5 ms·

I admit that I have yet to reconcile my own somewhat conflicted feelings about these recent bills (e.g. the one voted on in Nov 2020 about drivers as contractor

I admit that I have yet to reconcile my own somewhat conflicted feelings about these recent bills (e.g. the one voted on in Nov 2020 about drivers as contractors, versus this one). For example, I'm in favor of regulating tech companies from misrepresenting restaurant menus as their own, and extracting a hefty margin off restaurants' barely-surviving profits by merely being a middleman aggregator. Yet on the other hand, I don't think that tech companies are improperly classifying delivery people's labor as contract work and need to be stopped. Maybe it's that the first is an involuntary participation without someone's agreement, while the 2nd is someone agreeing to work under given conditions? My opinions are evolving still.

kome 6y ago
"Maybe it's that the first is an involuntary participation without someone's agreement, while the 2nd is someone agreeing to work under given conditions?" It's an old debate, the "lochner era" debate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era). "Agreeing on conditions" is not enough to make something fair. You may agree because you are desperate and you need cash, you may go straight to voluntary serfdom... Society and policy makers are fully entitled to disrupt "private contracts" when those contracts are not in line with the greater good.
- whiddershins 6y ago
  That’s an argument, but many think this doesn’t work in practice.
  - everfree 6y ago
    Antitrust cases are a good example of this type of thinking working well in practice.
- zeroonetwothree 6y ago
  “The greater good” is clearly not the actual legal requirement...
say_it_as_it_is 6y ago
I don't understand how couriers are extracting any margin from restaurants.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tremon 6y ago
  They don't. They make their margin by fleecing investors.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Their negative margin.
- novia 6y ago
  Right now restaurants are in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation with the various delivery services out there. If the restaurants explicitly agree to do business with grubhub and the like, they have to give the delivery service a 10% cut. The delivery service also takes a percentage cut on the customer side. I think there's the expectation that the restaurants keep charging the delivery service the same amount for food being delivered as they charge anyone who orders food from the restaurant and picks it up. This forces restaurants to raise the price for all their customers to pay for that 10% cut. Have you noticed that the prices for food via delivery are higher than the price for food you pickup? That's not due to the restaurant charging the delivery service a discriminatory price, that's actually the third way that the food delivery service takes a cut. Now, as a restaurant owner, you look at all these facts and decide that the delivery companies are fleecing you. You decide you'll use the waiters and waitresses you already had on staff to deliver the food to your customers, and you'll charge them something like $5 for delivery. Not really that unreasonable, given the circumstances, right? Well, what happens in those cases is that the delivery companies will list the restaurant anyways. And they'll offer free delivery. And they'll charge less for your food online than you charge them. They take the financial hit so later they can come to the restaurant owner with the data to show that they really need the delivery service after all. They'll undercut your business to get a greater market share. They've got lots of VC money to burn, that you, as a restaurant owner, can't compete with. Through all of this, customers will leave negative reviews on Yelp, for the restaurant, when the wrong food is delivered, or their food is cold, or their order was delivered to the wrong place. The reputation of the restaurant takes a hit due to the third party's shoddy delivery people. That's what this law is attempting to address.
jeffchien 6y ago
I don't think this particular law (AB2149) is just a b2b issue, which is how I interpret your opinion to be. I think that this is a consumer issue as well. For example, as you said, I think unapproved listings are more prone to misrepresent menus and hours, especially the latter during these turbulent times. In one extreme instance, I've also seen a delivery site start listing a restaurant that has never been open for business.

kome 6y ago

"Maybe it's that the first is an involuntary participation without someone's agreement, while the 2nd is someone agreeing to work under given conditions?" It's an old debate, the "lochner era" debate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era). "Agreeing on conditions" is not enough to make something fair. You may agree because you are desperate and you need cash, you may go straight to voluntary serfdom... Society and policy makers are fully entitled to disrupt "private contracts" when those contracts are not in line with the greater good.

whiddershins 6y ago
That’s an argument, but many think this doesn’t work in practice.
- everfree 6y ago
  Antitrust cases are a good example of this type of thinking working well in practice.
zeroonetwothree 6y ago
“The greater good” is clearly not the actual legal requirement...

say_it_as_it_is 6y ago

I don't understand how couriers are extracting any margin from restaurants.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tremon 6y ago
They don't. They make their margin by fleecing investors.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Their negative margin.
novia 6y ago
Right now restaurants are in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation with the various delivery services out there. If the restaurants explicitly agree to do business with grubhub and the like, they have to give the delivery service a 10% cut. The delivery service also takes a percentage cut on the customer side. I think there's the expectation that the restaurants keep charging the delivery service the same amount for food being delivered as they charge anyone who orders food from the restaurant and picks it up. This forces restaurants to raise the price for all their customers to pay for that 10% cut. Have you noticed that the prices for food via delivery are higher than the price for food you pickup? That's not due to the restaurant charging the delivery service a discriminatory price, that's actually the third way that the food delivery service takes a cut. Now, as a restaurant owner, you look at all these facts and decide that the delivery companies are fleecing you. You decide you'll use the waiters and waitresses you already had on staff to deliver the food to your customers, and you'll charge them something like $5 for delivery. Not really that unreasonable, given the circumstances, right? Well, what happens in those cases is that the delivery companies will list the restaurant anyways. And they'll offer free delivery. And they'll charge less for your food online than you charge them. They take the financial hit so later they can come to the restaurant owner with the data to show that they really need the delivery service after all. They'll undercut your business to get a greater market share. They've got lots of VC money to burn, that you, as a restaurant owner, can't compete with. Through all of this, customers will leave negative reviews on Yelp, for the restaurant, when the wrong food is delivered, or their food is cold, or their order was delivered to the wrong place. The reputation of the restaurant takes a hit due to the third party's shoddy delivery people. That's what this law is attempting to address.

jeffchien 6y ago

I don't think this particular law (AB2149) is just a b2b issue, which is how I interpret your opinion to be. I think that this is a consumer issue as well. For example, as you said, I think unapproved listings are more prone to misrepresent menus and hours, especially the latter during these turbulent times. In one extreme instance, I've also seen a delivery site start listing a restaurant that has never been open for business.