6 ms·

DoorDash, Grubhub and Uber sue New York City over minimum wage law

34 points by MinimalAction 3y ago

nubinetwork 3y ago
7 dollars an hour, plus 3 dollars per delivery is sad, especially in a place like NYC. 17 dollars an hour is still low in today's economy but fine, the minimum wage is only 15. I hope this gets laughed out of court. Doordash should be ashamed of themselves for thinking their drivers deserve less.
boyaka 3y ago
[flagged]
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  Embodied, self-replicating, autonomous agents?
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
  I think you've had your wish for well over a decade. Federal minimum wage has been beyond meaningless for multiple decades and as it stands today only coastal states have minimum wages over $12/hr.
  - crznp 3y ago
    I agree with your main point, but Arizona is $13.85, Colorado is $13.65 and Illinois is $13.00.
    - 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
      [flagged]
ars 3y ago
If this really does add $5 to the cost of every delivery it will dramatically reduce demand for deliveries. This will cause huge demand for delivery jobs, with insufficient supply of jobs. Normally this is rectified with price (wage) adjustments, but not here. It'll be like rent controlled apartments: A privileged few get high wages (low rent), and no jobs for the rest (high rent in my analogy). The requirement to pay even when there are no jobs will make it even worse - the companies will require drivers to accept every job or be kicked out, and/or reduce the number of people they accept as drivers. This will make service worse for everyone. Not smart NY, not smart.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >This will cause huge demand for delivery jobs, with insufficient supply of jobs. Normally this is rectified with price (wage) adjustments, but not here. How does this increase demand for jobs if you also say that demand for deliveries decrease? There's only huge demand because it's entry level and/or side-gig level work. Not because deliveries are prestigious.It will just toss the ball to the next lowest barrier to entry job. >the companies will require drivers to accept every job or be kicked out, and/or reduce the number of people they accept as drivers. This will make service worse for everyone. People aren't going to stop eating. If it makes the service worse because the customers are choosing to go out themselves or buy groceries, I see that as a societal win. Of course, no decision is without short term downsides, and this is one of them. Even then, this is only for one (major) city. This situation might take years to spread even if the court case is a slam dunk.
  - ars 3y ago
    > How does this increase demand for jobs if you also say that demand for deliveries decrease? Demand for jobs goes up because they pay better. But the jobs are not available because deliveries decrease. > If it makes the service worse because the customers are choosing to go out themselves or buy groceries, I see that as a societal win. You are forgetting that it means the drivers now have less work. This change in minimum wage, in the net, will cause a loss for drivers, not a gain. It will be uneven, when they have work it will pay well, but it will be coupled with large periods of no work. I don't think that's a good thing for the drivers. > I see that as a societal win More cars on the road I guess? > Of course, no decision is without short term downsides, and this is one of them. What "short term"? Long term this will be bad for drivers in NY.
anotherhue 3y ago
I am new to NYC. Come 6pm, Hells Kitchen turns into the greatest thoroughfare of ebike riding delivery drivers I've ever seen. They cycle the wrong way on the street, they clog up the pavement, and they appear overwhelmingly to be foreign workers (like me, but without the cushy tech job). I understand logically that this must be a good option for them given their circumstances, or they would do something else, but I will not be gaslighted into thinking they are treated well by the delivery companies. There should be dedicated parking (take away some of the car spots), there should be driver friendly sanitary facilities, there should be ways for them to secure their bikes, and yes there probably should be a minimum wage because they are in an extremely exploitable position and guess who's making money from their exploitation? I do not come from a country with a class structure, so seeing the emergence of an 'app-class' / zero hours contract approach that OVERWHELMINGLY targets the poor rubs me the wrong way. I don't care about GrubHub's profit margins and neither should you.
- elromulous 3y ago
  Strongly agree! Unfortunately, the system is WAI in the US.
- bagacrap 3y ago
  I mean, you should care about their profit margins if you like food delivery. As it stands they're on the verge of bankruptcy.
  - heavyset_go 3y ago
    Food delivery is a solved problem independent of GrubHub's business model that relies on squeezing as much out of the market as they possibly can.
    - bagacrap 3y ago
      Isn't making a profit everyone's business model? You can go volunteer at a soup kitchen if you just want to fill stomachs out of the kindness of your heart. I don't think food delivery is a solved problem. It could get a lot easier, more reliable, cheaper. I generally don't use it because my food doesn't always arrive in great condition (cold, spilled, etc) and it generates crazy amounts of petroleum based waste. At least the apps have made the ordering experience more predictable. From the restaurant owner's perspective, it's probably not practical to keep the right number of delivery people on staff at all times. So the apps help somewhat but the problem still isn't solved. From my perspective the apps create a marketplace where eaters who wish to remain stationary buy delivery services from workers who don't mind ambulation. You can pay the delivery people whatever you want since tipping is part of the culture. If you don't want to participate in the marketplace that's fine too. Most people don't participate in most markets.
e63f67dd-065b 3y ago
How does this minimum wage work, specifically? One of the selling points as far as I can tell of these delivery apps is that the workers effectively bid per order -- they're not hourly workers, they can choose or refuse which orders they want to take. Workers are not on the clock, obligated to work certain hours, they don't even have hours. It would be interesting to see an even more market-based delivery app ecosystem -- each contract is auctioned separately, with spot prices for each hour and route of delivery going to the lowest bidder. It would never happen, since it would ruffle to many political feathers, but it's an interesting thought experiment. It would also require much more transparency than the apps currently allow or would ever willingly give up.
- LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
  One of the earliest and best things the internet does is auctions. Auctioning off delivery contracts individually isn’t profitable. If it were, we’d be doing it already.
