MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Hmm, weird. When we canceled our AirBnB booking last week, they said they could only refund their fee and we'd have to ask the host directly for a refund.
Luckily our host was understandable and gave us a full refund without a lot of back and forth, but from our various 3-way correspondence it didn't seem like AirBnB could do the refund.
I randomly thought of Uber today and had a full-body gag reflex. That's another business that's probably not going to be there on the other side of this.
Not sure even AirBnB will suffer much since they're not the ones paying rents on all those properties.
Even before all this, Uber's unregulated taxicab business was getting squeezed by drivers demanding a livable wage and cities demanding actual regulations, with no real path to profitability. Their side businesses are doing better.
It is hard to see how airbnb is just a booking platform if they have the power to unilaterally cancel a booking though. It flies in the face of contracts and disputes being with property owners and not airbnb. Airbnb has occasionally chosen to compensate people for messed up situations but they have always had an air of "please dont stop using airbnb" and not "we admit fault/liability" to them, when I've had it happen.
I am very surprised they are able to do what they did here. I guess lawsuits will tell.
They can set a baseline cancellation policy and then let people be more strict. If their baseline goes to "cancel anytime" there's little the hosts can do except comply or bail out.
Not sure even AirBnB will suffer much since they're not the ones paying rents on all those properties.
Even before all this, Uber's unregulated taxicab business was getting squeezed by drivers demanding a livable wage and cities demanding actual regulations, with no real path to profitability. Their side businesses are doing better.
According to their earnings report in the last quarter of 2019, they were going to be profitable by the end of 2020, beating their earlier prediction of being profitable by the end of 2021. The virus has probably ended that projection, but they are still on the correct path to profitability according to their financial/forward looking statements.
Not sure even AirBnB will suffer much since they're not the ones paying rents on all those properties.
The big problem for Airbnb moving forward is that their gooseshit "defense" of their model has been revealed to be gooseshit. Dublin isn't the only city seeing increases in long-term rental stock as landlords return units to the market, desperate for revenue.
Also, the other fun thing to consider is that while the property managers might be talking a big game about lawsuits, operating a ghost hotel in violation of local laws is a very good way to have no grounds for damages.
A coalition of about 50 labor groups is asking congressional leaders to reject Uber Chief Executive Dara Khosrowshahi’s proposal for a new legal category that would allow the company to keep treating its workers as independent contractors while affording them partial employee benefits.
In a letter sent Wednesday, the organizations — which include the National Employment Law Project, AFL-CIO, Legal Aid Society, Rideshare Drivers United and Gig Workers Rising — argue these workers have been misclassified as contractors and the resulting lack of benefits has left them “uniquely vulnerable” to the coronavirus pandemic. The groups accuse Uber of “exploiting the moment to further strip protections from those on the front lines of the crisis.”
In a March 23 letter to President Trump, Khosrowshahi asked the government to create a new kind of worker designation that would combine the flexibility of being an independent contractor with some of the benefits and protections of being an employee. It’s the same proposal Uber and other on-demand service platform companies are advancing in a California ballot measure that, if approved by voters, would serve as an alternative to a new state labor law that makes it harder to treat workers as contractors.
This is gooseshit. We do not need "partial employees" - we need gig economy firms to accept that their employees are fucking employees.
A coalition of about 50 labor groups is asking congressional leaders to reject Uber Chief Executive Dara Khosrowshahi’s proposal for a new legal category that would allow the company to keep treating its workers as independent contractors while affording them partial employee benefits.
In a letter sent Wednesday, the organizations — which include the National Employment Law Project, AFL-CIO, Legal Aid Society, Rideshare Drivers United and Gig Workers Rising — argue these workers have been misclassified as contractors and the resulting lack of benefits has left them “uniquely vulnerable” to the coronavirus pandemic. The groups accuse Uber of “exploiting the moment to further strip protections from those on the front lines of the crisis.”
In a March 23 letter to President Trump, Khosrowshahi asked the government to create a new kind of worker designation that would combine the flexibility of being an independent contractor with some of the benefits and protections of being an employee. It’s the same proposal Uber and other on-demand service platform companies are advancing in a California ballot measure that, if approved by voters, would serve as an alternative to a new state labor law that makes it harder to treat workers as contractors.
This is gooseshit. We do not need "partial employees" - we need gig economy firms to accept that their employees are fucking employees.
