13 ms·

Greek Delivery Giant Efood Faces Major Backlash over Worker’s Rights

100 points by aloukissas 5y ago

thatha7777 5y ago
It’s important to contextualize this (1) in the frame of Greece at this point of time —- many individuals still recovering from the recent internationally-renowned fiscal crisis, while corporations have received aid —- and (2) the general sociopolitical context: a long-standing tradition of guaranteed socialized healthcare for everyone (although the wait times are horrible and quality of care is questionable), government-managed pensions, and a promise that everyone should at the very least be okay, if not prosper. Greece’s long standing tradition of a strictly regulated market (as a way of putting overall societal well-being over individual profits) is being forced into the spotlight by reforms “forced on” by the EU and the international funds that bailed Greece out from the fiscal crisis. On the other hand, the populace feels neither responsible nor benefited by neither the crisis, nor the reforms. An interesting tidbit from the recent labor law that enabled EFood’s action: employers have to report employee-hours-worked and schedule to the government, on a weekly basis, ahead of time, via a poorly design website, or via SMS, and there have been talks of tracking people’s working location and hours via an app… It’s very interesting to see what will happen over the next few years… PS: nice to see you here, Alex
- stavros 5y ago
  To add some context, before efood almost every shop had its own delivery people, who usually worked off the books, uninsured, providing their own motorcycles, gas, etc. Efood luckily improved on this, but trying to roll it back produced this immense backlash.
  - PanosJee 5y ago
    Oh yes, restaurant owners are a way worse employers but hey they are not a mega Corp. It's always cool to protest a mega Corp.
JKolios 5y ago
In summary, they pulled the classic gig economy move: Telling your employees that they now have the "opportunity" to "set their own hours" and "maximize their income". Meaning "Your benefits are gone" and "Your labor protections are history". Complete with the most thinly veiled threat possible: That "refusal would make it difficult to renew your contract". After the Twitter backlash, they came back with a blog post (https://www.e-food.gr/blog/efood-riders-announcement/ https://www.e-food.gr/blog/efood-riders-announcement/). It's six paragraphs of generic corporate speak, and the only meaningful part in it is that "They regret the miscommunication, the announcement was in no way threatening or meant to create an atmosphere of unease among our delivery drivers, it was only an option for a new way of collaborating with us". This only intensified the backlash, since the threatening tone of their initial announcement is crystal clear to any speakers of the Greek language without mental deficiencies.
- gapan 5y ago
  > Complete with the most thinly veiled threat possible: That "refusal would make it difficult to renew your contract". It wasn't even a thinly veiled threat. A direct translation would be "Otherwise, we would like to inform you that there is no possibility of renewing your current contract". Yeah, "in no way threatening or meant to create an atmoshpere".
  - luckylion 5y ago
    A typical example of a regretful miscommunication!
- project2501a 5y ago
  Absolutely. They put their tail between their legs and run back where they came from /r/greece has a discussion already about this
- PostThisTooFast 5y ago
  The fact remains that Uber drivers and the like are pretty much the definition of freelance workers and NOT regular employees. If my neighbor puts an ad in Craig's List for someone to drive her to the grocery store for $10 and I take the job, neither she nor Craig's List owes me benefits. If I mow my neighbor's lawn, I don't expect a 401K plan out of it. This entire movement amounts to abolishing contract work entirely, which is straight-up stupid.
whatever1 5y ago
Online food delivery platforms in Greece will follow the same course as their global counterparts (Uber eats, Grubhub, Doordash). Slow death. Now they try to reduce their labor costs by stretching the limits of the law, so that they survive a little longer. This was never a profitable business model. I don't understand how so many VC's fell for a supply chain concept that a first year Operations Research student would had figured out that is so inefficient that is not worth pursuing. Edit: Except if their goal was to become a monopoly and then charge whatever they want for deliveries.
- sideway 5y ago
  > Now they try to reduce their labor costs by stretching the limits of the law Why would you say they are stretching the limits of the law? My understanding is that they had no obligation to renew those 3-month contracts. > Except if their goal was to become a monopoly and then charge whatever they want for deliveries. Even if that's the case (highly probable), it would still be a huge improvement compared to the pre-efood era when lots of delivery riders would not be paid on time, work (illegally) with no insurance/pension, sometimes even get humiliated by terrible bosses.
  - whatever1 5y ago
    "Why would you say they are stretching the limits of the law? My understanding is that they had no obligation to renew those 3-month contracts." Because these 3-month contracts were renewed for years, and in fact, there are many employees who were employed for over 3 years, continuously, by the company. That makes the non-renewal -> layoff. "Even if that's the case (highly probable), it would still be a huge improvement compared to the pre-efood era when lots of delivery riders would not be paid on time, work (illegally) with no insurance/pension, sometimes even get humiliated by terrible bosses." Food delivery platforms are not in the business of providing cash and benefits to drivers. They are in the business of making money. But apparently, they cannot do either.
