceive the price. This is why an item tagged 10U$S looks less interesting than the item tagged -20U$S- 50% off. The latter looks more valuable to our brain on anchoring, but there really isn't an objective difference. Thus , even though as a user you know the discounts are bs, you still prefer to see the discount thing.
Gratuities have the added complexity that people will tip differently on personal preference. I am one of those that dislike tips. I come from a country where tips are relatively low,and I find the tipping amounts in the U.S. borderline offensive. Are waiters supposed to get 20% of the restaurants revenue in tips? But, its like price differentiation: it allows the same recipients to pay more.
I wish it didn't have to be this way, but if a business does get more money with these systems, they should do it, and if people are willing to pay more money with these setups they will tend to pay for it.
The answer is that the perceived utility varies on how you perceive the price. This is why an item tagged 10U$S looks less interesting than the item tagged -20U$S- 50% off. The latter looks more valuable to our brain on anchoring, but there really isn't an objective difference. Thus , even though as a user you know the discounts are bs, you still prefer to see the discount thing.
Gratuities have the added complexity that people will tip differently on personal preference. I am one of those that dislike tips. I come from a country where tips are relatively low,and I find the tipping amounts in the U.S. borderline offensive. Are waiters supposed to get 20% of the restaurants revenue in tips? But, its like price differentiation: it allows the same recipients to pay more.
I wish it didn't have to be this way, but if a business does get more money with these systems, they should do it, and if people are willing to pay more money with these setups they will tend to pay for it.
The worst part is the effort required to see your actual price. Especially if it requires creating an account for a new service.
Thought experiment: what would happen if tipping was made illegal?
Would restaurants go out of business because they couldn't pay their servers enough because their patrons weren't willing to pay when the actual cost of dishes was made explicit on the menu?
Or would restaurants ditch table service?
Or would waiters settle for a new lower wage?
Would restaurants go out of business because they couldn't pay their servers enough because their patrons weren't willing to pay when the actual cost of dishes was made explicit on the menu?
Or would restaurants ditch table service?
Or would waiters settle for a new lower wage?
Many countries have no-tipping cultures. Generally, more eateries are takeout or otherwise self-serve outside of the USA - not because of the tipping, but because of the hellishly low wage servers are paid before tips, allowing American restaurants to effectively pay servers peanuts when business is slow.
Other first world countries' servers are more expensive, and so less plentiful.
Other first world countries' servers are more expensive, and so less plentiful.
It doesn't have to be a thought experiment : just travel to pretty much any other country in the world besides the USA. Surprise: people are running restaurants, not going broke, and waiters are paid for their time like most other workers.
What usually happens is that restaurants institute an across the board 18% service charge on all receipts. That covers tips for all the staff.
There are a couple restaurants that have had good success with this.
There are a couple restaurants that have had good success with this.
There are, but at the same time there are restaurants that have had a lot of trouble with this approach because it raises the perceived price of the restaurant. It really seems damned-if-you-do.
Sure, if only some restaurants in an area do this. But what if they all did it?
I'm not trying to jump on you, but I rarely find "what if"-inging collective action problems to be a particularly useful mode of thinking.
"What if"--but they won't, so perturb not those electrons and stick to the real, yeah?
"What if"--but they won't, so perturb not those electrons and stick to the real, yeah?
You are missing the point. Changing the law forces all restaurants to play by those rules. If only a handful of restaurants decide to pay livable wages and therefore raise their prices then their competitors will be cheaper. So we know this doesn’t work well. But if minimum wage rises for all restaurants then they will all be on a level playing field. That was the “what if” I was referring to.
Let me give you another example. If one or two car dealerships decide they don’t want to be open on Sundays then their competitors will get that business. So everyone is forced to be open both days to be competitive. But what if all dealers were closed on Sunday? Well, in that case consumers would be forced to do all their car shopping on a Saturday and nobody would lose any business. So this is exactly what happened in Texas. The dealers lobbied to make sure car dealerships can only be open one day per weekend (either Saturday or Sunday, but in practice they all chose Saturday to be open). So that’s the value of asking “what if”.
