4 ms·

"Your dad is forced to be an indentured servant for these companies" His dad can work at anytime, anywhere and doesn't have a boss to mandate when he clocks in

"Your dad is forced to be an indentured servant for these companies" His dad can work at anytime, anywhere and doesn't have a boss to mandate when he clocks in. How is that being an indentured servant?

qbasic_forever 3y ago
He DOES have a boss that mandates when he needs to work--the apps penalize him if he isn't taking rides and eventually cut off his work entirely if he isn't taking them (which is the whole point of the original article and legislation in Seattle!).
- jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
  Absolutely wrong. There are no penalties for not working. I've done that myself. Further to equate a "boss" to an app is quite a leap.
  - qbasic_forever 3y ago
    The commenter explicitly says to the contrary: > Skip, on the other hand, penalizes his earnings if he falls below 80% moving average accept rate (over the last 10 orders).
    - jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
      You're talking about a different app not Uber, which doesn't penalize per acceptance rates. Besides, I don't think you understand how these gig apps work. You can only accept or reject if you're clocked into a shift. His dad can clock in at anytime but he won't be penalized on Skip if he's not clocked in.
    - lalopalota 3y ago
      The commenter also says nothing about being penalized for not taking shifts. If they sign up for a shift, they are expected to work that shift. It is a completely different model than Uber Eats, which he can sign into or out of at any given time, without penalty.
    - ffhhttt 3y ago
      If so if uber was forced to employ all of their workers how else would to expect it to work than that? Certainly your ability to reject jobs or even to select the time you want to work would be severely limited (but let’s ignore that..)
      - chmod775 3y ago
        They're not his employer so they shouldn't penalize him. If you're truly a gig worker, why are you being penalized for not accepting some job? How does that make sense? If they were employing him, penalizing him for declining work would be fine.
        ffhhttt 3y ago
        Is Uber penalizing him? No. Any company which would have to directly employ him would certainly penalize him for not accepting work and would not allow him to start his shift whenever he wanted. That other app he’s using seems to be somewhere in between gig and normal work (so you seem to get the worst from both worlds). > If they were employing him, penalizing him for declining work would be fine. Which seems like a huge downside?
      - oblio 3y ago
        Ummm.... it could be a job with a flexible schedule. I don't understand why that's so hard to set up.
    - Transpire7487 3y ago
      Because Skip has shifts and he is expected to deliver to a certain standard during that shift. The “should be an employee” people seem to want their cake (be classified as an employee) and eat it too (not get punished for not doing acceptable workloads as an employee). Smh
- ffhhttt 3y ago
  That’s exactly how an app which treated him as a part-time worker would work. If you stopp accepting every ride that’s offered to you, you get fired. What else would you expect? I find it so puzzling that some people can’t accept that there are gig workers who prefer the flexibility and many of them wouldn’t be able to work at all if they had to be treated as part/full time.
komali2 3y ago
> His dad can work at anytime, anywhere and doesn't have a boss to mandate when he clocks in. That's not exactly true if we consider the environment that allows companies to operate like this, insomuch as his dad will eventually starve or be homeless if he doesn't eventually clock in. Hence the indentured servitude. The "worker's choice" of "just do gigs for a different gig company" doesn't really work if all gig companies stand together at the other side of the homelessness cannon.
- IIsi50MHz 3y ago
  This represents a poor understanding of "indentured servitude", or a deliberate broadening of its meaning to encompass other things. The term refers to situations such as "An employer pays for transit of one or more people on condition that work of the employer's choosing is performed until the cost of transit, and any accompanying expenses, are repaid to the employer." Generally, these include specified wages, but employers commonly arranged that expenses and wages combined guarantee that the workers will be unable to pay off the contract within any specified timeframe. This often resulted in lifelong service, and could at times extend to workers' heirs (whether debyst inheritance be legal or not, as such workers were often at severe disadvantage to risk challenging the employer on any matter). Effectively, indentured servitude was usually indistingushable from slavery. To address your "will eventually starve if he doesn't _eventually_ clock in", this seems to be the default case for all forms of employment (even if you employ yourself, in the wilderness, entirely on your own). The exception being that some places have sufficient social or legal safeguards to prevent a "clocked out" person from meeting this fate.
- ahtihn 3y ago
  > his dad will eventually starve or be homeless if he doesn't eventually clock in. How are traditional full time jobs not even worse then? They require you to clock in at times chosen by the employer or you lose the job and income.
- PixyMisa 3y ago
  If you don't work, you don't eat.
AndyMcConachie 3y ago
This discussion of work like something that people can whenever they want, however they like feels so off base to me. It's work. It's something that people have to do in order to survive and live. Yet for people who promote the flexibility of gig workers it gets talked about like a sport or some other fun activity of choice. It all comes down to trade offs in the end. Either we optimize for people to hold jobs that allow them to survive in society and earn enough to do things like pay rent and buy food. Or we optimize for job dabblers who don't really need the work but want some extra cash. I believe we should optimze for people to hold steady jobs that allow them stability and do important stuff like pay rent and buy food. We should optimize for survival of the worker and workers require steady employment.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  Why don’t we optimize for both and allow the market to decide where each model is best suited to provide services? Eg, ridesharing can be done ride-by-ride by people choosing to accept fares from a marketplace but stocking store shelves works better having people there on committed shifts and delivering packages is in between, where people sign up for shifts but are expected to complete the full shift. Why can’t we fulfill the needs of both people who want reliable, shift-based employment and people who want variable gigs?
- sokoloff 3y ago
  There are plenty of people who can only work part-time yet may still need money. People in school, people with young kids, people with medical conditions that limit their activities (sometimes variably by day/time), etc. Not everyone doing gig work is hustling as a second job to get ahead (though that should also be both legal and accepted, IMO).
- throwaway35i2 3y ago
  "It's something that people have to do in order to survive and live" And you don't see an issue with that?
intelVISA 3y ago
I love being exploited as long as I can set my own hours. I can quit at any time... just one last ride.