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
  > It would never happen, since it would ruffle to many political feathers Wrong. It would never happen because it would be too unreliable so nobody would use it. The few times I used DoorDash the orders took twice as long as the estimate even though I live near a city center and always tipped the highest recommended abount. And that is why these workers are definitely employees who should be paid for their availability.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > they're not hourly workers, they can choose or refuse which orders they want to take. Workers are not on the clock, obligated to work certain hours, they don't even have hours it seems they ARE hourly workers for the purposes of this law, which makes sense: they're allegedly contractors because they can choose their hours. if a driver wants to work the 8:00 to 9:00 hour, the delivery app can either: 1. pay them at least the minimum wage for that hour, and assign enough work to fill it, or 2. pay them at least the minimum wage for that hour, and NOT assign enough work to fill it, or 3. don't pay them for that hour, meaning you aren't letting them work that hour, meaning you're determining their hours, meaning they're employees, not contractors whether [app X] has enough orders to keep occupied all the willing drivers with open [app X] is [app X]'s problem: [app X] choose the business model of unrestricted driver growth
bdw5204 3y ago
The argument that a law "would help workers more than help them" is a political argument not a legal argument. The legislature has the right to pass dumb laws so long as those laws are within their constitutional powers and do not infringe or abridge any constitutional rights. Judges have no business legislating on political questions. I take no position on whether or not the law is actually dumb but the delivery apps need to find a better legal argument if they want to argue this law is unconstitutional. This argument that "the law is unconstitutional because it is dumb" is basically just asking judges to legislate from the bench which is exactly what everybody who pays attention to Supreme Court confirmation hearings knows judges aren't supposed to do.
jlarocco 3y ago
> All three companies sued the city, maintaining that the law would hurt delivery workers more than help them. Assuming that is really the premise of the lawsuit, could it be thrown out because the drivers aren't employees, and therefore the companies aren't the ones being harmed? Can they sue on the driver's behalf when the drivers are contractors?
nine_zeros 3y ago
> All three companies sued the city, maintaining that the law would hurt delivery workers more than help them. This means that shareholders and execs are going to take a minor loss. How dare the city get in the way of their 13th mansion purchase?
klysm 3y ago
All this means is that the legal costs are less than their expected loss if the legislation goes into effect.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  Good. Hope it's a lose-lose for them, pay your labor
thisisthenewme 3y ago
> The DoorDash and Grubhub lawsuit claims the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection’s analysis of the regulation would add an average of $5.18 per order. I'd rather have them charge the $5 than be guilted into paying the $5 dollars as a 'tip'. Just makes the costs of these purchases more apparent.
- xs83 3y ago
  This! We have DoorDash in Australia but the drivers cannot see whether a tip is added (it usually isnt - because we have minimum wage laws here too). The stories I hear about them just ignoring the orders because they are shown there is a tip and that tip is not acceptable to them is ridiculous to me, it's a pay to win strategy that has no place in a supposed civil society. I am fine overpaying (the restaurants need to cover the frankly ridiculous 30%+ fees they charge) AND then a delivery fee on top to sit on my fat ass in my jammies and have delicious food delivered to me. I am not fine with a bidding structure where my food might sit there cold until someone decides that my "tip" is acceptable
LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
These companies are so reliant on a zero-interest-rate market and the increasing prices are bringing this reality home in a big way. On Friday, I went to UberEats to do basic takeout for 2 in a reasonable cost of living area, and it was $50 total for basic takeout, nothing fancy. In that situation, the company then expects us to tip knowing that we’re already at the upper limit of what’s considered appropriate pricing for this service. Of course the drivers are gonna get shafted. The system was intentionally designed to make them as powerless as possible, as evidenced by the fact that these same companies had the gall to garnish tips from the drivers and then pretend like it was some misunderstanding. Anyone who’s written commercial software knows that this is BS.
spaceman_2020 3y ago
I’m just so jaded with capitalism in its current form. Its become too perverse, too immoral, too untethered from society. The market rallying every time there is bad economic data, collapsing when unemployment goes down is just the clearest indication that something has gone terribly wrong with “market forces”.
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  The market collapse in response to low unemployment was the result of the Federal Reserve raising interest rates in direct response to high employment and wages, with the stated goal of reducing wages and increasing layoffs to tackle inflation. Capitalism has always been about serving the needs of those with capital, and reducing wages and employment does just that. This has always been its form.
  - spaceman_2020 3y ago
    All that pretty much means that “market forces” are in absentia. The invisible hand of the market has been replaced by the invisible hand of the Fed. This isn’t what capitalism stands for at its core.
pcurve 3y ago
"The DoorDash and Grubhub lawsuit alleges that the new regulation is legally flawed because it targets only meal-delivery services and not grocery-delivery services. It also argues the regulation is legally flawed because it would compel the companies to pay workers for hours that they are available to take orders while logged into the delivery apps, even if they don’t actually make any deliveries." Ah... welcome to the world of managing FTEs. I managed an army of people with TC of $150-$200K with sr. management breathing down my neck to make sure they're delivering value. Wouldn't it be nice if I could pay them based on product shipped and revenue generated :-/
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
  [flagged]
ano88888 3y ago
i saw Tiktok sued a state government too. It is something amazing that only happens in countries like America. In most of other countries, including China, sueing govementment by citizens or private companies is unthinkable and will be faced with severe consequences and in some cases , deaths. This kind of power check is great.
DueDilligence 3y ago
[dead]