Let me give you another example. If one or two car dealerships decide they don’t want to be open on Sundays then their competitors will get that business. So everyone is forced to be open both days to be competitive. But what if all dealers were closed on Sunday? Well, in that case consumers would be forced to do all their car shopping on a Saturday and nobody would lose any business. So this is exactly what happened in Texas. The dealers lobbied to make sure car dealerships can only be open one day per weekend (either Saturday or Sunday, but in practice they all chose Saturday to be open). So that’s the value of asking “what if”.
That's not crazy, it sounds like a convenient way for you to justify stiffing all the people these apps help you exploit.
I get tipping at restaurants: it’s an old habit that nobody really wants to try hard to change. There, of course, is no reason for us to build this stupid, old idea into a brand new platform
The reason tipping keeps popping up in new markets (like Uber/Lyft/Instacart/Doordash) is largely the same reason it's so hard to get rid of in existing industries: it allows businesses to advertise lower prices and lets customers actually pay those lower prices if they're willing to take the relatively minimal and sometimes even completely negligible social cost of not tipping.
Just look at how it went with Uber. Uber didn't want tipping to be part of the experience, but they kept lowering driver wages until drivers needed tips to survive and started rating down passengers who didn't offer cash tips. When the problem started becoming severe, they could have solved it by just upping driver wages. Instead, they kept fares impossibly low but added tipping into the app.
Just look at how it went with Uber. Uber didn't want tipping to be part of the experience, but they kept lowering driver wages until drivers needed tips to survive and started rating down passengers who didn't offer cash tips. When the problem started becoming severe, they could have solved it by just upping driver wages. Instead, they kept fares impossibly low but added tipping into the app.
Ok, fine, i'll play along. What is a reasonable tip?
Instacart wants me to tip 20%, so that's $40 on a $200 grocery order to carry my groceries 3 miles.
I have no idea what's appropriate, but that seems outrageous.
Instacart wants me to tip 20%, so that's $40 on a $200 grocery order to carry my groceries 3 miles.
I have no idea what's appropriate, but that seems outrageous.
While that would be ideal, I do think it’s at least slightly crazy to truly expect that people delivering food are not somewhat depending on tips to make it work. That’s just how it goes in the real world!
This certainly isn't how it goes outside of the US. Why should delivering food suddenly change this vs say driving a truck or car share?
I’m not at all suggesting that it should be the way it is. Instacart only operates in the US though, so I figured it was safe to take that as the context.
It doesn't have to go that way if we (all of us, customers and employees alike) refuse to accept that it should go that way.
I agree. I was pointing out that if this commenter “expects” the employee is adequately compensated by the price paid to the company for the service, they are mistaken. I don’t think relying on the individual discretion of each customer to willingly part with extra cash for you should be the foundation of a whole job’s viability. But currently, it is.
Either start a campaign or you're seriously busy being disingenuous.
Seems really odd that they make you send a tip before the food gets to you - my understanding of tips is that they are supposed to reflect and encourage the level of service you received - if you pay them before you were served, they don't really do much. Not a fan of them either way, but this seems even more pointless than normal.
Unfortunately, Amazon Prime Now does the same. Tips are simply becoming "hidden fees".
i am unsure where you are located but that is definitely illegal in california:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_tipsandgratuities.htm
if anyone does use the service.. definitely point the individual in the direction of the dlse
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_tipsandgratuities.htm
if anyone does use the service.. definitely point the individual in the direction of the dlse
Playing devils advocate (and not defending doordash in any way): Could the tip be shared potentially with the people preparing the orders and the delivery person?
That is really screwed up. That is basically Fraud on the part of DoorDash
This is very upsetting, and contradicting with their FAQ: http://dasherhelp.doordash.com/new-dasher-pay-model-faq/
In the case of Instacart, I already gave up on them. They make too many shopping decisions on your behalf. Like ring your phone, and claim "they called you", and pick replacements themselves.