    - siva7 5y ago
      That's why these labour protection laws exists, to remind those companies even if they think they are not responsible of providing benefits to the drivers that they actually are.
ivolimmen 5y ago
They probably didn't read the news that Uber in the Netherlands just lost there case. Gig economy in the Netherlands isn't allowed. We currently have issues with employees being forced to become entrepreneurs in all kinds of sectors. Most people just agree but don't really understand what is involved. I think this will also play out in other countries in the EU until it will become an EU issue.
- project2501a 5y ago
  In Greece it was just made possible through a law voted by the government of Kyriakos Mitsotakis
  - danaos 5y ago
    You are probably referring to this[1]. AFAIU the efood controversy relates to the gig economy. I don't see the connection. EDIT: It has become clear to me that you don't undestand what you're talking about. Here's[2] an unbiased view of the law. [1] https://www.lambadarioslaw.gr/2021/06/main-provisions-of-new-greek-employment-law/ https://www.lambadarioslaw.gr/2021/06/main-provisions-of-new... [2] https://www.facebook.com/antypas.karipoglou/posts/10159253631248830 https://www.facebook.com/antypas.karipoglou/posts/1015925363...
    - project2501a 5y ago
      "unbiased view of the law" in Greece is a dogwhistle for "right wing/libertarian". I'll stop this thread here, since hackernews is really not really interested in the internal political differences of the Greek bourgeoisie class and workers.
- PostThisTooFast 5y ago
  So freelance workers are banned? Contractors are banned? Wow, what a "victory."
  - consp 5y ago
    No, Just fake contractors/freelancers. If the job is equivalent to an employment status you are an employee not a contractor. Not able to set their own price or being able negotiate is a big part of this.
sschueller 5y ago
I hate how "entrepreneurs" in the US find new loopholes and make seemingly huge businesses out of it. Then my local sociopaths and greedy investors want to copy this. If the business didn't get so big in the US there would be a very large pushback if anyone tried such abusive practices here. Just look at what DPD is doing in Switzerland, it is discusting and basically slavery. Abusing contract work to the max.
spapas82 5y ago
One thing to consider about services like this is the actual value that they add to the store owners or customers. In my opinion this value is more is less zero! They don't offer anything in the business of delivery. In reality, the store owners are forced to use these services and pay a heavy premium so as to not be left out: If your restaurant can't be found on the app then the customer will prefer the ones he finds! (Please notice that here in Greece all restaurants had their own delivery people before e-food and other similar companies emerged) This is really problematic for me. A whole enterprise has been created by inventing a fake need (order food from the internet; why is it so difficult to just make a call?). Nobody actually profits except that particular company(e-food etc)! To make my point even more; consider the situation 10 years ago. The same pool of people that ordered food are ordering from the same pool of restaurants. However nowadays a percentage of the money goes to e-food (and similar companies). For what? Myself, I never use these companies because I know that there's a premium that will go to them and either me or the store owner (usually the store owner) will need to pay for that! I just call the store and go there and pick the food up! Also all restaurant owners I have talked to, prefer getting calls directly and handling the orders themselves to avoid paying the e-food premium.
- lkramer 5y ago
  I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but these food delivery services does have a convenience factor in their favour: Unified UI (no more weirdly scanned PDF of their menu, or other nonsense), no having to explain over a bad phone line to some person who might not speak your language that well (or you not speaking his) your order, and hoping he wrote the right things down and don't make a mistake, and most important of all, ease of payment. A lot of these restaurants either don't accept card, or expect you to yell your card number across the phone to pay. In all honesty, I also suspect that there is some value for restaurants, at least some of them, to not have to worry about hiring their own delivery driver. If that's not the case, a disruptive service offering just a unified UI + Payment, but no delivery should have appeared by now.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    > no having to explain over a bad phone line to some person who might not speak your language that well (or you not speaking his) your order This is an edge case in my experience. We're talking immigrants/expats that haven't learned the local language (I'm yet to see a restaurant hiring immigrants not knowing the local language for the front desk / phone duty). Not that it's not worth catering for, but perhaps not at the expense of everyone else. > and hoping he wrote the right things down and don't make a mistake This perhaps eliminates excuses. In my experience with on-line ordering, mistakes happen frequently anyway - it's not a communications issue, it's a "cooks and delivery people are extremely busy" issue. They'll just occasionally forget to add some topping or to package the extra sauce you ordered. > and most important of all, ease of payment. That is absolutely true. I was a fan of these third-party services because of that - because I could pre-pay using my card online, not bothering about having cash, whether the driver has change, or whether they took the card terminal with them. I was a fan, I no longer am, because mainstream food delivery services are abusive to restaurants and delivery workers. > there is some value for restaurants, at least some of them, to not have to worry about hiring their own delivery driver. Depends. Some may prefer their own drivers (e.g. small-scale restaurants, where the drivers are family members, or friends). Some purposefully offer no delivery (e.g. for branding reasons). The new breed of delivery services (Uber Eats, Glovo, etc.) don't give a damn about preferences - they'll offer delivery services for your restaurant whether you want them or not; they won't even ask you for permission. The problems here are twofold: 1. People associate delivery service with the restaurant. The squeezed, exploited drivers of Uber Eats, et al. make mistakes too, deliver cold food, etc. The customers often blame the restaurant. The restaurant suffers branding and monetary loss due to no fault of their own, and with no way of improving the service. 