4 ms·

>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 siz

>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.

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.