I would like to know if GrubHub steals from the tip jar as well.
In the case of Instacart, I already gave up on them. They make too many shopping decisions on your behalf. Like ring your phone, and claim "they called you", and pick replacements themselves.
I would like to know if GrubHub steals from the tip jar as well.
Wow, that sounds very illegal
Doordash for whatever reason just deactivated my account. No warning, no explanation. Just deactivated. Sorry, but your service isn't worth my time to try to re-activate. Bye!
May I ask which state you reside in?
CA - Bay Area
You should consider reporting this to both the California Labor Commissioner (Dept of Industrial Relations) and the IRS, both would be extremely interested in this especially if this is DoorDash's standard procedure.
I've used the service a few times in the past and probably will again, but I'm going to start asking the drivers how much they got as a tip and will definitely report any discrepancies.
The website specifically says 100% goes to the delivery person ("Dasher Tip (100% for your Dasher)") so I don't think they can weasel out of that by saying the tips are pooled or any of that other nonsense.
I've used the service a few times in the past and probably will again, but I'm going to start asking the drivers how much they got as a tip and will definitely report any discrepancies.
The website specifically says 100% goes to the delivery person ("Dasher Tip (100% for your Dasher)") so I don't think they can weasel out of that by saying the tips are pooled or any of that other nonsense.
ya this is so illegal I doubt it's true
Corporations have been doing egregiously illegal things since the dawn of time.
This is terrible. The app definitely says, "100% goes to your dasher".
If that's the case then I'd be surprised if it weren't classed as fraud.
That is appalling. A pox on the businesspersons at DoorDash.
smh. So, that's how some get rich.
Charge higher price, but pay workers less.
Switch to cheaper ingredients with lower price, but pass only a small portion of the saving to the customers.
Charge higher price, but pay workers less.
Switch to cheaper ingredients with lower price, but pass only a small portion of the saving to the customers.
If this correct I will never order from DD and I will ensure anyone I know does not either.
The gig economy is always going to be more volatile than full-time work. This is why grocery stores had not already hired full time drivers to deliver groceries, and why there is demand for Instacart.
It's the same with Uber. During a rainy day rush-hour there are rarely any medallion cabs available, so Uber created a way to get transportation on those days (surge pricing) that incentiveizes drivers to work during those times.
So normal (expected) peaks and troughs in utilization result in a price signal that reflects demand on a much more granular time scale than simply a full time or part time worker with a schedule planned months in advance.
There are two ways to solve this, and Instacart and Uber are both following the approach that is more economically sound -- pass the actual price signals to would-be workers, so that they can self-select in an optimizing way.
Nearly ever Uber driver I talk to is very pleased to be able to make the money on his/her terms, even if it's not great money, or if it's not as good as it used to be.
If we create an old-fashioned, industrial-era labor market overlay for the gig economy, all we'll accomplish is taking away some good employment options for those who need them most.
All of the "perks" of the industrial-era labor movement are geared at a specific labor/employer dynamic. Uber and Instacart are shifting that dynamic and doing the work of matching supply and demand to make work available that was not available before.
We must adjust our view of what a "good" and "fair" job is, when we consider that without the matching mechanism these jobs would not exist. Let's not kill them off just because someone exploited a loophole about ordering massive size cases of water.
Ultimately I think the ideal version of "uber for everything" is a worker-owned cooperative, but until VC gets tired of helping to prove out the model, such cooperatives are at a disadvantage. That is a temporary disadvantage. Let's not hamstring the cooperatives before they can even launch!
It's the same with Uber. During a rainy day rush-hour there are rarely any medallion cabs available, so Uber created a way to get transportation on those days (surge pricing) that incentiveizes drivers to work during those times.
So normal (expected) peaks and troughs in utilization result in a price signal that reflects demand on a much more granular time scale than simply a full time or part time worker with a schedule planned months in advance.
