13 ms·

> Workers can opt in to earn extra money by making deliveries using their own cars. They’re assigned packages based on where they live so the route aligns with

• mikeash 9y ago
  Yeah, huge difference between "deliver this on your way home or your fired" and "if you want some extra money, deliver this on your way home." Not much difference between this and, say, LaserShip, aside from it being a small part of the overall job.
  • pyre 9y ago
    Well, where the rubber meets the road here is in whether or not there is an unspoken expectation that you need to do this, compensation or not. "Official" policy doesn't always reflect what gets implemented, and is sometimes just used as a way to legally CYA so that you can have your cake and eat it too.
    • mikeash 9y ago
      That's true for literally every aspect of every job, though, so it seems like a pointless thing to say unless there's some indication they're actually abusing this.
      • TeMPOraL 9y ago
        Not sure if it's pointless to point this out. The mechanism is pretty obvious, so the right question is: what (if any) measures will WallMart undertake so that this doesn't happen?
      • david927 9y ago
        We can create laws without an indication of previous abuse. We can regulate not just because we have indicators of abuse but because we can imagine potential abuse. We don't give toddlers handguns because our pre-frontal cortex allows us the foresight to see that it's a bad idea -- we don't need to actually wait and see if one toddler shoots another.
        • mikeash 9y ago
          Sure, but that only makes sense if there's a reason to anticipate unusual problems. Like, if Walmart was offering employees extra money to dispose of toxic waste or collect debts from delinquent customers or something, I'd see a huge potential for abuse and wouldn't consider it to be at all a good idea. Those things need special training and the potential for problems is high. But this is package delivery. It's a relatively unskilled, low-end job. Its abuse potential seems to be to be on the same level as the abuse potential of, say, lifting boxes, or stocking shelves, or mopping floors. "Walmart pays people to stock shelves" wouldn't get anyone up in arms, so why would this?
          • david927 9y ago
            Because this is "off-the-clock, off-site" work. It has the potential to be extended in a way that it much harder to quantify and regulate. My, and many others', biggest concern is that the workers at Wall-Mart often need their job for subsistence; it's often not a job that they feel they can say "no" to. So if this gets extended from "Do this only if you want to make some side money," to "Doing this greatly influences if you get to keep your job," there is a problem because it's no longer within their normal hourly wage limits and it's no longer in a set physical space. Do they want to go a different direction than than directly home -- say to go to their daughter's birthday party? Again, if it's elective, there's no problem but if it becomes coerced then Wall-Mart is directly exploiting that need to keep that job. In fact, I don't see how this is much of a win for the workers. I only see how Wall-Mart is leveraging its indentured workforce, including passing the risk on to them, to expand its profit base. This is late-stage capitalism, pure and simple.
            • 9y ago
      • pyre 9y ago
        I'm just stating that the real question about how good this will be or not will be what happens in practice. If not enough employees are volunteering for this, then entire program could end in failure. Will there be pressure to make this work from upper management? The opt-in nature of this from existing employees is what makes this suspect. The question is will Walmart use their current employment relationship with these people to try and coerce them into opting in. Hiring outside help from people that Walmart has no previous relationship with doesn't raise such questions. Walmart also doesn't have a great public image, so people are more likely to go over their actions with a fine-toothed comb.
        • mikeash 9y ago
          This again seems pointless to say. Of course it'll depend on how it works out in practice. That's true of every action by every company. So why are so many people complaining about this? Would you be happier if they just forced their employees to do it? Most job descriptions include a phrase like "and any other duties as required" and as long as they paid the employees and followed the relevant regulations it would be perfectly legal to do this.
          • heyheyhey 9y ago
            > This again seems pointless to say. Of course it'll depend on how it works out in practice. That's true of every action by every company. So why are so many people complaining about this? Agreed. At any job I've worked at, doing the bare minimum for awhile will probably get you fired; if you want to stand out or get a promotion, you're expected to do more than you're asked.
      • anigbrowl 9y ago
        Well, you could always look at the actual history of Walmart's employee relations and pay policies and make a guess.
    • differentView 9y ago
      Exactly! If part of middle management's evaluation is based on how many packages their underlings deliver, middle management will start hiring (or give more hours to) people they think are more likely to signup for this and cut (or reduce hours to) people that don't do this.
