4 ms·

It is not clear to me that delivery companies have the agency to deny people's ability to work, however. If you must pay people for time that they are working,

It is not clear to me that delivery companies have the agency to deny people's ability to work, however. If you must pay people for time that they are working, but there is no work to do, then you face a challenge with many people signing up to be paid for nothing. What do you do if 100 drivers start saying they're waiting for orders and there are no orders coming in? What do you do if 100 drivers say they're waiting for orders, and a paltry number of orders come in that, unbenownst to Uber, get delegated to just 5 of those 100 while all 100 collect pay checks?

vkou 3y ago
Of course they have the agency. They can limit the # of active drivers that can log in. Nobody is forcing them to have an unlimited number of drivers, just like nobody is forcing the Best Western down the road to hire an unlimited number of people to work their night desk. It's just that under a business model where having more people on call not cost them anything, they were happy to expand the on call roster to an unlimited size.
- spywaregorilla 3y ago
  That is not obvious to me at all. If they feel empowered to do that, they could, in theory, play it very tightly to short term demand and toggle people's "working status" and dodge this new law entirely. We don't want people idling around with apps that try to log in to uber every 10 seconds rather than people idling around logged in waiting for uber to send them a job. It's the same problem as before. This law is effectively saying uber must pay people for asking if uber has any work to do, in addition to doing it. And maybe we're just saying no to the gig model. Sure, I'm for it. But this indirect approach is going to be an awkward way to get there imo.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  >It's just that under a business model where having more people on call not cost them anything, they were happy to expand the on call roster to an unlimited size. OK, sure, and the next logical step is telling the delivery people when they're on shift, where they have to wait when they're not making deliveries, and prohibiting them from multi-apping, etc. I think there's a fine line between "our labor is underpaid, we should be paid more" and "let's destroy the entire business model" and I'm certainly excited to see how badly this will go. If I were to be cynical, I would say that there's a certain slice of the labor rights movement for whom any combination of the above would be a good outcome.
  - vkou 3y ago
    > OK, sure, and the next logical step is telling the delivery people when they're on shift, where they have to wait when they're not making deliveries, and prohibiting them from multi-apping, etc. You've just realized why most employed people aren't paid by the keystroke, and why 'on-call' contractors that don't have reliable, consistent 9-5 work charge an incredible premium for their services.
    - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
      If you've ever had yard-work done by unskilled labor or taken a taxi, you know that ain't the truth.
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    > OK, sure, and the next logical step is telling the delivery people when they're on shift, where they have to wait when they're not making deliveries, and prohibiting them from multi-apping, etc. I don't understand exactly which workers are supposed to be angry about sitting somewhere and getting paid that wouldn't be angry about delivering something and getting paid. Or which ones are desperate to work on another app while they are currently being paid by the app they're on. > "let's destroy the entire business model" What interest does the state have in preserving this shitty business model?
    - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
      >What interest does the state have in preserving this shitty business model? I have no opinion on that - I'm simply assuming that the workers that are part of "this shitty business model" are not looking for it to be destroyed and feeling that there may not be an alignment of interests. What can be a win for "the worker" in the large abstract can be a loss for "these workers" in the specific.
text0404 3y ago
they can do whatever every other company does when it overhires or has too many people working during a dead shift. this is a solved problem.

vkou 3y ago

Of course they have the agency. They can limit the # of active drivers that can log in. Nobody is forcing them to have an unlimited number of drivers, just like nobody is forcing the Best Western down the road to hire an unlimited number of people to work their night desk. It's just that under a business model where having more people on call not cost them anything, they were happy to expand the on call roster to an unlimited size.

spywaregorilla 3y ago
That is not obvious to me at all. If they feel empowered to do that, they could, in theory, play it very tightly to short term demand and toggle people's "working status" and dodge this new law entirely. We don't want people idling around with apps that try to log in to uber every 10 seconds rather than people idling around logged in waiting for uber to send them a job. It's the same problem as before. This law is effectively saying uber must pay people for asking if uber has any work to do, in addition to doing it. And maybe we're just saying no to the gig model. Sure, I'm for it. But this indirect approach is going to be an awkward way to get there imo.
NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
>It's just that under a business model where having more people on call not cost them anything, they were happy to expand the on call roster to an unlimited size. OK, sure, and the next logical step is telling the delivery people when they're on shift, where they have to wait when they're not making deliveries, and prohibiting them from multi-apping, etc. I think there's a fine line between "our labor is underpaid, we should be paid more" and "let's destroy the entire business model" and I'm certainly excited to see how badly this will go. If I were to be cynical, I would say that there's a certain slice of the labor rights movement for whom any combination of the above would be a good outcome.
- vkou 3y ago
  > OK, sure, and the next logical step is telling the delivery people when they're on shift, where they have to wait when they're not making deliveries, and prohibiting them from multi-apping, etc. You've just realized why most employed people aren't paid by the keystroke, and why 'on-call' contractors that don't have reliable, consistent 9-5 work charge an incredible premium for their services.
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    If you've ever had yard-work done by unskilled labor or taken a taxi, you know that ain't the truth.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  > OK, sure, and the next logical step is telling the delivery people when they're on shift, where they have to wait when they're not making deliveries, and prohibiting them from multi-apping, etc. I don't understand exactly which workers are supposed to be angry about sitting somewhere and getting paid that wouldn't be angry about delivering something and getting paid. Or which ones are desperate to work on another app while they are currently being paid by the app they're on. > "let's destroy the entire business model" What interest does the state have in preserving this shitty business model?
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    >What interest does the state have in preserving this shitty business model? I have no opinion on that - I'm simply assuming that the workers that are part of "this shitty business model" are not looking for it to be destroyed and feeling that there may not be an alignment of interests. What can be a win for "the worker" in the large abstract can be a loss for "these workers" in the specific.

text0404 3y ago

they can do whatever every other company does when it overhires or has too many people working during a dead shift. this is a solved problem.