There are two ways to solve this, and Instacart and Uber are both following the approach that is more economically sound -- pass the actual price signals to would-be workers, so that they can self-select in an optimizing way.
Nearly ever Uber driver I talk to is very pleased to be able to make the money on his/her terms, even if it's not great money, or if it's not as good as it used to be.
If we create an old-fashioned, industrial-era labor market overlay for the gig economy, all we'll accomplish is taking away some good employment options for those who need them most.
All of the "perks" of the industrial-era labor movement are geared at a specific labor/employer dynamic. Uber and Instacart are shifting that dynamic and doing the work of matching supply and demand to make work available that was not available before.
We must adjust our view of what a "good" and "fair" job is, when we consider that without the matching mechanism these jobs would not exist. Let's not kill them off just because someone exploited a loophole about ordering massive size cases of water.
Ultimately I think the ideal version of "uber for everything" is a worker-owned cooperative, but until VC gets tired of helping to prove out the model, such cooperatives are at a disadvantage. That is a temporary disadvantage. Let's not hamstring the cooperatives before they can even launch!
One of the lessons of Austin's temporary Uber/Lyft kick out was that very quickly worker run ride sharing emerged to serve the need.
I've used those services. They were buggy and broken to the point where I frequently ended up walking in the rain because I couldn't get a ride.
This shows basic economics
is right again. Division of labour makes the economy more productive and society more prosperous. The investor/worker roles are such a division of labour.
Or it just shows that apps need some time to stabilize. The early versions of VC-funded apps are not always great either, to say the least.
Both are true.
Except Uber/Lyft are back in Austin, and that worker run ride share didn't work.
Sure it did. People still use it.
> The gig economy is always going to be more volatile than full-time work.
This is not an excuse to short-change the people doing the labor.
I can't repeat this enough.
This is not an excuse to short-change the people doing the labor.
I can't repeat this enough.
> I can't repeat this enough.
How are they being short-changed? If someone makes $10 per hour some of the time, $8 on average, with some "hours" amounting to $1 per hour, why is that a) unfair or b) a problem, assuming the average wage is itself fair and the worker wants to continue doing the job?
From a labor power standpoint, gig economy firms are significantly weaker than industrial firms. Most Uber drivers have the Lyft app running at the same time, and soon enough they might have several more running (including one that is from a worker-run cooperative).
So gig economy firms have very little market power over employees. They simply offer infrastructure for matching supply and demand and take a bit of profit in the process.
The only way for gig economy firms to succeed is via employee loyalty. There has been some indication that they are competing for loyalty, but I think so far it's mostly just funneling VC money into financial incentives, not long-term loyalty.
How are they being short-changed? If someone makes $10 per hour some of the time, $8 on average, with some "hours" amounting to $1 per hour, why is that a) unfair or b) a problem, assuming the average wage is itself fair and the worker wants to continue doing the job?
From a labor power standpoint, gig economy firms are significantly weaker than industrial firms. Most Uber drivers have the Lyft app running at the same time, and soon enough they might have several more running (including one that is from a worker-run cooperative).
So gig economy firms have very little market power over employees. They simply offer infrastructure for matching supply and demand and take a bit of profit in the process.
The only way for gig economy firms to succeed is via employee loyalty. There has been some indication that they are competing for loyalty, but I think so far it's mostly just funneling VC money into financial incentives, not long-term loyalty.
It’s amazing the degree to which “our business model is treating people like garbage by way of tech” has become a justification in and of itself.
Back in the old days, when we actually manufactured clothing in this country, there was this concept of "piece work". You weren't paid by the hour, but instead by your work output. E.g. if you were performing some sewing step on a blouse, such as adding buttons, you might be paid $0.25 per blouse for that work step.
Of course employers tried to cheat, by setting the per-piece rate very low. You had to process many pieces to get a reasonable wage.