qbasic_forever 3y ago

He DOES have a boss that mandates when he needs to work--the apps penalize him if he isn't taking rides and eventually cut off his work entirely if he isn't taking them (which is the whole point of the original article and legislation in Seattle!).

jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
Absolutely wrong. There are no penalties for not working. I've done that myself. Further to equate a "boss" to an app is quite a leap.
- qbasic_forever 3y ago
  The commenter explicitly says to the contrary: > Skip, on the other hand, penalizes his earnings if he falls below 80% moving average accept rate (over the last 10 orders).
  - jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
    You're talking about a different app not Uber, which doesn't penalize per acceptance rates. Besides, I don't think you understand how these gig apps work. You can only accept or reject if you're clocked into a shift. His dad can clock in at anytime but he won't be penalized on Skip if he's not clocked in.
  - lalopalota 3y ago
    The commenter also says nothing about being penalized for not taking shifts. If they sign up for a shift, they are expected to work that shift. It is a completely different model than Uber Eats, which he can sign into or out of at any given time, without penalty.
  - ffhhttt 3y ago
    If so if uber was forced to employ all of their workers how else would to expect it to work than that? Certainly your ability to reject jobs or even to select the time you want to work would be severely limited (but let’s ignore that..)
    - chmod775 3y ago
      They're not his employer so they shouldn't penalize him. If you're truly a gig worker, why are you being penalized for not accepting some job? How does that make sense? If they were employing him, penalizing him for declining work would be fine.
      - ffhhttt 3y ago
        Is Uber penalizing him? No. Any company which would have to directly employ him would certainly penalize him for not accepting work and would not allow him to start his shift whenever he wanted. That other app he’s using seems to be somewhere in between gig and normal work (so you seem to get the worst from both worlds). > If they were employing him, penalizing him for declining work would be fine. Which seems like a huge downside?
    - oblio 3y ago
      Ummm.... it could be a job with a flexible schedule. I don't understand why that's so hard to set up.
  - Transpire7487 3y ago
    Because Skip has shifts and he is expected to deliver to a certain standard during that shift. The “should be an employee” people seem to want their cake (be classified as an employee) and eat it too (not get punished for not doing acceptable workloads as an employee). Smh
ffhhttt 3y ago
That’s exactly how an app which treated him as a part-time worker would work. If you stopp accepting every ride that’s offered to you, you get fired. What else would you expect? I find it so puzzling that some people can’t accept that there are gig workers who prefer the flexibility and many of them wouldn’t be able to work at all if they had to be treated as part/full time.

