Comment by constantcrying
1 year ago
Gig workers are a genuine and serious regression in workers rights and employer vs. employee power balance. These "jobs" should not be allowed to exist, at all.
Tech companies have figured out a way to subvert the protections all other employees are subject to. I see absolutely no reason why they should be allowed to do this.
I really do not understand why governments aren't working hard to make this kind of gig-economy illegal.
This is true. it also hurts the public, as the drivers are dependent on the number of deliveries the succeed making, thus hurrying up and constantly stressed. This hurts not only their health and quality of delivery, but also increases the risk for traffic accidents.
It is in the best of interest of everyone that these people would get a normal salary.
Have you seen the discourse about this on social media? People are furious that the price of delivered food has gone up recently. They're not going to vote for increased prices. That and heavy astroturf campaigns by the middlemen guarantee that this situation will remain.
And so long as there's more cheap workers available who can easily be replaced, it's hard for the workers to do anything about it.
>heavy astroturf campaigns by the middlemen guarantee that this situation will remain
Paying attention to California Prop 22 in 2020 shook me to my core in a way that I haven't been able to properly express. The money put into swaying public opinion for that was staggering. It makes me fearful for the future ahead of us.
> People are furious that the price of delivered food has gone up recently
If I was confident that increase was mostly going to the driver, I'd be fine with it.
I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with the gig economy model - it's a way of working that suits some workers and clients. But the balance of power needs to be shifted towards the workers (and clients) and away from the platforms.
I think this article is spot on. Platforms obfuscate their algorithms, and use that secrecy to play workers off against each other, and against their clients. Regulation would really help. There ought to be a right to...
1. An official explanation for each decision the algorithm makes. That could then be used as the basis for mandatory arbitration, if a party believes it's unfair.
2. Effective, and timely support from a human being, if that's required.
Together those would force the platforms to make their systems fairer (else be swamped by dealing with arbitration decisions), and easy to navigate (else be swamped by costly support calls).
I hope I'm not nitpicking semantics, but I believe part of the solution is in the discourse is to specify platform owners as the greedy actors here. E.g.:
>The balance of power needs to be shifted towards the workers (and clients) and away from the platform owners. >Platform owners obfuscate their algorithms, and use that secrecy to play workers off against each other
The platforms themselves are just code and capital, while actual human beings are leveraging them to implement this awful neo-taylorism on their workers. It would be like my grandfather being mad at "the factory" for horrible working conditions, rather than the shitty owner of the factory.
> Platforms obfuscate their algorithms, and use that secrecy to play workers off against each other, and against their clients.
Yeah, the secrecy is--if not evil on its own--a key component that allows evil (and maybe unlawful) things to occur.
A similar critique can be applied to content-moderation, where "security through obscurity" makes no sense because the whole point is to foster clear rules people can internalize and an authority they can trust.
As long as they get tips, they will continue to speed.
See: pizza delivery people for decades.
That makes it sound like too much of the responsibility is on drivers.
The history of pizza-delivery itself provides a sharp contrast: Domino's Pizza had a "30 minutes or less" guarantee during the 1980s and grew enormously from it, until a 1993 lawsuit over the accidents/deaths forced them to stop.
That systemic issue didn't come from delivery drivers, it was a top-down policy from the employer.
In CA at least, Uber effectively bought the protection through an effective ad campaign to pass by popular vote an effectively unrecoverable law to protect themselves.
Voters have no agency? Kind of a dim view on democratic processes.
Voters are heavily influenced by propaganda. If they weren't, then there wouldn't be advertising.
Convince me that voters, at large, have agency.
Ad spend and marketing reach is a great predictor or election outcomes.
This last US election really lowered my optimism about the democratic process.
2 replies →
Functional democracy is much more than just "everyone casts a vote"
You tell the truth. That said, every other special interest already had a carve out from the authors of the bill. Uber/Doordash/Lyft just wanted the same special treatment.
I voted against the proposition but I also understood why Californian consumers would vote for it.
I recently learned that a courier in Panama can earn around $1,400 a month. Yes, you likely have to work six days a week, but that's well above the average salary in the country.
I'm not sure how the sentiment is in developed countries like the US and the UK. Still, here in Latin America, this presents an opportunity for poorer communities to provide dinner for a family.
In most of the western world the sentiment is that basic worker rights are a necessary element of social stability. And that just because a job "presents an opportunity for poorer communities to provide dinner for a family" it should not be excluded from receiving basic labor protections.
> basic worker rights are a necessary element of social stability
That's the argument for the owners of capital - give them rights so that you can have social stability. The argument for most people is that rights are universal, and it is fair, just, and essential for workers to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc.
2 replies →
I’m not arguing that it’s an unnecessary element. Rather, I don’t agree with the original statement that the government should shut down the services.
How did you learn that? Did someone tell you or is there something we can read? I appreciate you mentioning it, I just want to know more about it. Thanks.
I’m investing in EM startups. Talked to the founder of the leading food delivery company there.
Will try to visit the country in March and share some notes in public web
[dead]
Because it provides an extremely convenient service that has made life better for most people? People seem to forgot that this class of job used to not exist in our lifetimes. Was it better to be a low-skill worker on the job market in 2010 when these apps didn't exist?
If there are specific labor violations you think are taking place, the appropriate remedy is regulation, not banning.