The Federal government was forced to step in. They required monitoring of all this activity so that "all employees, including piece work employees, earn at least the minimum wage."[1]
If only the people running the sweatshops in the old days thought to call their people "contractors" instead of "employees". They could have avoided most of the pesky regulation.
I'm being sarcastic. Clearly those people were employees under any reasonable definition. Same should apply here. This whole gig economy crap has gotten totally out of hand.
Fundamentally, an Instacart worker only has flexibility of when to work. The rest is more-or-less predetermined. Should that person be a contractor instead of an employee because he has his choice of the order in which to traverse the supermarket aisles? Should that person be a contractor because he has his choice of which streets to drive on from store to destination?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Minimum_wage
Of course employers tried to cheat, by setting the per-piece rate very low. You had to process many pieces to get a reasonable wage.
The Federal government was forced to step in. They required monitoring of all this activity so that "all employees, including piece work employees, earn at least the minimum wage."[1]
If only the people running the sweatshops in the old days thought to call their people "contractors" instead of "employees". They could have avoided most of the pesky regulation.
I'm being sarcastic. Clearly those people were employees under any reasonable definition. Same should apply here. This whole gig economy crap has gotten totally out of hand.
Fundamentally, an Instacart worker only has flexibility of when to work. The rest is more-or-less predetermined. Should that person be a contractor instead of an employee because he has his choice of the order in which to traverse the supermarket aisles? Should that person be a contractor because he has his choice of which streets to drive on from store to destination?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Minimum_wage
It’s precisely BECAUSE the law hasn’t caught up that most of these exist the way that they do at all. Instacart, Postmates, Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, etc. all make profit on the gap between what they pay and what the regulated equivalent pays. Their big competitive advantage is just lower costs by completely ignoring the law. We talk about “innovation” but then these services mostly operate on not paying employees, insurance, benefits, licensing, etc.
If I stop paying taxes and declare my consultancy a religion does that make my innovative? I’m instantly 40% more profitable than the next guy. You can “donate” via a mobile app too! It’s not a payment, it’s a donation. Please note the donation must be as it states on the invoic... err, donation services document.
If I stop paying taxes and declare my consultancy a religion does that make my innovative? I’m instantly 40% more profitable than the next guy. You can “donate” via a mobile app too! It’s not a payment, it’s a donation. Please note the donation must be as it states on the invoic... err, donation services document.
if the government really care of it's citizen, they should do it directly, by providing low cost/free basic necessity or basic income, etc. This way their citizen is not "forced" to work with these company you deemed "exploitative"
Basic income has to come from somewhere.
Being forced to work i.e. be productive is very psychologically important.
Now being forced to be a slave is a different story.
What needs to happen here is for the government to step in when I crime is being committed. I.e. an employee is being paid less than promised.
Being forced to work i.e. be productive is very psychologically important.
Now being forced to be a slave is a different story.
What needs to happen here is for the government to step in when I crime is being committed. I.e. an employee is being paid less than promised.
[deleted]
With respect to Uber, the user experience is far better than a taxi cab. I would pay taxi cab prices for its level of service.
> Their big competitive advantage is just lower costs by completely ignoring the law
This is disingenuous. Uber started out with Uber Black, which was attractive because of its customer service. UberX was only launched in response to Lyft. Airbnb skirted some necessary hotel laws, and many unnecessary ones. Agree on Postmates and other delivery services.
This is disingenuous. Uber started out with Uber Black, which was attractive because of its customer service. UberX was only launched in response to Lyft. Airbnb skirted some necessary hotel laws, and many unnecessary ones. Agree on Postmates and other delivery services.
All of them ignored the law. If Uber was just Uber Black you might have a point.
> If Uber was just Uber Black you might have a point
Uber launched Uber Black, and not UberX, because it was convinced a ride-sharing service would be shut down by authorities. When Lyft failed to be shut down, Uber panicked and responded. Next to this ambiguity are several cities' track records of racist, horrible cab drivers fully embracing their state-sponsored monopolies.