      • Pxtl 9y ago
        Particularly since I could imagine hiring staff based on their regular commutes. "Oh, you live in the Dundas neighborhood? We don't have any other employees from there". ... later ... "Wait, you don't want to do an after work delivery again? Dude, this is why we hired you."
    • EpicEng 9y ago
      When is that not true for any job ever? A lot of fear mongering before we even see how it works in practice.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • Fomite 9y ago
      "Not a team player"
  • draw_down 9y ago
    Depends to what degree they're asking, or telling.
  • ThrustVectoring 9y ago
    There's also the middle ground, where folks who happen to deliver things on their way home get more shifts (because otherwise, there aren't enough people to make the needed deliveries). They might be shorter shifts or split shifts, and wind up being an increase in underpaid hours.
  • Fraterkes 9y ago
    Needing money is its own kind of coercion, especially when being a walmart employee doesnt pay much.
    • mikeash 9y ago
      Doesn't this also apply to their normal duties? Are we also going to be upset about Walmart paying people to run the cash registers?
    • qmarchi 9y ago
      Over the last few years Walmart has been stepping up their game when it comes to paying associates. The minimum wage for Walmart is currently 10.50 and rising through next year. In some markets they do pay more for cost of living and such.
  • imatworkyo 9y ago
    Not so fast, what if Walmart lowers overall compensation in the future, what if Walmart's compensation is already overly low. Does that change your opinion on this extra incentive program?
    • mikeash 9y ago
      What if they offered overtime to workers who wanted extra money, or offered promotions to people who work particularly hard? Would you have the same dim view of these as you do of this package delivery thing? If they were able to cut wages in the future, surely they'd do it regardless.
      • anigbrowl 9y ago
        Serious question: would you like a job at Walmart? Do you feel attracted to the idea of working there? I could imagine working at Trader Joe's. Downside, running a supermarket is a very tedious and unrewarding job. Upside, you don't have to take your work home with you, I like their products and business model, and the firm treats its employees really well, in terms of both pay and conditions. People I've met socially who work there love their jobs, and it's a big reason I choose to shop there. On the other hand, I would have to be truly desperate to ever consider taking a job at Walmart. So yeah, everything you say is true in theory, but would you honestly want to work for Walmart in practice?
        • mikeash 9y ago
          Absolutely not. I refuse to even buy things there. But I see no reason to single out this particular detail out of this gigantic evil company. Of all the things to hate about Walmart, paying their workers to deliver packages would be pretty close to the bottom.
        • qmarchi 9y ago
          A clarification may be required for your question and should read > Would you honestly want to work for a Walmart Store in practice? I state that because the corporate level options are extremely lucrative. Walmart Tech holds many events, seminars, and speakers for associates to attend during work hours. Although, there is the annoying Walmart Chant...
  • megablast 9y ago
    True. Hey, you haven't been doing any home deliveries lately, is everything ok? Oh, well we have to reduce your shifts next week.
    • cat199 9y ago
      Sorry, cars broke. Can I get a paycheck advance to get the repairs done?
      • qmarchi 9y ago
        Actually, this is a (sort of) thing called "Associate In Critical Need" where associates (employees, but lingo) can request extra $$$ from Walmart for critical issues. Important Caveat though, you can only do it once in a lifetime.
• celticninja 9y ago
  Environmentally friendly too as the journey is being made anyway.
  • dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Environmentally friendly too as the journey is being made anyway. It's a financial incentive for employees not to use transit but instead personal autos to and from work in order to be available for such deliveries, so it's actually environmentally hostile.
    • xienze 9y ago
      Wal-Marts are typically in areas where public transit isn't appealing (or even exists in the first place) if you have the ability to drive a car.
      • anigbrowl 9y ago
        Tough titty for the employees who do rely on transit. No extra $ for them.
        • xienze 9y ago
          Well to hear it from HN readers, they're the lucky ones: they won't be exploited like their car-driving brethren.
          • anigbrowl 9y ago
            A specious mischaracterization of the arguments on display.
            • xienze 9y ago
              Is it? The arguments boil down to: * I bet this isn't really "optional" * I bet they're not going to get paid enough to make it worthwhile
• petra 9y ago
  Incentive: their hourly wages. Routes are selected to minimize extra time on commute. Up to 10 packages per person. Will get a navigational app. Source:https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/walmart-begins-testing-using-store-staff-for-last-mile-deliveries/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/walmart-begins-testing-usi...