In which we discover that a lot of "disruptive" business models can't actually function if they follow the actual law.
+17
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
If you make that classification, literally everyone will make their employees that classification and everyone will starve.
"Yes, that's the point."
Uber executives, probably.
Right, though the question persists that if everyone is being underpaid in the gig economy who will be buying the luxury of Uber products. The system demands mass use on order to stay on the right side of profitable. If only the very wealthy persist in this fashion, their cover won't work and the company will collapse, along with their CEO and shareholder packages.
The only way this sort of classification works is if Uber gets access to it, and no one else does.
While I am generally in favor of better labor protections and conditions, I really think people are discounting the actual negatives of Uber drivers being normal employees. There really is some not insignificant percentage of Uber drivers who do it because they can't manage a regular job with fixed hours. People doing it as a second job along another part time job, or need to work around providing child care, or whatever. Even as part time employees, I'm pretty sure it normally is more they tell you what hours to work.
The best solution really is unionization so that there is an institutional approach for drivers to work out what they generally want and then negotiate for those things.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
While I am generally in favor of better labor protections and conditions, I really think people are discounting the actual negatives of Uber drivers being normal employees. There really is some not insignificant percentage of Uber drivers who do it because they can't manage a regular job with fixed hours. People doing it as a second job along another part time job, or need to work around providing child care, or whatever. Even as part time employees, I'm pretty sure it normally is more they tell you what hours to work.
The best solution really is unionization so that there is an institutional approach for drivers to work out what they generally want and then negotiate for those things.
There are plenty of part time protected employment status options already on the books, Uber just doesn't want to pay them the benefits and salaries they would be required to.
Unless the argument is "well, what about the people already enthralled by Uber who, without it, they won't survive," which I don't think is what you are going for HamHamJ. But if it is, that's uncompelling to me even while I am very much aware of how terrible that would be for those folks. But at the same time, its essentially the "we can't end slavery because some slaves won't have anywhere to go." There will always be people who will end up worse off at the end of a predatory system, but we can plan for ways to mitigate that rather than consigning generation after generation to the same form of wage service and second-class employment status.
While I am generally in favor of better labor protections and conditions, I really think people are discounting the actual negatives of Uber drivers being normal employees. There really is some not insignificant percentage of Uber drivers who do it because they can't manage a regular job with fixed hours. People doing it as a second job along another part time job, or need to work around providing child care, or whatever. Even as part time employees, I'm pretty sure it normally is more they tell you what hours to work.
The best solution really is unionization so that there is an institutional approach for drivers to work out what they generally want and then negotiate for those things.
There are plenty of part time protected employment status options already on the books, Uber just doesn't want to pay them the benefits and salaries they would be required to.
Is it normal or even done at all with those kinds of employees to go "Show up whenever you want, as often or as rarely as you want"? Like, serious question because my assumption is that it is not.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
While I am generally in favor of better labor protections and conditions, I really think people are discounting the actual negatives of Uber drivers being normal employees. There really is some not insignificant percentage of Uber drivers who do it because they can't manage a regular job with fixed hours. People doing it as a second job along another part time job, or need to work around providing child care, or whatever. Even as part time employees, I'm pretty sure it normally is more they tell you what hours to work.
The best solution really is unionization so that there is an institutional approach for drivers to work out what they generally want and then negotiate for those things.
There are plenty of part time protected employment status options already on the books, Uber just doesn't want to pay them the benefits and salaries they would be required to.
Is it normal or even done at all with those kinds of employees to go "Show up whenever you want, as often or as rarely as you want"? Like, serious question because my assumption is that it is not.
Also, "you may switch between working for us or our primary competitors on a minute-to-minute basis, whenever you please?"
It really isn't really a clear employee relationship IMO, it's just not cleanly a traditional independent contractor relationship either.
I don't think creating a new "class" of employee that companies get to fuck raw is the solution, obviously. But saying that I do agree with you, this isn't as simple as some want it to be.
While I am generally in favor of better labor protections and conditions, I really think people are discounting the actual negatives of Uber drivers being normal employees. There really is some not insignificant percentage of Uber drivers who do it because they can't manage a regular job with fixed hours. People doing it as a second job along another part time job, or need to work around providing child care, or whatever. Even as part time employees, I'm pretty sure it normally is more they tell you what hours to work.
The best solution really is unionization so that there is an institutional approach for drivers to work out what they generally want and then negotiate for those things.