Uber launched Uber Black, and not UberX, because it was convinced a ride-sharing service would be shut down by authorities. When Lyft failed to be shut down, Uber panicked and responded. Next to this ambiguity are several cities' track records of racist, horrible cab drivers fully embracing their state-sponsored monopolies.
Instacart pay depends entirely on where you work. My brother works for them in SF/SV and earns around $2k/week with wages and tips. For someone with zero skills or job training otherwise it's a pretty sweet deal. Plus you end up with a car load of free groceries to take home whenever the system screws up an order.
$96k a year delivering on Instacart?
2k / week * 52 weeks = 104k
Thanks, was thinking there might be some vacation, days they don't work.
Tough to live on in SF.
Wow, I'm really saying that.
Wow, I'm really saying that.
Tough to raise a family on in SF -- it's an absurdly livable wage if you're willing to rent a room.
Presumably, you can live down south or in east bay.
> Instacart pay depends entirely on where you work. My brother works for them in SF/SV and earns around $2k/week with wages and tips. For someone with zero skills or job training otherwise it's a pretty sweet deal. Plus you end up with a car load of free groceries to take home whenever the system screws up an order.
Funny how we were hearing these stories about Uber as well a few years ago, where people online were pretending some drivers became millionaire working for Uber. We now know none of this was true.
Funny how we were hearing these stories about Uber as well a few years ago, where people online were pretending some drivers became millionaire working for Uber. We now know none of this was true.
[deleted]
Does that account for depreciation, maintenance, and fuel for his car?
This isn't innovation, it is exploitation. Where are the state attorneys' general on this? Injured hauling a 600-lb order of sugar and cooking oil -- it's absurd the company does not carry workers' comp insurance for this. In the real world not carrying workers' comp insurance is very serious business.
This is going to go like Napster, we'll find a better way when it is gone.
This is going to go like Napster, we'll find a better way when it is gone.
But they can opt out of any order they don't want to fulfill, right? Who would choose to fulfill that crazy order for the price on offer?
It might just be my opinion bit I think that the individual right to refuse is never enough protection. Especially in employment where preying on people who can't afford to say no seems to be the norm.
> Some shoppers have taken to individually showing their customers how to remove the fee ("Do you want to know how to save 10 percent?") and pay their shopper directly via tip instead.
This -- just remove the parasites. If you, as an insta-serf, can tell your customer that "the retail price is $X, you're being charged $Y, and I'm being paid $Z," you can become a true "independent contractor" by cutting InstaSerf, Inc. out of the equation. If the difference is greater than zero, split it.
This -- just remove the parasites. If you, as an insta-serf, can tell your customer that "the retail price is $X, you're being charged $Y, and I'm being paid $Z," you can become a true "independent contractor" by cutting InstaSerf, Inc. out of the equation. If the difference is greater than zero, split it.
Is this corporate greed or is the value of unskilled labor quickly approaching zero?
In the US, the price of unskilled labour has been deliberately driven down by decades of non-enforcement of immigration laws. Even a year after the election of a President who was supposed to deal with this issue there's been very little action.
In Australia we have control of our borders and the price of unskilled labour is more respectable.
In Australia we have control of our borders and the price of unskilled labour is more respectable.
Orly?
NYT: Workers Lured to Australia Find Low Pay and Tough Conditions
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/world/australia/temporary...
NYT: Workers Lured to Australia Find Low Pay and Tough Conditions
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/world/australia/temporary...
I think the value of unskilled, marginal time spent is effectively zero at times where the utilization is approaching zero.
What I think this demonstrates is that the issue is very uneven demand. An analogy might be the electric company, which at some points of the day is literally seeing net negative demand in areas with enough renewable generation. They have power plants that can run any time, though, whereas gig workers cannot always pick and choose when they work.
What I think this demonstrates is that the issue is very uneven demand. An analogy might be the electric company, which at some points of the day is literally seeing net negative demand in areas with enough renewable generation. They have power plants that can run any time, though, whereas gig workers cannot always pick and choose when they work.