2. The business model of those companies depends on getting people used to ordering food from restaurant through them, and then blackmailing the restaurant into signing up and paying a percentage, or getting delisted. They're forcing restaurants into participation. > If that's not the case, a disruptive service offering just a unified UI + Payment, but no delivery should have appeared by now. One would think so, but this is a winner-take-all market; Uber Eats & friends outcompeted previous iterations of services that offered just the UI and payment service.
gverrilla 5y ago
They're called delivery companies, but they are actually restaurant/food marketplaces and they got there by conquering the last-step-to-consumer: delivery. In my country they are now trying to make people do groceries using them, but there's been some resistance (both from costumers and from big supermarkets). There's a huge cultural shift happening in food consumption, caused also by the existence of these services, but not only. I don't think they will be able to sustain this business model much longer.
Sorrop 5y ago
What is baffling to me is why they're doing this now? They've clearly benefited substantially from last year's lockdowns[0] so what is the rationale for squeezing labor costs? A directive from holding company (delivery hero) following the trend of other players in the space to challenge the working status of the drivers? As a side note: Since yesterday's twitter backlash, a lot of people are requesting to delete their accounts only to get a response back with a dodgy document[1] stating "that they require time to understand your demand" and "that it will take from 1 to 3 months to process". The say that "they may ask additional identification". They ask for email/username (which they should already have??) and that depending on the frequency of your demands, they may charge you a "reasonable fee" for "administrative costs". The GDPR require the capability of deleting ones account from a platform be "without undue delay"[2]. I'm no lawyer but their response seems to violate the terms. [0]Article in greek. Basically says that their income went from 43M euros to 64M and they paid a dividend of 20M euros to their shareholders: https://www.capital.gr/epixeiriseis/3551288/tinaxe-tin-mpanka-i-e-food-logo-pandimias https://www.capital.gr/epixeiriseis/3551288/tinaxe-tin-mpank... [1]Greek again: https://twitter.com/mpodil/status/1438620693055352834 https://twitter.com/mpodil/status/1438620693055352834 [2]Paragraph 1 on grounds of (b) https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/
- kayxspre 5y ago
  > Since yesterday's twitter backlash, a lot of people are requesting to delete their accounts only to get a response back with a dodgy document[1] stating "that they require time to understand your demand" and "that it will take from 1 to 3 months to process". Two months ago Foodpanda Thailand (also a Delivery Hero subsidiary) took a darker pattern by removing the delete account button in its entirety. This doesn't last long, though if two companies under the same parent company try to do this, I would consider it a parent company's corporate culture, not just the action of its subsidiary. To elaborate, the massive influx of deletion in Thailand's case is due to Foodpanda's so-called "miscommunication" of labeling a protester (who is caught on camera setting fire against a sacred artifact) a "terrorist". Sympathizers to the protesters' cause then rush to delete the account, only to see a dark pattern mentioned above.
fithisux 5y ago
Uberization. Legal? If you control the gov you don't care.
whiplashoo 5y ago
Before grabbing the pitchforks on this, please note that: - The email they sent was about ~100 of the 3,000+ delivery drivers that had a low performance rating. - Instead of just terminating their 3-month employee contract at once, the company offered them the option to become freelancers (like their major rival, Wolt, does from the beginning). - This also came after e-food found that some drivers were using fake-GPS apps that changed their location so that the algorithm didn't assign them many deliveries (of course, they were paid by the hour according to their contracts). Paying them by the number of fulfilled deliveries would help with identifying the ones that were slacking. I am also against the uberization of all work sectors, but I think this just blew out of proportion through social media.
- kwelstr 5y ago
  "I think this just blew out of proportion through social media." is an oxymoron.
  - whiplashoo 5y ago
    Why? It all started with the e-mail that e-Food sent (admittedly not well-vetted), which was shared on social media and went viral. People started writing negative reviews, starting hashtags, etc. without even being aware of the stuff I noted above.
    - rdruxn 5y ago
      I think they were trying to make a joke and meant “redundant” instead of “oxymoron”
      - kwelstr 5y ago
        Yeah, redundant will work too. It's an oxymoron because social media.
- wiz21c 5y ago
  What do you mean "low performance" ? Not enough return on ROI ?