34 points by MinimalAction 3y ago

7 dollars an hour, plus 3 dollars per delivery is sad, especially in a place like NYC. 17 dollars an hour is still low in today's economy but fine, the minimum wage is only 15. I hope this gets laughed out of court. Doordash should be ashamed of themselves for thinking their drivers deserve less.

boyaka 3y ago

[flagged]

ChatGTP 3y ago
Embodied, self-replicating, autonomous agents?
111111IIIIIII 3y ago
I think you've had your wish for well over a decade. Federal minimum wage has been beyond meaningless for multiple decades and as it stands today only coastal states have minimum wages over $12/hr.
- crznp 3y ago
  I agree with your main point, but Arizona is $13.85, Colorado is $13.65 and Illinois is $13.00.
  - 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
    [flagged]

ars 3y ago

If this really does add $5 to the cost of every delivery it will dramatically reduce demand for deliveries. This will cause huge demand for delivery jobs, with insufficient supply of jobs. Normally this is rectified with price (wage) adjustments, but not here. It'll be like rent controlled apartments: A privileged few get high wages (low rent), and no jobs for the rest (high rent in my analogy). The requirement to pay even when there are no jobs will make it even worse - the companies will require drivers to accept every job or be kicked out, and/or reduce the number of people they accept as drivers. This will make service worse for everyone. Not smart NY, not smart.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
>This will cause huge demand for delivery jobs, with insufficient supply of jobs. Normally this is rectified with price (wage) adjustments, but not here. How does this increase demand for jobs if you also say that demand for deliveries decrease? There's only huge demand because it's entry level and/or side-gig level work. Not because deliveries are prestigious.It will just toss the ball to the next lowest barrier to entry job. >the companies will require drivers to accept every job or be kicked out, and/or reduce the number of people they accept as drivers. This will make service worse for everyone. People aren't going to stop eating. If it makes the service worse because the customers are choosing to go out themselves or buy groceries, I see that as a societal win. Of course, no decision is without short term downsides, and this is one of them. Even then, this is only for one (major) city. This situation might take years to spread even if the court case is a slam dunk.
- ars 3y ago
  > How does this increase demand for jobs if you also say that demand for deliveries decrease? Demand for jobs goes up because they pay better. But the jobs are not available because deliveries decrease. > If it makes the service worse because the customers are choosing to go out themselves or buy groceries, I see that as a societal win. You are forgetting that it means the drivers now have less work. This change in minimum wage, in the net, will cause a loss for drivers, not a gain. It will be uneven, when they have work it will pay well, but it will be coupled with large periods of no work. I don't think that's a good thing for the drivers. > I see that as a societal win More cars on the road I guess? > Of course, no decision is without short term downsides, and this is one of them. What "short term"? Long term this will be bad for drivers in NY.