  • ianai 9y ago
    So not only do I work for you, but you want me to install your custom app on my personal device, too? I can't imagine there are any privacy backdoors here at all. Definitely not when I'm required to give it location permissions for it to function. /s
    • petra 9y ago
      I see you don't work at Walmart. People there have more burning matters, like how to put food on the table. And you can block location requests(and the like) for the app, after work, Either with Android 6-7 or Lineage's privacy guard.
      • rsync 9y ago
        "And you can block location requests(and the like) for the app, after work, Either with Android 6-7 or Lineage's privacy guard." I see that you also do not work at walmart.
        • ianai 9y ago
          I'm sure technological side steps will result in termination one or another way.
      • Eerie 9y ago
        Or just turn off the GPS.
    • qmarchi 9y ago
      Disclosure: I work at Walmart Tech at the David Glass Building. I can say with absolute assurance that it does not.
• wyc 9y ago
  Agreed. I have the privilege to consider employee conditions very important. An honest "opt in" is not detrimental to that, but there's definitely potential for this to make it into the company's culture as a new job expectation. We should be looking out for that. On the whole, if employees are offered better options than the ones they have now, isn't that progress?
• leggomylibro 9y ago
  Ugh. I think that this sort of attitude (which was my initial reaction too) is a big part of what's wrong with our current economy. If you take the concept at face value, this is Walmart offering to let their employees make some extra money in exchange for a bit of extra work, once they've clocked out. What a nice company. But realistically, this is Walmart shunting the costs of delivery onto their employees. Instead of paying their employees a living wage, or offering benefits befitting a delivery driver, they can offset all of the risk, deprecation costs, etc associated with delivering a package all for the low cost of what amounts to a tiny raise in their existing payroll. Walmart chooses what they pay their associates, and what hours they get. So it's not really appropriate for them to start becoming arbiters of opportunities to make extra money "outside of work." This is shady as all hell.
  • ancap 9y ago
    Wow, way to take something that would be a win-win for Walmart, its employees and consumers and turn it into some dark scheme. >Instead of paying their employees a living wage Walmart (and any other employer) doesn't arbitrarily pick wages. They pay the market rate which is no more than the employee's marginal productivity. This is why Walmart was offering entry level employees $17+/hour in North Dakota during the height of the fracking boom.
    • x0x0 9y ago
      The market rate is unrelated to marginal productivity, unless you think North Dakota Walmart employees are twice as productive as Walmart employees elsewhere. Walmart is, in many markets, a big enough employer in the low skills employment marketplace to be a price setter not a price taker.
      • ancap 9y ago
        I think you misunderstood what I was saying. To state the same thing differently: They pay the market rate which is less than or equal to the employee's marginal productivity, or, an employer is not going to pay someone more than their marginal productivity. > unless you think North Dakota Walmart employees are twice as productive as Walmart employees elsewhere. No, not at all. Walmart was merely paying the market rate. It's important to recognize that at some point with fewer workers the per-employee marginal productivity increases--a kind of inverse way of talking about diminishing returns. You can be sure that the Walmart in North Dakota paying $17+/hour was not hiring nearly as many workers as a Walmart paying people $8/hour. EDIT: I want to add one more thing. Not only would the $17/hour Walmart not be hiring as many people as the $8/hour Walmart, but they're also going to have a lower over-all productivity rate unless the $17/hour workers had their labor complemented by additional technology. The cost of purchasing the additional technology is price prohibitive until labor costs rise.
• justforFranz 9y ago
  It's all fun & free-market capitalism until the employee gets into an accident and then who's liable, or if they go to some murderer/cannibal's house who was just ordering a late-night snack?
  • Houshalter 9y ago
    How is this different than any other delivery service in those aspects?
    • cat199 9y ago
      It's walmart, So obviously it is a totally different universe than the bourgeois internet tech startup reality I inhabit and therefore is scary and uncivilized and prone to a different set of rules.. the laws of the jungle.
• jonlucc 9y ago
  I think there's another problem with this. I recently was rear-ended while I was stopped at an intersection, and the second question my insurance company asked me is if the car was being used for commercial (ride-sharing) services then or at any time. I wasn't, but I assume this kind of delivery would be commercial use, and the cost to add this to your insurance would be way too expensive to make it worth it for the employees.