There are plenty of part time protected employment status options already on the books, Uber just doesn't want to pay them the benefits and salaries they would be required to.
Is it normal or even done at all with those kinds of employees to go "Show up whenever you want, as often or as rarely as you want"? Like, serious question because my assumption is that it is not.
I think it'd be close to some sales jobs - thinking more of the door to door kind. Or an agent working from home on commission.
While I am generally in favor of better labor protections and conditions, I really think people are discounting the actual negatives of Uber drivers being normal employees. There really is some not insignificant percentage of Uber drivers who do it because they can't manage a regular job with fixed hours. People doing it as a second job along another part time job, or need to work around providing child care, or whatever. Even as part time employees, I'm pretty sure it normally is more they tell you what hours to work.
The best solution really is unionization so that there is an institutional approach for drivers to work out what they generally want and then negotiate for those things.
There are plenty of part time protected employment status options already on the books, Uber just doesn't want to pay them the benefits and salaries they would be required to.
Is it normal or even done at all with those kinds of employees to go "Show up whenever you want, as often or as rarely as you want"? Like, serious question because my assumption is that it is not.
There is nothing in the traditional definition of employee that precludes this sort of model. The argument that defining Uber drivers as employees would preclude flexibility is purely a scare tactic.
While I am generally in favor of better labor protections and conditions, I really think people are discounting the actual negatives of Uber drivers being normal employees. There really is some not insignificant percentage of Uber drivers who do it because they can't manage a regular job with fixed hours. People doing it as a second job along another part time job, or need to work around providing child care, or whatever. Even as part time employees, I'm pretty sure it normally is more they tell you what hours to work.
The best solution really is unionization so that there is an institutional approach for drivers to work out what they generally want and then negotiate for those things.
There are plenty of part time protected employment status options already on the books, Uber just doesn't want to pay them the benefits and salaries they would be required to.
Is it normal or even done at all with those kinds of employees to go "Show up whenever you want, as often or as rarely as you want"? Like, serious question because my assumption is that it is not.
There is nothing in the traditional definition of employee that precludes this sort of model. The argument that defining Uber drivers as employees would preclude flexibility is purely a scare tactic.
Other than the facts. Like, at least part of the motivation of the way Uber is structured is to not have drivers as employees. Without that incentive, at lot of policies will seem much less appealing. If I'm paying unemployment insurance and a bunch of other benefits for an employee, I am not going to be okay with that employ only working once a month. At the very least you would almost certainly see much more stringent requirements on a minimum number of rides you need to do. If they are classified as employees anyway, why not require every driver to work peak times?
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
While I am generally in favor of better labor protections and conditions, I really think people are discounting the actual negatives of Uber drivers being normal employees. There really is some not insignificant percentage of Uber drivers who do it because they can't manage a regular job with fixed hours. People doing it as a second job along another part time job, or need to work around providing child care, or whatever. Even as part time employees, I'm pretty sure it normally is more they tell you what hours to work.
The best solution really is unionization so that there is an institutional approach for drivers to work out what they generally want and then negotiate for those things.
There are plenty of part time protected employment status options already on the books, Uber just doesn't want to pay them the benefits and salaries they would be required to.
Is it normal or even done at all with those kinds of employees to go "Show up whenever you want, as often or as rarely as you want"? Like, serious question because my assumption is that it is not.
There is nothing in the traditional definition of employee that precludes this sort of model. The argument that defining Uber drivers as employees would preclude flexibility is purely a scare tactic.
Other than the facts. Like, at least part of the motivation of the way Uber is structured is to not have drivers as employees. Without that incentive, at lot of policies will seem much less appealing. If I'm paying unemployment insurance and a bunch of other benefits for an employee, I am not going to be okay with that employ only working once a month. At the very least you would almost certainly see much more stringent requirements on a minimum number of rides you need to do. If they are classified as employees anyway, why not require every driver to work peak times?
You're pulling some amazing false equivalency here. It's really simple, if the people driving for Uber are employees then Uber is able to dictate their hours and methods of operation along with being required to pay benefits. If they are not employees, but independent contractors, then Uber doesn't do any of that.
The problem is Uber trying to have its cake and eat it by treating independent contractors like employees, but only in the ways that benefit the company while refusing to pay out their end of that bargain as mandated by labor law.