[deleted]
The latter. They are apparently able to find people to work for them at these wages.
The goal of the corporation is to have systems so easy to use that all labor can be unskilled. It depowers the workforce as literally ever laborer is fungible.
> Instacart has agreed to pay at least several million dollars to settle the lawsuits, which will result in a typical settlement payout of a few hundred dollars per worker. The attorneys who brought the lawsuits, by contrast, stand to make millions.
This seems like an unnecessary and out-of-context dig at lawyers. Also, the citation provided doesn't square with the claim: the settlement they linked to allowed total damages of $2 million, and capped the attorney's fees at 25%, so the maximum payout is half a million.
This seems like an unnecessary and out-of-context dig at lawyers. Also, the citation provided doesn't square with the claim: the settlement they linked to allowed total damages of $2 million, and capped the attorney's fees at 25%, so the maximum payout is half a million.
I get the sentiment that there are some lawsuits where the only people making real money are the lawyers but I think it's weird that it reflects on the them and not the system that pays out so little to injured classes. For a case like this it's easy to rack up a million dollars in billable hours.
The stories about large Bay-area tech companies placing enormous orders through Instacart are pretty appalling.
Ironically enough this wouldn't be an issue almost anywhere outside the US, where online groceries shopping was solved by the supermarkets themselves in the early 2000s. Despite employee benefits, minimum wages, collective bargaining and all that.
Well, at least in my country, their websites suck, and you can't guarantee delivery other than "sometime in the afternoon", meaning if you're on a tight schedule you're stuck.
If you do use Instacart, you should definitely opt-out of the "service fee" at checkout and put that money towards the tip directly for your shopper.
I've said this before, but I think a key component of contractors' rights going forward will be legislating their employers' ability to "lock them in" with loyalty programs and the like.
In this case, a large part of the issue seems to be certain orders from people (and companies) that have found loopholes in the pricing (bulk orders of large, heavy goods).
If contractors could decline these orders with no repercussions, they wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue. Instacart would fail to deliver these orders and quickly learn they need to change their pricing structure.
The argument could be made that you can go too far in giving contractors the right to decline. I can imagine various forms of extortion occurring or problems being unable to blacklist problematic contractors, but it's a tradeoff that seems to be too far in the company's favour right now. Maybe disincentiving contract work in service-critical environments is a good thing, considering the complaints about rising part time and contracted work and not enough full time work.
In this case, a large part of the issue seems to be certain orders from people (and companies) that have found loopholes in the pricing (bulk orders of large, heavy goods).
If contractors could decline these orders with no repercussions, they wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue. Instacart would fail to deliver these orders and quickly learn they need to change their pricing structure.
The argument could be made that you can go too far in giving contractors the right to decline. I can imagine various forms of extortion occurring or problems being unable to blacklist problematic contractors, but it's a tradeoff that seems to be too far in the company's favour right now. Maybe disincentiving contract work in service-critical environments is a good thing, considering the complaints about rising part time and contracted work and not enough full time work.
Of all the delivery services out there Amazon Restaurants/ Food Delivery is the only one that pays right. There's a fixed hourly rate of about $16 that you receive whether you make a delivery or not. Any tip that you receive if you make a delivery at some point in time gets added.
All the rest give you a pittance, some even based on mileage. Its a pity!
All the rest give you a pittance, some even based on mileage. Its a pity!
The obvious 'fair' thing for instacart would be something along the lines of paying per item with weight taken in to account.
Every packaged item has a barcode that you can look up to see the weight.
...but of course, that would make the commercial delivery services viable competitors to instacart on big orders right? Can't have that.
Every packaged item has a barcode that you can look up to see the weight.
...but of course, that would make the commercial delivery services viable competitors to instacart on big orders right? Can't have that.
What I don't understand is if the pay or working conditions are so bad, why don't people just go find a new job?
If they can't get anyone to do the job, they will be forced to pay more or fix the conditions. If they have a terrible reputation, nobody will want to work for them.