  • Glyptodon 9y ago
    I assume Walmart's going to have to carry car insurance for deliveries. It doesn't seem like there's any reasonable way they'd be able to "contractor loophole" it.
    • rectang 9y ago
      Per the TechCrunch article, workers need to submit proof-of-insurance to participate. The wear-and-tear is going on employee vehicles rather than company vehicles, the additional distance they travel will increase their personal insurance rates, and as with rideshare they will need to pay additional riders on their policies. (If they don't have the riders their policies will be canceled as soon as they make a claim!) These additional costs make the deal worse for employees and better for Walmart in ways which are hard for the workers to understand. But I guarantee you that Walmart has studied it to death and knows exactly what advantage it brings them!
      • SilasX 9y ago
        >Per the TechCrunch article, workers need to submit proof-of-insurance to participate. I assume that's because of "we only want people on this who are insurable drivers in good standing to begin with" and not because of "we expect your personal policy to cover this". >These additional costs make the deal worse for employees and better for Walmart in ways which are hard for the workers to understand. But I guarantee you that Walmart has studied it to death and knows exactly what advantage it brings them! Walmart isn't Uber. I suspect they're much more cautious about making sure the relevant risks have the appropriate insurance. I also suspect they'll pay for mileage, but will probably try to get away with some "estimated increase in commute" rather than paying for the full distance to delivery.
• rsync 9y ago
  "The headline makes it sound coercive but that actually sounds like an efficient use of time and energy (less big trucks on the road, less miles driven ..." I thought just the opposite, in terms of efficiency and miles driven, etc. My understanding is that Fedex and especially UPS trucks are very highly optimized for their work and for fuel efficiency and that their routes are also extremely optimized (for example, UPS truck routes almost never include a left turn). Meanwhile, J6P at walmart is driving an F350 diesel truck designed to tow 10k pounds of horse trailer[1][2] and is doing a stop and go mail route through his town that cannot possibly be as optimized as a UPS route. [1] Remember, you can never have too much truck. [2] The payments for which are almost the sole driver of the job in the first place, but I digress...
  • dlubarov 9y ago
    > My understanding is that Fedex and especially UPS trucks are very highly optimized for their work and for fuel efficiency and that their routes are also extremely optimized (for example, UPS truck routes almost never include a left turn). Apparently UPS trucks get around 10 mpg [1]. Not many consumer vehicles are that inefficient. I'd be surprised if UPS's ORION is better at route optimization than a consumer app like Google Maps. From UPS's own press, it sounds like ORION doesn't account for traffic at all [2]. Even if it did, Google has the most traffic data. I don't know whether Google Maps considers the cost of left turns, but if it did, it would likely factor it in as an extra cost in the optimization problem, rather than a crude "no left turns if possible" rule as ORION seems to use. [1] https://www.quora.com/How-many-miles-per-gallon-do-UPS-trucks-get https://www.quora.com/How-many-miles-per-gallon-do-UPS-truck... [2] https://compass.ups.com/ups-fleet-telematics-system/ https://compass.ups.com/ups-fleet-telematics-system/
    • PretzelFisch 9y ago
      not many consumer cars carry as much weight as a ups truck. I am not sure looking at their mpg tells the whole story.
      • revelation 9y ago
• RUG3Y 9y ago
  I worked at WalMart just out of high school. I totally would have done this.
• linkmotif 9y ago
  > as long as it made sense financially This is not likely. Highly recommend the part about being a Walmart employee in the book "Nickel and Dimed". As another commenter wrote, these guys are just offloading benefits and depreciation and other capital costs on employees who are already living in poverty. These guys are most literally evil.
• anigbrowl 9y ago
  I'm very interested to see what incentive they have for it. Which of course is omitted, so they get the free advertising for their new service but you are not troubled by any specifics that might shape your decision of whether or not to use it. I strongly suspect that workers will be given the opportunity to opt in...or find other employment.
• addicted 9y ago
  This is much better than Uber and the likes which don't make you employees and therefore don't cover anything other than the straight hourly payment. Unlike Uber, whose greatest contribution yet is allowing me to use an app to hail a black cab instead of a phone, this is actually a smart innovation that leverages the fact that employees actually drive home. If it was a startup I bet a bunch of critical comments would have been supportive instead.