While I am generally in favor of better labor protections and conditions, I really think people are discounting the actual negatives of Uber drivers being normal employees. There really is some not insignificant percentage of Uber drivers who do it because they can't manage a regular job with fixed hours. People doing it as a second job along another part time job, or need to work around providing child care, or whatever. Even as part time employees, I'm pretty sure it normally is more they tell you what hours to work.
The best solution really is unionization so that there is an institutional approach for drivers to work out what they generally want and then negotiate for those things.
There are plenty of part time protected employment status options already on the books, Uber just doesn't want to pay them the benefits and salaries they would be required to.
Is it normal or even done at all with those kinds of employees to go "Show up whenever you want, as often or as rarely as you want"? Like, serious question because my assumption is that it is not.
There is nothing in the traditional definition of employee that precludes this sort of model. The argument that defining Uber drivers as employees would preclude flexibility is purely a scare tactic.
Other than the facts. Like, at least part of the motivation of the way Uber is structured is to not have drivers as employees. Without that incentive, at lot of policies will seem much less appealing. If I'm paying unemployment insurance and a bunch of other benefits for an employee, I am not going to be okay with that employ only working once a month. At the very least you would almost certainly see much more stringent requirements on a minimum number of rides you need to do. If they are classified as employees anyway, why not require every driver to work peak times?
Nothing you've said there counters my point, which is that from a legal standpoint, there is nothing precluding Uber from continuing with their model with their drivers classified as employees. All of the decisions that you are arguing are purely on your own head, not the law's.
While I am generally in favor of better labor protections and conditions, I really think people are discounting the actual negatives of Uber drivers being normal employees. There really is some not insignificant percentage of Uber drivers who do it because they can't manage a regular job with fixed hours. People doing it as a second job along another part time job, or need to work around providing child care, or whatever. Even as part time employees, I'm pretty sure it normally is more they tell you what hours to work.
The best solution really is unionization so that there is an institutional approach for drivers to work out what they generally want and then negotiate for those things.
There are plenty of part time protected employment status options already on the books, Uber just doesn't want to pay them the benefits and salaries they would be required to.
Is it normal or even done at all with those kinds of employees to go "Show up whenever you want, as often or as rarely as you want"? Like, serious question because my assumption is that it is not.
There is nothing in the traditional definition of employee that precludes this sort of model. The argument that defining Uber drivers as employees would preclude flexibility is purely a scare tactic.
Other than the facts. Like, at least part of the motivation of the way Uber is structured is to not have drivers as employees. Without that incentive, at lot of policies will seem much less appealing. If I'm paying unemployment insurance and a bunch of other benefits for an employee, I am not going to be okay with that employ only working once a month. At the very least you would almost certainly see much more stringent requirements on a minimum number of rides you need to do. If they are classified as employees anyway, why not require every driver to work peak times?
You're pulling some amazing false equivalency here. It's really simple, if the people driving for Uber are employees then Uber is able to dictate their hours and methods of operation along with being required to pay benefits. If they are not employees, but independent contractors, then Uber doesn't do any of that.
The problem is Uber trying to have its cake and eat it by treating independent contractors like employees, but only in the ways that benefit the company while refusing to pay out their end of that bargain as mandated by labor law.
Except they aren't actually trying to dictate their hours, amongst other things. And many uber drivers I believe would not want to have their hours dictated. So there is at least one way in which they are like contractors in a way that benefits workers.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Uber doesn't have to dictate the hours their drivers work if they are employees or contractors or even if they are some other new class of subhuman workers that Uber creates
If they were classified as employees, yes Uber would probably choose to dictate their hours, but that would be their choice
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited April 2020
Then you can be an independent contractor and decide your own hours.
While I am generally in favor of better labor protections and conditions, I really think people are discounting the actual negatives of Uber drivers being normal employees. There really is some not insignificant percentage of Uber drivers who do it because they can't manage a regular job with fixed hours. People doing it as a second job along another part time job, or need to work around providing child care, or whatever. Even as part time employees, I'm pretty sure it normally is more they tell you what hours to work.
The best solution really is unionization so that there is an institutional approach for drivers to work out what they generally want and then negotiate for those things.
There are plenty of part time protected employment status options already on the books, Uber just doesn't want to pay them the benefits and salaries they would be required to.
Is it normal or even done at all with those kinds of employees to go "Show up whenever you want, as often or as rarely as you want"? Like, serious question because my assumption is that it is not.