100 points by aloukissas 5y ago

It’s important to contextualize this (1) in the frame of Greece at this point of time —- many individuals still recovering from the recent internationally-renowned fiscal crisis, while corporations have received aid —- and (2) the general sociopolitical context: a long-standing tradition of guaranteed socialized healthcare for everyone (although the wait times are horrible and quality of care is questionable), government-managed pensions, and a promise that everyone should at the very least be okay, if not prosper. Greece’s long standing tradition of a strictly regulated market (as a way of putting overall societal well-being over individual profits) is being forced into the spotlight by reforms “forced on” by the EU and the international funds that bailed Greece out from the fiscal crisis. On the other hand, the populace feels neither responsible nor benefited by neither the crisis, nor the reforms. An interesting tidbit from the recent labor law that enabled EFood’s action: employers have to report employee-hours-worked and schedule to the government, on a weekly basis, ahead of time, via a poorly design website, or via SMS, and there have been talks of tracking people’s working location and hours via an app… It’s very interesting to see what will happen over the next few years… PS: nice to see you here, Alex

stavros 5y ago
To add some context, before efood almost every shop had its own delivery people, who usually worked off the books, uninsured, providing their own motorcycles, gas, etc. Efood luckily improved on this, but trying to roll it back produced this immense backlash.
- PanosJee 5y ago
  Oh yes, restaurant owners are a way worse employers but hey they are not a mega Corp. It's always cool to protest a mega Corp.

