3 ms·

I'm not saying they'd like to do that kind of management, but every other employer of shift workers manages the shifts they offer and accept and limits the supp

I'm not saying they'd like to do that kind of management, but every other employer of shift workers manages the shifts they offer and accept and limits the supply of workers they agree to pay. You're not wrong about how it's the death of what they call the gig economy, but that's more the death of their current exploitative model than what was truly the gig economy - independent contracting - before they appropriated the term for their propaganda. Maybe the different "rideshare" companies should collaborate on a way for drivers to bid in a truly independent way with many apps and many pricing arrangements etc, and give some selection control to the rider as well, to make it a real and unambiguous independent contractor situation? If they do get stuck with an actual optimization problem, well, they already solve plenty of those to maximize profit under their current model. They can keep applying those skills even if the workers get a fairer deal.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> every other employer of shift workers manages the shifts they offer and accept and limits the supply of workers they agree to pay The problem isn't that it's a burden on the employer, it's that it removes an entire category of worker flexibility. I can't be commuting or parked somewhere or sitting around in my room while also signed into uber if they have to pay minimum wage for that; they're not a charity and aren't going to pay for nothing. The rule is good for someone that goes out to do an entire shift of uber and nothing else. It's not as good for someone that wants to multitask or make their own schedule. > Maybe the different "rideshare" companies should collaborate on a way for drivers to bid in a truly independent way with many apps and many pricing arrangements etc, and give some selection control to the rider as well, to make it a real and unambiguous independent contractor situation? Is competitive bidding actually going to get drivers paid more than accept/reject? I don't know if this actually solves the right problem.
- Applejinx 5y ago
  So, a thought: granted that you want to multitask and make your own schedule, by setting things up so you can be interrupted at any moment by your employer with demands for your attention. You don't want to work a shift, you want it looser and less defined: you are not in fact making your own schedule, you're arranging to pre-empt whatever your schedule might be for the benefit of your employer and you figure this is your competitive advantage, being able to offer this precarious willingness to drop everything and take a gig. And you could be right: to the employer, that makes you higher value. Is this not a concession, a way of competing by tempting the employer with more than they would be able to get from other employees? In essence you're not so much negotiating with the employer, but competing directly with other workers, some of whom might have stuff to do in their life that requires scheduling and predictability? And this too is fine (ish), but then the question becomes: to what extent can the employer then pressure all employees to function on YOUR terms and abandon their own? Are you defining the new normal, the fundamental expectation for this type of work going forward? Does the employer benefit at the expense of employees as a class by establishing this precarity as the expectation?
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Agreed. I charge for being on-call. If other employees don't, that's not good - now being on-call becomes a requirement and work I'm not being paid for. You don't get to pay a fast food worker during the time they are serving a customer, then stop paying them when that customer leaves the counter. There isn't a technical reason you can't do this; we've set a baseline on the least workers have a right to expect.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > I charge for being on-call. Sure, sure. But do you charge your normal hourly pay, or close to it for being on-call?

Dylan16807 5y ago

> every other employer of shift workers manages the shifts they offer and accept and limits the supply of workers they agree to pay The problem isn't that it's a burden on the employer, it's that it removes an entire category of worker flexibility. I can't be commuting or parked somewhere or sitting around in my room while also signed into uber if they have to pay minimum wage for that; they're not a charity and aren't going to pay for nothing. The rule is good for someone that goes out to do an entire shift of uber and nothing else. It's not as good for someone that wants to multitask or make their own schedule. > Maybe the different "rideshare" companies should collaborate on a way for drivers to bid in a truly independent way with many apps and many pricing arrangements etc, and give some selection control to the rider as well, to make it a real and unambiguous independent contractor situation? Is competitive bidding actually going to get drivers paid more than accept/reject? I don't know if this actually solves the right problem.

Applejinx 5y ago
So, a thought: granted that you want to multitask and make your own schedule, by setting things up so you can be interrupted at any moment by your employer with demands for your attention. You don't want to work a shift, you want it looser and less defined: you are not in fact making your own schedule, you're arranging to pre-empt whatever your schedule might be for the benefit of your employer and you figure this is your competitive advantage, being able to offer this precarious willingness to drop everything and take a gig. And you could be right: to the employer, that makes you higher value. Is this not a concession, a way of competing by tempting the employer with more than they would be able to get from other employees? In essence you're not so much negotiating with the employer, but competing directly with other workers, some of whom might have stuff to do in their life that requires scheduling and predictability? And this too is fine (ish), but then the question becomes: to what extent can the employer then pressure all employees to function on YOUR terms and abandon their own? Are you defining the new normal, the fundamental expectation for this type of work going forward? Does the employer benefit at the expense of employees as a class by establishing this precarity as the expectation?
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Agreed. I charge for being on-call. If other employees don't, that's not good - now being on-call becomes a requirement and work I'm not being paid for. You don't get to pay a fast food worker during the time they are serving a customer, then stop paying them when that customer leaves the counter. There isn't a technical reason you can't do this; we've set a baseline on the least workers have a right to expect.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > I charge for being on-call. Sure, sure. But do you charge your normal hourly pay, or close to it for being on-call?