There is nothing in the traditional definition of employee that precludes this sort of model. The argument that defining Uber drivers as employees would preclude flexibility is purely a scare tactic.
Other than the facts. Like, at least part of the motivation of the way Uber is structured is to not have drivers as employees. Without that incentive, at lot of policies will seem much less appealing. If I'm paying unemployment insurance and a bunch of other benefits for an employee, I am not going to be okay with that employ only working once a month. At the very least you would almost certainly see much more stringent requirements on a minimum number of rides you need to do. If they are classified as employees anyway, why not require every driver to work peak times?
You're pulling some amazing false equivalency here. It's really simple, if the people driving for Uber are employees then Uber is able to dictate their hours and methods of operation along with being required to pay benefits. If they are not employees, but independent contractors, then Uber doesn't do any of that.
The problem is Uber trying to have its cake and eat it by treating independent contractors like employees, but only in the ways that benefit the company while refusing to pay out their end of that bargain as mandated by labor law.
Except they aren't actually trying to dictate their hours, amongst other things. And many uber drivers I believe would not want to have their hours dictated. So there is at least one way in which they are like contractors in a way that benefits workers.
If they are independent contractors then Uber also cannot force them to use their app, control the prices, control the route, have all the money come to them first, etc.
Except they do and that's the problem. The totality of control is heavily slanted to employee, not independent contractor
+19
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Right, if they want to control their own hours and be a contractor, they should get contractor benefits.
If they want to have UBER control everything, then they are employees.
The gray area, Hamham, is a false existence which allows UBER to abuse its workers, evade taxes, and damage community economies by getting all the perks of every side without ever paying the taxes and system for usage or fair wages for their contractors.
In late March, Instacart worker Annaliisa Arambula accepted a grocery order that came with a big tip: $55. The store was just down the street, everything the customer wanted was available, and the order seemed to go off without a hitch.
But an hour later, Arambula checked her earnings on the Instacart app and the entire tip was gone, with a message saying the "customer modified the tip post-delivery." She ended up making just $8.95 from Instacart on the order.
"I was flabbergasted. I couldn't believe it," Arambula told CNN Business.
First off, anyone who does this is utter scum. Second, Instacart is also to blame by allowing this. Allowing users to modify the tip after receipt is just asking for this abuse.
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Its horrible that people are doing that with this specific system, but being able to determine your tip after completion of service/delivery is the norm. The actual problems here are:
Instacart attracts its contractors to do work by having the estimated tip be the incentive, rather than instacart-generated demand incentives to go to places unserviced.
Instacart employees are only paid well for the time it takes to shop IF they get very high tips, and the actual hourly payment from instacart is nothing and doesn't include fuel and other delivery concerns.
That some people are shit human beings with tip economy is nothing new. But it isn't the actual problem with this service in this instance. Imagine if you put $55 tip and your groceries arrived battered and opened? You wouldn't give that tip in that circumstance. That isn't what is happening here, but that should be how the tip operates, as (worst case) incentive to do a good job on the delivery and not as the incentive to even take the call at all.
- have the estimated tip be the average tip that person has previously paid
- put a marker on new accounts so $55 (and no previous average) from a new account looks scummy
You're just opening the whole user rating can of worms thing that leads to fuckery over on Uber and that nobody wants to stage manage.
Really stop using the fucking word tip. Pre delivery tips should be "Instacart is exploiting you and I want to feel less bad" fee. Really though pre delivery tips shouldn't be alterable barring something that would cause a complaint to instacart even if the tip didn't exist.
You're just opening the whole user rating can of worms thing that leads to fuckery over on Uber and that nobody wants to stage manage.
Really stop using the fucking word tip. Pre delivery tips should be "Instacart is exploiting you and I want to feel less bad" fee. Really though pre delivery tips shouldn't be alterable barring something that would cause a complaint to instacart even if the tip didn't exist.
If the tip is kept, the onus should really be placed on the consumer at this point. It’s not perfect but if the system would work such that when someone orders, they have the option to tip pre delivery or post, doing it pre delivery is locked in and a risk assumed by the customer, and post delivery tip can be made/modified otherwise. It creates a gamble for the consumer if they tip prior to hope for better service but by and large that should occur, those working aren’t our there to actively screw the customer. They are the ones assuming the risk of going shopping, the least one could do is put it a non refundable incentive in return if they expect expedited service etc.