anotherhue 3y ago

I am new to NYC. Come 6pm, Hells Kitchen turns into the greatest thoroughfare of ebike riding delivery drivers I've ever seen. They cycle the wrong way on the street, they clog up the pavement, and they appear overwhelmingly to be foreign workers (like me, but without the cushy tech job). I understand logically that this must be a good option for them given their circumstances, or they would do something else, but I will not be gaslighted into thinking they are treated well by the delivery companies. There should be dedicated parking (take away some of the car spots), there should be driver friendly sanitary facilities, there should be ways for them to secure their bikes, and yes there probably should be a minimum wage because they are in an extremely exploitable position and guess who's making money from their exploitation? I do not come from a country with a class structure, so seeing the emergence of an 'app-class' / zero hours contract approach that OVERWHELMINGLY targets the poor rubs me the wrong way. I don't care about GrubHub's profit margins and neither should you.

elromulous 3y ago
Strongly agree! Unfortunately, the system is WAI in the US.
bagacrap 3y ago
I mean, you should care about their profit margins if you like food delivery. As it stands they're on the verge of bankruptcy.
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  Food delivery is a solved problem independent of GrubHub's business model that relies on squeezing as much out of the market as they possibly can.
  - bagacrap 3y ago
    Isn't making a profit everyone's business model? You can go volunteer at a soup kitchen if you just want to fill stomachs out of the kindness of your heart. I don't think food delivery is a solved problem. It could get a lot easier, more reliable, cheaper. I generally don't use it because my food doesn't always arrive in great condition (cold, spilled, etc) and it generates crazy amounts of petroleum based waste. At least the apps have made the ordering experience more predictable. From the restaurant owner's perspective, it's probably not practical to keep the right number of delivery people on staff at all times. So the apps help somewhat but the problem still isn't solved. From my perspective the apps create a marketplace where eaters who wish to remain stationary buy delivery services from workers who don't mind ambulation. You can pay the delivery people whatever you want since tipping is part of the culture. If you don't want to participate in the marketplace that's fine too. Most people don't participate in most markets.

e63f67dd-065b 3y ago

How does this minimum wage work, specifically? One of the selling points as far as I can tell of these delivery apps is that the workers effectively bid per order -- they're not hourly workers, they can choose or refuse which orders they want to take. Workers are not on the clock, obligated to work certain hours, they don't even have hours. It would be interesting to see an even more market-based delivery app ecosystem -- each contract is auctioned separately, with spot prices for each hour and route of delivery going to the lowest bidder. It would never happen, since it would ruffle to many political feathers, but it's an interesting thought experiment. It would also require much more transparency than the apps currently allow or would ever willingly give up.

LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
One of the earliest and best things the internet does is auctions. Auctioning off delivery contracts individually isn’t profitable. If it were, we’d be doing it already.
111111IIIIIII 3y ago
> It would never happen, since it would ruffle to many political feathers Wrong. It would never happen because it would be too unreliable so nobody would use it. The few times I used DoorDash the orders took twice as long as the estimate even though I live near a city center and always tipped the highest recommended abount. And that is why these workers are definitely employees who should be paid for their availability.
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> they're not hourly workers, they can choose or refuse which orders they want to take. Workers are not on the clock, obligated to work certain hours, they don't even have hours it seems they ARE hourly workers for the purposes of this law, which makes sense: they're allegedly contractors because they can choose their hours. if a driver wants to work the 8:00 to 9:00 hour, the delivery app can either: 1. pay them at least the minimum wage for that hour, and assign enough work to fill it, or 2. pay them at least the minimum wage for that hour, and NOT assign enough work to fill it, or 3. don't pay them for that hour, meaning you aren't letting them work that hour, meaning you're determining their hours, meaning they're employees, not contractors whether [app X] has enough orders to keep occupied all the willing drivers with open [app X] is [app X]'s problem: [app X] choose the business model of unrestricted driver growth

bdw5204 3y ago

The argument that a law "would help workers more than help them" is a political argument not a legal argument. The legislature has the right to pass dumb laws so long as those laws are within their constitutional powers and do not infringe or abridge any constitutional rights. Judges have no business legislating on political questions. I take no position on whether or not the law is actually dumb but the delivery apps need to find a better legal argument if they want to argue this law is unconstitutional. This argument that "the law is unconstitutional because it is dumb" is basically just asking judges to legislate from the bench which is exactly what everybody who pays attention to Supreme Court confirmation hearings knows judges aren't supposed to do.