JKolios 5y ago

In summary, they pulled the classic gig economy move: Telling your employees that they now have the "opportunity" to "set their own hours" and "maximize their income". Meaning "Your benefits are gone" and "Your labor protections are history". Complete with the most thinly veiled threat possible: That "refusal would make it difficult to renew your contract". After the Twitter backlash, they came back with a blog post (https://www.e-food.gr/blog/efood-riders-announcement/ https://www.e-food.gr/blog/efood-riders-announcement/). It's six paragraphs of generic corporate speak, and the only meaningful part in it is that "They regret the miscommunication, the announcement was in no way threatening or meant to create an atmosphere of unease among our delivery drivers, it was only an option for a new way of collaborating with us". This only intensified the backlash, since the threatening tone of their initial announcement is crystal clear to any speakers of the Greek language without mental deficiencies.

gapan 5y ago
> Complete with the most thinly veiled threat possible: That "refusal would make it difficult to renew your contract". It wasn't even a thinly veiled threat. A direct translation would be "Otherwise, we would like to inform you that there is no possibility of renewing your current contract". Yeah, "in no way threatening or meant to create an atmoshpere".
- luckylion 5y ago
  A typical example of a regretful miscommunication!
project2501a 5y ago
Absolutely. They put their tail between their legs and run back where they came from /r/greece has a discussion already about this
PostThisTooFast 5y ago
The fact remains that Uber drivers and the like are pretty much the definition of freelance workers and NOT regular employees. If my neighbor puts an ad in Craig's List for someone to drive her to the grocery store for $10 and I take the job, neither she nor Craig's List owes me benefits. If I mow my neighbor's lawn, I don't expect a 401K plan out of it. This entire movement amounts to abolishing contract work entirely, which is straight-up stupid.

whatever1 5y ago

Online food delivery platforms in Greece will follow the same course as their global counterparts (Uber eats, Grubhub, Doordash). Slow death. Now they try to reduce their labor costs by stretching the limits of the law, so that they survive a little longer. This was never a profitable business model. I don't understand how so many VC's fell for a supply chain concept that a first year Operations Research student would had figured out that is so inefficient that is not worth pursuing. Edit: Except if their goal was to become a monopoly and then charge whatever they want for deliveries.

sideway 5y ago
> Now they try to reduce their labor costs by stretching the limits of the law Why would you say they are stretching the limits of the law? My understanding is that they had no obligation to renew those 3-month contracts. > Except if their goal was to become a monopoly and then charge whatever they want for deliveries. Even if that's the case (highly probable), it would still be a huge improvement compared to the pre-efood era when lots of delivery riders would not be paid on time, work (illegally) with no insurance/pension, sometimes even get humiliated by terrible bosses.
- whatever1 5y ago
  "Why would you say they are stretching the limits of the law? My understanding is that they had no obligation to renew those 3-month contracts." Because these 3-month contracts were renewed for years, and in fact, there are many employees who were employed for over 3 years, continuously, by the company. That makes the non-renewal -> layoff. "Even if that's the case (highly probable), it would still be a huge improvement compared to the pre-efood era when lots of delivery riders would not be paid on time, work (illegally) with no insurance/pension, sometimes even get humiliated by terrible bosses." Food delivery platforms are not in the business of providing cash and benefits to drivers. They are in the business of making money. But apparently, they cannot do either.
  - siva7 5y ago
    That's why these labour protection laws exists, to remind those companies even if they think they are not responsible of providing benefits to the drivers that they actually are.

ivolimmen 5y ago

They probably didn't read the news that Uber in the Netherlands just lost there case. Gig economy in the Netherlands isn't allowed. We currently have issues with employees being forced to become entrepreneurs in all kinds of sectors. Most people just agree but don't really understand what is involved. I think this will also play out in other countries in the EU until it will become an EU issue.

project2501a 5y ago
In Greece it was just made possible through a law voted by the government of Kyriakos Mitsotakis
- danaos 5y ago
  You are probably referring to this[1]. AFAIU the efood controversy relates to the gig economy. I don't see the connection. EDIT: It has become clear to me that you don't undestand what you're talking about. Here's[2] an unbiased view of the law. [1] https://www.lambadarioslaw.gr/2021/06/main-provisions-of-new-greek-employment-law/ https://www.lambadarioslaw.gr/2021/06/main-provisions-of-new... [2] https://www.facebook.com/antypas.karipoglou/posts/10159253631248830 https://www.facebook.com/antypas.karipoglou/posts/1015925363...
  - project2501a 5y ago
    "unbiased view of the law" in Greece is a dogwhistle for "right wing/libertarian". I'll stop this thread here, since hackernews is really not really interested in the internal political differences of the Greek bourgeoisie class and workers.
PostThisTooFast 5y ago
So freelance workers are banned? Contractors are banned? Wow, what a "victory."
- consp 5y ago
  No, Just fake contractors/freelancers. If the job is equivalent to an employment status you are an employee not a contractor. Not able to set their own price or being able negotiate is a big part of this.