You're just opening the whole user rating can of worms thing that leads to fuckery over on Uber and that nobody wants to stage manage.
Really stop using the fucking word tip. Pre delivery tips should be "Instacart is exploiting you and I want to feel less bad" fee. Really though pre delivery tips shouldn't be alterable barring something that would cause a complaint to instacart even if the tip didn't exist.
If the tip is kept, the onus should really be placed on the consumer at this point. It’s not perfect but if the system would work such that when someone orders, they have the option to tip pre delivery or post, doing it pre delivery is locked in and a risk assumed by the customer, and post delivery tip can be made/modified otherwise. It creates a gamble for the consumer if they tip prior to hope for better service but by and large that should occur, those working aren’t our there to actively screw the customer. They are the ones assuming the risk of going shopping, the least one could do is put it a non refundable incentive in return if they expect expedited service etc.
I generally agree. Stuff like reducing an existing tip should be like "They never actually showed up" or "Threw groceries against wall" or other things that would result in complaints even if you hadn't tipped.
I think if you engage in a contract with an additional fee on top to incentivize folks to agree to the contract you should honor the contract.
You're just opening the whole user rating can of worms thing that leads to fuckery over on Uber and that nobody wants to stage manage.
Really stop using the fucking word tip. Pre delivery tips should be "Instacart is exploiting you and I want to feel less bad" fee. Really though pre delivery tips shouldn't be alterable barring something that would cause a complaint to instacart even if the tip didn't exist.
If the tip is kept, the onus should really be placed on the consumer at this point. It’s not perfect but if the system would work such that when someone orders, they have the option to tip pre delivery or post, doing it pre delivery is locked in and a risk assumed by the customer, and post delivery tip can be made/modified otherwise. It creates a gamble for the consumer if they tip prior to hope for better service but by and large that should occur, those working aren’t our there to actively screw the customer. They are the ones assuming the risk of going shopping, the least one could do is put it a non refundable incentive in return if they expect expedited service etc.
People that do this in general are massive scabby assholes, and they will look for any loophole in the system to get out of paying. If they offer a big predelivery tip, and are 'forced' into it, they'll call to complain afterwards that the delivery wasn't done well or placed right or was packed badly etc etc etc. The whole point will be to get a refund of the tip/delivery fees. People are already doing this with Uber drivers to avoid paying for rides if I'm not mistaken.
The only way to stop this is to make tips (pre-delivery) completely nonrefundable. But no one will do that, so this system will always be exploitable.
Steam - Synthetic Violence | XBOX Live - Cannonfuse | PSN - CastleBravo | Twitch - SoggybiscuitPA
In late March, Instacart worker Annaliisa Arambula accepted a grocery order that came with a big tip: $55. The store was just down the street, everything the customer wanted was available, and the order seemed to go off without a hitch.
But an hour later, Arambula checked her earnings on the Instacart app and the entire tip was gone, with a message saying the "customer modified the tip post-delivery." She ended up making just $8.95 from Instacart on the order.
"I was flabbergasted. I couldn't believe it," Arambula told CNN Business.
First off, anyone who does this is utter scum. Second, Instacart is also to blame by allowing this. Allowing users to modify the tip after receipt is just asking for this abuse.
I've tried out the meal delivery thing through Chipotle a few times now because they've been offering "free" delivery. Each time they put a tip for the driver front and center as part of the process and then add that amount to the total for checkout. The only weird part is that they give three options and three options only. The tip can be 10%, 15%, or 20%. That's it. And you can't change it to nothing, you can't round it for making the math easier, it's a flat out percentage of one of those three.
Given the above I kind of feel like if you're going to do the delivery business, then this would be a good way to do it.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
You're just opening the whole user rating can of worms thing that leads to fuckery over on Uber and that nobody wants to stage manage.
Really stop using the fucking word tip. Pre delivery tips should be "Instacart is exploiting you and I want to feel less bad" fee. Really though pre delivery tips shouldn't be alterable barring something that would cause a complaint to instacart even if the tip didn't exist.
If the tip is kept, the onus should really be placed on the consumer at this point. It’s not perfect but if the system would work such that when someone orders, they have the option to tip pre delivery or post, doing it pre delivery is locked in and a risk assumed by the customer, and post delivery tip can be made/modified otherwise. It creates a gamble for the consumer if they tip prior to hope for better service but by and large that should occur, those working aren’t our there to actively screw the customer. They are the ones assuming the risk of going shopping, the least one could do is put it a non refundable incentive in return if they expect expedited service etc.