jlarocco 3y ago

> All three companies sued the city, maintaining that the law would hurt delivery workers more than help them. Assuming that is really the premise of the lawsuit, could it be thrown out because the drivers aren't employees, and therefore the companies aren't the ones being harmed? Can they sue on the driver's behalf when the drivers are contractors?

nine_zeros 3y ago

> All three companies sued the city, maintaining that the law would hurt delivery workers more than help them. This means that shareholders and execs are going to take a minor loss. How dare the city get in the way of their 13th mansion purchase?

klysm 3y ago

All this means is that the legal costs are less than their expected loss if the legislation goes into effect.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
Good. Hope it's a lose-lose for them, pay your labor

thisisthenewme 3y ago

> The DoorDash and Grubhub lawsuit claims the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection’s analysis of the regulation would add an average of $5.18 per order. I'd rather have them charge the $5 than be guilted into paying the $5 dollars as a 'tip'. Just makes the costs of these purchases more apparent.

xs83 3y ago
This! We have DoorDash in Australia but the drivers cannot see whether a tip is added (it usually isnt - because we have minimum wage laws here too). The stories I hear about them just ignoring the orders because they are shown there is a tip and that tip is not acceptable to them is ridiculous to me, it's a pay to win strategy that has no place in a supposed civil society. I am fine overpaying (the restaurants need to cover the frankly ridiculous 30%+ fees they charge) AND then a delivery fee on top to sit on my fat ass in my jammies and have delicious food delivered to me. I am not fine with a bidding structure where my food might sit there cold until someone decides that my "tip" is acceptable

LapsangGuzzler 3y ago

These companies are so reliant on a zero-interest-rate market and the increasing prices are bringing this reality home in a big way. On Friday, I went to UberEats to do basic takeout for 2 in a reasonable cost of living area, and it was $50 total for basic takeout, nothing fancy. In that situation, the company then expects us to tip knowing that we’re already at the upper limit of what’s considered appropriate pricing for this service. Of course the drivers are gonna get shafted. The system was intentionally designed to make them as powerless as possible, as evidenced by the fact that these same companies had the gall to garnish tips from the drivers and then pretend like it was some misunderstanding. Anyone who’s written commercial software knows that this is BS.

spaceman_2020 3y ago

I’m just so jaded with capitalism in its current form. Its become too perverse, too immoral, too untethered from society. The market rallying every time there is bad economic data, collapsing when unemployment goes down is just the clearest indication that something has gone terribly wrong with “market forces”.

heavyset_go 3y ago
The market collapse in response to low unemployment was the result of the Federal Reserve raising interest rates in direct response to high employment and wages, with the stated goal of reducing wages and increasing layoffs to tackle inflation. Capitalism has always been about serving the needs of those with capital, and reducing wages and employment does just that. This has always been its form.
- spaceman_2020 3y ago
  All that pretty much means that “market forces” are in absentia. The invisible hand of the market has been replaced by the invisible hand of the Fed. This isn’t what capitalism stands for at its core.

pcurve 3y ago

"The DoorDash and Grubhub lawsuit alleges that the new regulation is legally flawed because it targets only meal-delivery services and not grocery-delivery services. It also argues the regulation is legally flawed because it would compel the companies to pay workers for hours that they are available to take orders while logged into the delivery apps, even if they don’t actually make any deliveries." Ah... welcome to the world of managing FTEs. I managed an army of people with TC of $150-$200K with sr. management breathing down my neck to make sure they're delivering value. Wouldn't it be nice if I could pay them based on product shipped and revenue generated :-/

111111IIIIIII 3y ago
[flagged]

ano88888 3y ago

i saw Tiktok sued a state government too. It is something amazing that only happens in countries like America. In most of other countries, including China, sueing govementment by citizens or private companies is unthinkable and will be faced with severe consequences and in some cases , deaths. This kind of power check is great.

DueDilligence 3y ago

[dead]