sschueller 5y ago

I hate how "entrepreneurs" in the US find new loopholes and make seemingly huge businesses out of it. Then my local sociopaths and greedy investors want to copy this. If the business didn't get so big in the US there would be a very large pushback if anyone tried such abusive practices here. Just look at what DPD is doing in Switzerland, it is discusting and basically slavery. Abusing contract work to the max.

spapas82 5y ago

One thing to consider about services like this is the actual value that they add to the store owners or customers. In my opinion this value is more is less zero! They don't offer anything in the business of delivery. In reality, the store owners are forced to use these services and pay a heavy premium so as to not be left out: If your restaurant can't be found on the app then the customer will prefer the ones he finds! (Please notice that here in Greece all restaurants had their own delivery people before e-food and other similar companies emerged) This is really problematic for me. A whole enterprise has been created by inventing a fake need (order food from the internet; why is it so difficult to just make a call?). Nobody actually profits except that particular company(e-food etc)! To make my point even more; consider the situation 10 years ago. The same pool of people that ordered food are ordering from the same pool of restaurants. However nowadays a percentage of the money goes to e-food (and similar companies). For what? Myself, I never use these companies because I know that there's a premium that will go to them and either me or the store owner (usually the store owner) will need to pay for that! I just call the store and go there and pick the food up! Also all restaurant owners I have talked to, prefer getting calls directly and handling the orders themselves to avoid paying the e-food premium.

lkramer 5y ago
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but these food delivery services does have a convenience factor in their favour: Unified UI (no more weirdly scanned PDF of their menu, or other nonsense), no having to explain over a bad phone line to some person who might not speak your language that well (or you not speaking his) your order, and hoping he wrote the right things down and don't make a mistake, and most important of all, ease of payment. A lot of these restaurants either don't accept card, or expect you to yell your card number across the phone to pay. In all honesty, I also suspect that there is some value for restaurants, at least some of them, to not have to worry about hiring their own delivery driver. If that's not the case, a disruptive service offering just a unified UI + Payment, but no delivery should have appeared by now.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  > no having to explain over a bad phone line to some person who might not speak your language that well (or you not speaking his) your order This is an edge case in my experience. We're talking immigrants/expats that haven't learned the local language (I'm yet to see a restaurant hiring immigrants not knowing the local language for the front desk / phone duty). Not that it's not worth catering for, but perhaps not at the expense of everyone else. > and hoping he wrote the right things down and don't make a mistake This perhaps eliminates excuses. In my experience with on-line ordering, mistakes happen frequently anyway - it's not a communications issue, it's a "cooks and delivery people are extremely busy" issue. They'll just occasionally forget to add some topping or to package the extra sauce you ordered. > and most important of all, ease of payment. That is absolutely true. I was a fan of these third-party services because of that - because I could pre-pay using my card online, not bothering about having cash, whether the driver has change, or whether they took the card terminal with them. I was a fan, I no longer am, because mainstream food delivery services are abusive to restaurants and delivery workers. > there is some value for restaurants, at least some of them, to not have to worry about hiring their own delivery driver. Depends. Some may prefer their own drivers (e.g. small-scale restaurants, where the drivers are family members, or friends). Some purposefully offer no delivery (e.g. for branding reasons). The new breed of delivery services (Uber Eats, Glovo, etc.) don't give a damn about preferences - they'll offer delivery services for your restaurant whether you want them or not; they won't even ask you for permission. The problems here are twofold: 1. People associate delivery service with the restaurant. The squeezed, exploited drivers of Uber Eats, et al. make mistakes too, deliver cold food, etc. The customers often blame the restaurant. The restaurant suffers branding and monetary loss due to no fault of their own, and with no way of improving the service. 2. The business model of those companies depends on getting people used to ordering food from restaurant through them, and then blackmailing the restaurant into signing up and paying a percentage, or getting delisted. They're forcing restaurants into participation. > If that's not the case, a disruptive service offering just a unified UI + Payment, but no delivery should have appeared by now. One would think so, but this is a winner-take-all market; Uber Eats & friends outcompeted previous iterations of services that offered just the UI and payment service.