People that do this in general are massive scabby assholes, and they will look for any loophole in the system to get out of paying. If they offer a big predelivery tip, and are 'forced' into it, they'll call to complain afterwards that the delivery wasn't done well or placed right or was packed badly etc etc etc. The whole point will be to get a refund of the tip/delivery fees. People are already doing this with Uber drivers to avoid paying for rides if I'm not mistaken.
The only way to stop this is to make tips (pre-delivery) completely nonrefundable. But no one will do that, so this system will always be exploitable.
Then you make them do that and limit the tip changes/refunds per month. Put onus of effort on the scummy people, not your workers. This is basic UX/CX
The funniest thing was how the Instacart guy in the article said "We removed the ability to select 0. They have to manually type it in so that should help mitigate this behavior."
The funniest thing was how the Instacart guy in the article said "We removed the ability to select 0. They have to manually type it in so that should help mitigate this behavior."
Just wow
TechBro Privilege, hoooooooooooo!
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Posts
Luckily our host was understandable and gave us a full refund without a lot of back and forth, but from our various 3-way correspondence it didn't seem like AirBnB could do the refund.
This was for Australia.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Not sure even AirBnB will suffer much since they're not the ones paying rents on all those properties.
Even before all this, Uber's unregulated taxicab business was getting squeezed by drivers demanding a livable wage and cities demanding actual regulations, with no real path to profitability. Their side businesses are doing better.
They can set a baseline cancellation policy and then let people be more strict. If their baseline goes to "cancel anytime" there's little the hosts can do except comply or bail out.
According to their earnings report in the last quarter of 2019, they were going to be profitable by the end of 2020, beating their earlier prediction of being profitable by the end of 2021. The virus has probably ended that projection, but they are still on the correct path to profitability according to their financial/forward looking statements.
The big problem for Airbnb moving forward is that their gooseshit "defense" of their model has been revealed to be gooseshit. Dublin isn't the only city seeing increases in long-term rental stock as landlords return units to the market, desperate for revenue.
This is gooseshit. We do not need "partial employees" - we need gig economy firms to accept that their employees are fucking employees.
"Yes, that's the point."
Uber executives, probably.
In which we discover that a lot of "disruptive" business models can't actually function if they follow the actual law.
Right, though the question persists that if everyone is being underpaid in the gig economy who will be buying the luxury of Uber products. The system demands mass use on order to stay on the right side of profitable. If only the very wealthy persist in this fashion, their cover won't work and the company will collapse, along with their CEO and shareholder packages.
The only way this sort of classification works is if Uber gets access to it, and no one else does.
The best solution really is unionization so that there is an institutional approach for drivers to work out what they generally want and then negotiate for those things.
There are plenty of part time protected employment status options already on the books, Uber just doesn't want to pay them the benefits and salaries they would be required to.
Unless the argument is "well, what about the people already enthralled by Uber who, without it, they won't survive," which I don't think is what you are going for HamHamJ. But if it is, that's uncompelling to me even while I am very much aware of how terrible that would be for those folks. But at the same time, its essentially the "we can't end slavery because some slaves won't have anywhere to go." There will always be people who will end up worse off at the end of a predatory system, but we can plan for ways to mitigate that rather than consigning generation after generation to the same form of wage service and second-class employment status.
Is it normal or even done at all with those kinds of employees to go "Show up whenever you want, as often or as rarely as you want"? Like, serious question because my assumption is that it is not.
Also, "you may switch between working for us or our primary competitors on a minute-to-minute basis, whenever you please?"
It really isn't really a clear employee relationship IMO, it's just not cleanly a traditional independent contractor relationship either.
I don't think creating a new "class" of employee that companies get to fuck raw is the solution, obviously. But saying that I do agree with you, this isn't as simple as some want it to be.
I think it'd be close to some sales jobs - thinking more of the door to door kind. Or an agent working from home on commission.
There is nothing in the traditional definition of employee that precludes this sort of model. The argument that defining Uber drivers as employees would preclude flexibility is purely a scare tactic.
