4 ms·

I'm curious. After the initial matchup, what stops these "independent contractors" and dog owners from cutting out the middleman (Wag/ Rover)?

petra 8y ago
A contract, probably.
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  Ah, but as these companies are always so quick to remind us, their workers are contractors, not employees. Which here reveals itself as a double-edged sword: it lets you save lots of money on those pesky benefits and workers' rights, but it means you have no ability to prevent them from cutting you out and getting a better deal by going directly to the customer. As someone who loathes the startup tendency to misclassify employees in order to shift costs onto them, I do savor the schadenfreude when it backfires like this.
vinceguidry 8y ago
Nothing substantial. The article named a Wag contractor who openly admitted to using the platform to source clients for his personal business.
iaw 8y ago
That is frequently what happens with the house cleaning middleman apps. They can't keep the good housecleaners because they quickly arrange better side deals. Eventually my ex did the same to get a consistent cleaner.
jbob2000 8y ago
Absolutely nothing, which is why these companies are a flash in the pan. You can sign a contract with them, but it means nothing if someone on the other side of the country is violating it and you have no idea. Also, this is a petty cash business. Even if someone violates the contract, are you going to take them to court over $45? No, you'll just ban them. And the customers who liked that person will leave your service and phone them up privately. These companies die by a thousand cuts. Some people have this idea that all human processes need to be mirrored in software. This type of gig work is best left to ad-hoc job boards like craigslist or kajiji or facebook marketplace. Why do we continue to try to force this into software?
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  > Some people have this idea that all human processes need to be mirrored in software. This type of gig work is best left to ad-hoc job boards like craigslist or kajiji or facebook marketplace. Why do we continue to try to force this into software? I think part of it is that the dumber VCs out there are in such a rush to get in on the ground floor of "Uber for X", that they don't bother checking whether Uber's business model is valid for X. Uber doesn't have to worry about getting shut out by drivers and passengers making deals directly with each other, because people need rides at random and going directly to the driver means basically hiring them full-time. But that logic doesn't apply for someone coming on a fixed schedule to walk your dog or clean your house: middlemen provide no value beyond initial contact. It's investing by fad and it's all going to come unraveled soon enough.
astura 8y ago
Absolutely nothing other than them threatening to remove you from the platform. And some of the sitters and walkers who use these apps already had established sitting and walking businesses.

petra 8y ago

A contract, probably.

Analemma_ 8y ago
Ah, but as these companies are always so quick to remind us, their workers are contractors, not employees. Which here reveals itself as a double-edged sword: it lets you save lots of money on those pesky benefits and workers' rights, but it means you have no ability to prevent them from cutting you out and getting a better deal by going directly to the customer. As someone who loathes the startup tendency to misclassify employees in order to shift costs onto them, I do savor the schadenfreude when it backfires like this.

vinceguidry 8y ago

Nothing substantial. The article named a Wag contractor who openly admitted to using the platform to source clients for his personal business.

iaw 8y ago

That is frequently what happens with the house cleaning middleman apps. They can't keep the good housecleaners because they quickly arrange better side deals. Eventually my ex did the same to get a consistent cleaner.

jbob2000 8y ago

Absolutely nothing, which is why these companies are a flash in the pan. You can sign a contract with them, but it means nothing if someone on the other side of the country is violating it and you have no idea. Also, this is a petty cash business. Even if someone violates the contract, are you going to take them to court over $45? No, you'll just ban them. And the customers who liked that person will leave your service and phone them up privately. These companies die by a thousand cuts. Some people have this idea that all human processes need to be mirrored in software. This type of gig work is best left to ad-hoc job boards like craigslist or kajiji or facebook marketplace. Why do we continue to try to force this into software?

Analemma_ 8y ago
> Some people have this idea that all human processes need to be mirrored in software. This type of gig work is best left to ad-hoc job boards like craigslist or kajiji or facebook marketplace. Why do we continue to try to force this into software? I think part of it is that the dumber VCs out there are in such a rush to get in on the ground floor of "Uber for X", that they don't bother checking whether Uber's business model is valid for X. Uber doesn't have to worry about getting shut out by drivers and passengers making deals directly with each other, because people need rides at random and going directly to the driver means basically hiring them full-time. But that logic doesn't apply for someone coming on a fixed schedule to walk your dog or clean your house: middlemen provide no value beyond initial contact. It's investing by fad and it's all going to come unraveled soon enough.

astura 8y ago

Absolutely nothing other than them threatening to remove you from the platform. And some of the sitters and walkers who use these apps already had established sitting and walking businesses.