gverrilla 5y ago

They're called delivery companies, but they are actually restaurant/food marketplaces and they got there by conquering the last-step-to-consumer: delivery. In my country they are now trying to make people do groceries using them, but there's been some resistance (both from costumers and from big supermarkets). There's a huge cultural shift happening in food consumption, caused also by the existence of these services, but not only. I don't think they will be able to sustain this business model much longer.

Sorrop 5y ago

What is baffling to me is why they're doing this now? They've clearly benefited substantially from last year's lockdowns[0] so what is the rationale for squeezing labor costs? A directive from holding company (delivery hero) following the trend of other players in the space to challenge the working status of the drivers? As a side note: Since yesterday's twitter backlash, a lot of people are requesting to delete their accounts only to get a response back with a dodgy document[1] stating "that they require time to understand your demand" and "that it will take from 1 to 3 months to process". The say that "they may ask additional identification". They ask for email/username (which they should already have??) and that depending on the frequency of your demands, they may charge you a "reasonable fee" for "administrative costs". The GDPR require the capability of deleting ones account from a platform be "without undue delay"[2]. I'm no lawyer but their response seems to violate the terms. [0]Article in greek. Basically says that their income went from 43M euros to 64M and they paid a dividend of 20M euros to their shareholders: https://www.capital.gr/epixeiriseis/3551288/tinaxe-tin-mpanka-i-e-food-logo-pandimias https://www.capital.gr/epixeiriseis/3551288/tinaxe-tin-mpank... [1]Greek again: https://twitter.com/mpodil/status/1438620693055352834 https://twitter.com/mpodil/status/1438620693055352834 [2]Paragraph 1 on grounds of (b) https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/

kayxspre 5y ago
> Since yesterday's twitter backlash, a lot of people are requesting to delete their accounts only to get a response back with a dodgy document[1] stating "that they require time to understand your demand" and "that it will take from 1 to 3 months to process". Two months ago Foodpanda Thailand (also a Delivery Hero subsidiary) took a darker pattern by removing the delete account button in its entirety. This doesn't last long, though if two companies under the same parent company try to do this, I would consider it a parent company's corporate culture, not just the action of its subsidiary. To elaborate, the massive influx of deletion in Thailand's case is due to Foodpanda's so-called "miscommunication" of labeling a protester (who is caught on camera setting fire against a sacred artifact) a "terrorist". Sympathizers to the protesters' cause then rush to delete the account, only to see a dark pattern mentioned above.

fithisux 5y ago

Uberization. Legal? If you control the gov you don't care.

whiplashoo 5y ago

Before grabbing the pitchforks on this, please note that: - The email they sent was about ~100 of the 3,000+ delivery drivers that had a low performance rating. - Instead of just terminating their 3-month employee contract at once, the company offered them the option to become freelancers (like their major rival, Wolt, does from the beginning). - This also came after e-food found that some drivers were using fake-GPS apps that changed their location so that the algorithm didn't assign them many deliveries (of course, they were paid by the hour according to their contracts). Paying them by the number of fulfilled deliveries would help with identifying the ones that were slacking. I am also against the uberization of all work sectors, but I think this just blew out of proportion through social media.

kwelstr 5y ago
"I think this just blew out of proportion through social media." is an oxymoron.
- whiplashoo 5y ago
  Why? It all started with the e-mail that e-Food sent (admittedly not well-vetted), which was shared on social media and went viral. People started writing negative reviews, starting hashtags, etc. without even being aware of the stuff I noted above.
  - rdruxn 5y ago
    I think they were trying to make a joke and meant “redundant” instead of “oxymoron”
    - kwelstr 5y ago
      Yeah, redundant will work too. It's an oxymoron because social media.
wiz21c 5y ago
What do you mean "low performance" ? Not enough return on ROI ?