>Was it better to be a low-skill worker on the job market in 2010 when these apps didn't exist?
If you had a job certainly. Basically any job is superior, as you actually do have some rights.
>If there are specific labor violations you think are taking place, the appropriate remedy is regulation, not banning.
The whole concept is a violation of labor laws. Every aspect is bad.
I don't know enough about it, but a general statement like "every aspect is bad" isn't helpful if I wanted to learn more. Do you have some specific issues?
2 replies →
> I really do not understand why governments aren't working hard to make this kind of gig-economy illegal.
Because there's a large number of people who take the writings of Ayan Rand and the policies of Ronald Regan as the best way to run government.
Workers' rights are being eroded because we've slowly dismantled and privatized as much of the government as possible.
Workers' rights are incompatible with small government and or libertarian ideals. Much like other rights such as civil rights. Or rights to clean water, air, and food.
Big government isn't perfect, but for its flaws there are benefits having a large organization with a bigger stick to beat in line robber barons whose entire goal is to undermine rights as much as possible to leach maximum profit from society.
>Because there's a large number of people who take the writings of Ayan Rand and the policies of Ronald Regan as the best way to run government.
Are these people currently running e.g. the UK?
Well first off, yes for a very long time the party in charge of the UK was the Tories from 2010 all the way up to 2024.
But further, the current prime minister of the UK got there by and large by abandoning Labour party positions in favor of explicitly supporting nothing. Starmer literally used Margret Thatcher, the UK equivalent of Regan, as an example of an excellent prime minister. Starmer is very much the UK equivalent of Bill Clinton, a conservative leader of the historically "progressive" party.
Starmer has been in power all of 7 months now.
4 replies →
The best thing for the people is hard, actual systematic competition where the ruling class lifes in constant fear.
I disagree. We've had 40+ years where that's been the central thesis of both Democrats and Republicans in the US and where has that led us?
Some industries and functions are most efficiently ran by a single government body. Competing in those sorts of constrained markets only tends to create single monopolistic companies. That's because it's either too expensive for a competitor to enter, or other factors force competitors out.
For example, we aren't going to see new private jail companies.
But even in places where there is stiff competition, the incentives of the business owners is not to make the lives of their employees or the services good. It's to make them profitable. A good example of this is senior care facilities. Often understaffed, overcrowded, and overpriced. Another is what's happening with real estate right now. Rent prices have shot up everywhere not because of a lack of competition, but because of collusion of the landlords through pricing systems like yeildstar.
An important role of government is to step in and solve for these injustices. Something or government has completely shirked because of dumb quips like Regan's "the scariest phrase is 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" or Clinton's "The era a big government is over".
This is why I don’t complain much about airlines (except their mergers)
> I really do not understand why governments aren't working hard to make this kind of gig-economy illegal.
It makes money and the current governing/legal doctrine says the government should give a lot of leeway to that. Biden has been touted as the most pro-labor president since about LBJ, but a lot of this is just letting the NLRB mediate every individual starbucks that unionized.
Not sure if Uber Eats falls under gig work (think so) but I'm glad to have it, I can just turn it on and go. Granted in my case it's not my only job. I usually get $20/hr I know I'm destroying my own car in the process, get in a car crash I'm on my own. But again it's extra money on demand.
I thought you were covered by Uber's car insurance when you were on their clock?
I would not think/expect that. There is even a commercial insurance you're supposed to have vs. regular
The other thing is the instant pay out, being on a bi-weekly pay schedule and unfortunately living check to check, being able to get money the same day as I worked is nice.
Why someone other than me and my employers should decide whether my job is allowed to exist?
You only get to say this if you stake the strong libertarian claim that it's impossible to exploit adults. Make sure you're okay with the most extreme exploitation.
e.g. Why should anyone else get between a literally starving person and an employer asking to sign a contract of lifetime servitude?
Imo contracts should be non-binding
Sign a contract, break a contract, let next contractors decide whether you can be trusted
For high responsibility jobs use either reputation or deposit
Gig workers are a perfect example of how inhumanly ruthless our capitalistic overlords are.
>These "jobs" should not be allowed to exist, at all.
Piece work is nothing new in the economic landscape of history. I'm not saying I absolutely defend it or think it shouldn't be subject to some sorts of protective rules for workers, but you saying it shouldn't exist at all begs the question of what exactly these many, many workers should do instead to make extra, necessary money instead.
If you're of a mind to answer, don't mention something from some neat ideal you have in your mind, describe something practical and accessible in the real world of the present, right now, that could replace their gig wages under existing market dynamics.
It's easy to dislike something and say it should be made to go away, but it helps to know how that will affect those who depend on it, and also to ask what they think of its disappearance in their practical lives.
>but you saying it shouldn't exist at all begs the question of what exactly these many, many workers should do instead to make extra, necessary money instead.
The exact same thing they are doing now, except as employees.
I do not think this is some utopian vision. Worker rights are a very real thing in other low skill jobs.
> The exact same thing they are doing now, except as employees.
except that's
> that could replace their gig wages under existing market dynamics.
so this job will not exist. The wages and costs required to have such a large fleet of employees, not all of whom is constantly employed and productive, but is costing money, will remove this role completely. Or, the number of them will necessarily be reduced, so that timely deliveries would be harder.
2 replies →
[dead]