Other than the facts. Like, at least part of the motivation of the way Uber is structured is to not have drivers as employees. Without that incentive, at lot of policies will seem much less appealing. If I'm paying unemployment insurance and a bunch of other benefits for an employee, I am not going to be okay with that employ only working once a month. At the very least you would almost certainly see much more stringent requirements on a minimum number of rides you need to do. If they are classified as employees anyway, why not require every driver to work peak times?
You're pulling some amazing false equivalency here. It's really simple, if the people driving for Uber are employees then Uber is able to dictate their hours and methods of operation along with being required to pay benefits. If they are not employees, but independent contractors, then Uber doesn't do any of that.
The problem is Uber trying to have its cake and eat it by treating independent contractors like employees, but only in the ways that benefit the company while refusing to pay out their end of that bargain as mandated by labor law.
Nothing you've said there counters my point, which is that from a legal standpoint, there is nothing precluding Uber from continuing with their model with their drivers classified as employees. All of the decisions that you are arguing are purely on your own head, not the law's.
Except they aren't actually trying to dictate their hours, amongst other things. And many uber drivers I believe would not want to have their hours dictated. So there is at least one way in which they are like contractors in a way that benefits workers.
If they were classified as employees, yes Uber would probably choose to dictate their hours, but that would be their choice
If they are independent contractors then Uber also cannot force them to use their app, control the prices, control the route, have all the money come to them first, etc.
Except they do and that's the problem. The totality of control is heavily slanted to employee, not independent contractor
If they want to have UBER control everything, then they are employees.
The gray area, Hamham, is a false existence which allows UBER to abuse its workers, evade taxes, and damage community economies by getting all the perks of every side without ever paying the taxes and system for usage or fair wages for their contractors.
First off, anyone who does this is utter scum. Second, Instacart is also to blame by allowing this. Allowing users to modify the tip after receipt is just asking for this abuse.
That some people are shit human beings with tip economy is nothing new. But it isn't the actual problem with this service in this instance. Imagine if you put $55 tip and your groceries arrived battered and opened? You wouldn't give that tip in that circumstance. That isn't what is happening here, but that should be how the tip operates, as (worst case) incentive to do a good job on the delivery and not as the incentive to even take the call at all.
- put a marker on new accounts so $55 (and no previous average) from a new account looks scummy
Problem solved?
Really stop using the fucking word tip. Pre delivery tips should be "Instacart is exploiting you and I want to feel less bad" fee. Really though pre delivery tips shouldn't be alterable barring something that would cause a complaint to instacart even if the tip didn't exist.
If the tip is kept, the onus should really be placed on the consumer at this point. It’s not perfect but if the system would work such that when someone orders, they have the option to tip pre delivery or post, doing it pre delivery is locked in and a risk assumed by the customer, and post delivery tip can be made/modified otherwise. It creates a gamble for the consumer if they tip prior to hope for better service but by and large that should occur, those working aren’t our there to actively screw the customer. They are the ones assuming the risk of going shopping, the least one could do is put it a non refundable incentive in return if they expect expedited service etc.
I generally agree. Stuff like reducing an existing tip should be like "They never actually showed up" or "Threw groceries against wall" or other things that would result in complaints even if you hadn't tipped.
I think if you engage in a contract with an additional fee on top to incentivize folks to agree to the contract you should honor the contract.
People that do this in general are massive scabby assholes, and they will look for any loophole in the system to get out of paying. If they offer a big predelivery tip, and are 'forced' into it, they'll call to complain afterwards that the delivery wasn't done well or placed right or was packed badly etc etc etc. The whole point will be to get a refund of the tip/delivery fees. People are already doing this with Uber drivers to avoid paying for rides if I'm not mistaken.
The only way to stop this is to make tips (pre-delivery) completely nonrefundable. But no one will do that, so this system will always be exploitable.
I've tried out the meal delivery thing through Chipotle a few times now because they've been offering "free" delivery. Each time they put a tip for the driver front and center as part of the process and then add that amount to the total for checkout. The only weird part is that they give three options and three options only. The tip can be 10%, 15%, or 20%. That's it. And you can't change it to nothing, you can't round it for making the math easier, it's a flat out percentage of one of those three.
Given the above I kind of feel like if you're going to do the delivery business, then this would be a good way to do it.
Then you make them do that and limit the tip changes/refunds per month. Put onus of effort on the scummy people, not your workers. This is basic UX/CX
Just wow
TechBro Privilege, hoooooooooooo!