It's simple supply and demand.
If they can't get anyone to do the job, they will be forced to pay more or fix the conditions. If they have a terrible reputation, nobody will want to work for them.
It's simple supply and demand.
Maybe the average pay is $15/hour. We are not given enough data to estimate whether striking is rational.
It boggles me that anyone believes this. It's called leverage. Not everyone has equal ability, nor equal ability to change jobs for a variety of reasons.
So what do you think happens to those people if by a requirment on minimum income by instacart, they are barred from that job opportunity.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Because finding a low skill job is pretty hard. Not everyone has the luxury of choice.
I've never seen this to be the case that finding a low skill job is hard. In my area tons of people refuse to work but all kinds of places are constantly hiring like restaurants, etc. Many may require passing a drug screen though which it seems most people aren't able to do.
If you think a restaurant is a low-skill job, you're wrong. It takes an assload of memorization, dealing with highly specialized systems, and its hell on the body as well. You have an incredibly high expected output, and you're not given much guidance either. The pay isn't worth the effort in the least, because its seen as "low-skill" or similar.
In my pricey metro area, there are many such "low-skill" jobs advertised in restaurant windows. (Side note: can we use another qualifier? Restaurant jobs in fact require quite a bit of skill - social awareness, customer service, observational, strategic time management, etc. Maybe it's not programming, but it's not really data entry either.) These jobs, even while paying $15 an hour, remain unfilled because there's nowhere within a 2 hour commute that an adult can rent a room and have money left over for food & life on that wage.
Just strap on their job helmet and go down to jobland.
The answer is simple game theory. For a situation where corporations are forced to fix conditions, there has to be a significant large scale reduction in supply, which is an implementation nightmare. Unless that happens, one person quitting a job in protest is just an opportunity for another.
Oh come on, you want people to be RESPONSIBLE? Inconceivable!
Most people have a herd mentality and it's very hard to get out of it, especially with the huge amount of propaganda telling everyone that everything is someone else's fault. Disgusting.
Most people have a herd mentality and it's very hard to get out of it, especially with the huge amount of propaganda telling everyone that everything is someone else's fault. Disgusting.
> Ars spoke with six Instacart shoppers who said that they have routinely been made to pick up several heavy items, such as cases of bottled water, soda, or ice.
In Bangalore, I routinely see people from not only grocery delivery companies, Big Basket but food delivery like Freshmenu carrying huge carry bags with god knows how many items. Couple of times I have seen people struggle to get up the stairs with that much weight on their backs. And those are not contractors but employees.
I am sure few years later, we will need a study of back or some orthopedic problems associated with "shoppers".
In Bangalore, I routinely see people from not only grocery delivery companies, Big Basket but food delivery like Freshmenu carrying huge carry bags with god knows how many items. Couple of times I have seen people struggle to get up the stairs with that much weight on their backs. And those are not contractors but employees.
I am sure few years later, we will need a study of back or some orthopedic problems associated with "shoppers".
The app gave me a price for the order and then had a line item called “Dasher Tip” and asked me how much I wanted to put down. I put in $20.
Later when the woman arrived with the food, we stopped to talk for a minute. She was a little younger than my mom, and said she had just started working for the service after her husband died.
She asked me if she could ask me an awkward question, but I said okay. She wanted to know how much I had tipped her. $20.
She showed me her phone with the app on our order. DoorDash told her we had tipped her $6, which she thought was suspiciously low (we ordered $90 in food).
TL;DR: DoorDash presented me with an optional field called “Dasher Tip”, which I wasn’t sure of but assumed this was the Tip for the woman bringing us the food. I paid $20 for this “tip” but only $6 made it to the woman (whose husband had died). Incidentally I offered her a cash tip but she refused - she said I had already paid it and it should come from DoorDash.
Last night my friends wanted to order food again. I called it in to the restaurant and we picked it up. I don’t want to use DoorDash anymore.