komali2 3y ago

> His dad can work at anytime, anywhere and doesn't have a boss to mandate when he clocks in. That's not exactly true if we consider the environment that allows companies to operate like this, insomuch as his dad will eventually starve or be homeless if he doesn't eventually clock in. Hence the indentured servitude. The "worker's choice" of "just do gigs for a different gig company" doesn't really work if all gig companies stand together at the other side of the homelessness cannon.

IIsi50MHz 3y ago
This represents a poor understanding of "indentured servitude", or a deliberate broadening of its meaning to encompass other things. The term refers to situations such as "An employer pays for transit of one or more people on condition that work of the employer's choosing is performed until the cost of transit, and any accompanying expenses, are repaid to the employer." Generally, these include specified wages, but employers commonly arranged that expenses and wages combined guarantee that the workers will be unable to pay off the contract within any specified timeframe. This often resulted in lifelong service, and could at times extend to workers' heirs (whether debyst inheritance be legal or not, as such workers were often at severe disadvantage to risk challenging the employer on any matter). Effectively, indentured servitude was usually indistingushable from slavery. To address your "will eventually starve if he doesn't _eventually_ clock in", this seems to be the default case for all forms of employment (even if you employ yourself, in the wilderness, entirely on your own). The exception being that some places have sufficient social or legal safeguards to prevent a "clocked out" person from meeting this fate.
ahtihn 3y ago
> his dad will eventually starve or be homeless if he doesn't eventually clock in. How are traditional full time jobs not even worse then? They require you to clock in at times chosen by the employer or you lose the job and income.
PixyMisa 3y ago
If you don't work, you don't eat.

AndyMcConachie 3y ago

This discussion of work like something that people can whenever they want, however they like feels so off base to me. It's work. It's something that people have to do in order to survive and live. Yet for people who promote the flexibility of gig workers it gets talked about like a sport or some other fun activity of choice. It all comes down to trade offs in the end. Either we optimize for people to hold jobs that allow them to survive in society and earn enough to do things like pay rent and buy food. Or we optimize for job dabblers who don't really need the work but want some extra cash. I believe we should optimze for people to hold steady jobs that allow them stability and do important stuff like pay rent and buy food. We should optimize for survival of the worker and workers require steady employment.

zmgsabst 3y ago
Why don’t we optimize for both and allow the market to decide where each model is best suited to provide services? Eg, ridesharing can be done ride-by-ride by people choosing to accept fares from a marketplace but stocking store shelves works better having people there on committed shifts and delivering packages is in between, where people sign up for shifts but are expected to complete the full shift. Why can’t we fulfill the needs of both people who want reliable, shift-based employment and people who want variable gigs?
sokoloff 3y ago
There are plenty of people who can only work part-time yet may still need money. People in school, people with young kids, people with medical conditions that limit their activities (sometimes variably by day/time), etc. Not everyone doing gig work is hustling as a second job to get ahead (though that should also be both legal and accepted, IMO).
throwaway35i2 3y ago
"It's something that people have to do in order to survive and live" And you don't see an issue with that?

intelVISA 3y ago

I love being exploited as long as I can set my own hours. I can quit at any time... just one last ride.