7 ms·

Gig workers are a genuine and serious regression in workers rights and employer vs. employee power balance. These "jobs" should not be allowed to exist, at all.

Gig workers are a genuine and serious regression in workers rights and employer vs. employee power balance. These "jobs" should not be allowed to exist, at all. Tech companies have figured out a way to subvert the protections all other employees are subject to. I see absolutely no reason why they should be allowed to do this. I really do not understand why governments aren't working hard to make this kind of gig-economy illegal.

yuvalr1 2y ago
This is true. it also hurts the public, as the drivers are dependent on the number of deliveries the succeed making, thus hurrying up and constantly stressed. This hurts not only their health and quality of delivery, but also increases the risk for traffic accidents. It is in the best of interest of everyone that these people would get a normal salary.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  As long as they get tips, they will continue to speed. See: pizza delivery people for decades.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    That makes it sound like too much of the responsibility is on drivers. The history of pizza-delivery itself provides a sharp contrast: Domino's Pizza had a "30 minutes or less" guarantee during the 1980s and grew enormously from it, until a 1993 lawsuit over the accidents/deaths forced them to stop. That systemic issue didn't come from delivery drivers, it was a top-down policy from the employer.
- alextingle 2y ago
  I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with the gig economy model - it's a way of working that suits some workers and clients. But the balance of power needs to be shifted towards the workers (and clients) and away from the platforms. I think this article is spot on. Platforms obfuscate their algorithms, and use that secrecy to play workers off against each other, and against their clients. Regulation would really help. There ought to be a right to... 1. An official explanation for each decision the algorithm makes. That could then be used as the basis for mandatory arbitration, if a party believes it's unfair. 2. Effective, and timely support from a human being, if that's required. Together those would force the platforms to make their systems fairer (else be swamped by dealing with arbitration decisions), and easy to navigate (else be swamped by costly support calls).
  - crmd 2y ago
    I hope I'm not nitpicking semantics, but I believe part of the solution is in the discourse is to specify platform owners as the greedy actors here. E.g.: >The balance of power needs to be shifted towards the workers (and clients) and away from the platform owners. >Platform owners obfuscate their algorithms, and use that secrecy to play workers off against each other The platforms themselves are just code and capital, while actual human beings are leveraging them to implement this awful neo-taylorism on their workers. It would be like my grandfather being mad at "the factory" for horrible working conditions, rather than the shitty owner of the factory.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > Platforms obfuscate their algorithms, and use that secrecy to play workers off against each other, and against their clients. Yeah, the secrecy is--if not evil on its own--a key component that allows evil (and maybe unlawful) things to occur. A similar critique can be applied to content-moderation, where "security through obscurity" makes no sense because the whole point is to foster clear rules people can internalize and an authority they can trust.
- pjc50 2y ago
  Have you seen the discourse about this on social media? People are furious that the price of delivered food has gone up recently. They're not going to vote for increased prices. That and heavy astroturf campaigns by the middlemen guarantee that this situation will remain. And so long as there's more cheap workers available who can easily be replaced, it's hard for the workers to do anything about it.
  - skyyler 2y ago
    >heavy astroturf campaigns by the middlemen guarantee that this situation will remain Paying attention to California Prop 22 in 2020 shook me to my core in a way that I haven't been able to properly express. The money put into swaying public opinion for that was staggering. It makes me fearful for the future ahead of us.
  - albrewer 2y ago
    > People are furious that the price of delivered food has gone up recently If I was confident that increase was mostly going to the driver, I'd be fine with it.
nateglims 2y ago
> I really do not understand why governments aren't working hard to make this kind of gig-economy illegal. It makes money and the current governing/legal doctrine says the government should give a lot of leeway to that. Biden has been touted as the most pro-labor president since about LBJ, but a lot of this is just letting the NLRB mediate every individual starbucks that unionized.
zkid18 2y ago
I recently learned that a courier in Panama can earn around $1,400 a month. Yes, you likely have to work six days a week, but that's well above the average salary in the country. I'm not sure how the sentiment is in developed countries like the US and the UK. Still, here in Latin America, this presents an opportunity for poorer communities to provide dinner for a family.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  In most of the western world the sentiment is that basic worker rights are a necessary element of social stability. And that just because a job "presents an opportunity for poorer communities to provide dinner for a family" it should not be excluded from receiving basic labor protections.
  - zkid18 2y ago
    I’m not arguing that it’s an unnecessary element. Rather, I don’t agree with the original statement that the government should shut down the services.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > basic worker rights are a necessary element of social stability That's the argument for the owners of capital - give them rights so that you can have social stability. The argument for most people is that rights are universal, and it is fair, just, and essential for workers to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc.
    - constantcrying 2y ago
      >The argument for most people is that rights are universal No, they are not. Clearly the US and Germany do not have the same rights. They also have changed over time and will change in the future, as the labor market changes. >and it is fair, just, and essential for workers to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc. But these are not the rights a worker in Germany has. Worker rights in Germany derive from the belief that the employer has a duty to care for his employees, which also does include limiting the freedom of their workers, if necessary. E.g. you are forced to pay health insurance as an employee. Additionally social stability is good for everyone, especially the workers.
conception 2y ago
In CA at least, Uber effectively bought the protection through an effective ad campaign to pass by popular vote an effectively unrecoverable law to protect themselves.
- yusyusyus 2y ago
  Voters have no agency? Kind of a dim view on democratic processes.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    Functional democracy is much more than just "everyone casts a vote"
  - miltonlost 2y ago
    Voters are heavily influenced by propaganda. If they weren't, then there wouldn't be advertising.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - dartos 2y ago
    Convince me that voters, at large, have agency. Ad spend and marketing reach is a great predictor or election outcomes. This last US election really lowered my optimism about the democratic process.
    - Nasrudith 2y ago
      While deeply dismaying on multiple levels Trump was outspent in election budgets. While there are many things to damn voters for being mere puppets is a worse overly-reductive explanation than that the majority are just bad people.
      - dartos 2y ago
        > being mere puppets is a worse overly-reductive explanation than that the majority are just bad people I don't think the majority are bad people. I've only met a few people that I'd call "bad" who just want harm to come to others. I think the majority of people are basically puppets when it comes to voting. Some states even have ballots that let you check a single "democrat" or "republican" box and will cast all your votes for that party for each office in the running. You don't even need to think. Just check the elephant or the donkey. Joe Roegan has an insane amount of listeners and they're mostly going to vote across the lines he appears to like (and they did) In the past, the news channel with the most viewers held that influence, which is why ad spend has been such a good predictor for election sucess.
cogman10 2y ago
> I really do not understand why governments aren't working hard to make this kind of gig-economy illegal. Because there's a large number of people who take the writings of Ayan Rand and the policies of Ronald Regan as the best way to run government. Workers' rights are being eroded because we've slowly dismantled and privatized as much of the government as possible. Workers' rights are incompatible with small government and or libertarian ideals. Much like other rights such as civil rights. Or rights to clean water, air, and food. Big government isn't perfect, but for its flaws there are benefits having a large organization with a bigger stick to beat in line robber barons whose entire goal is to undermine rights as much as possible to leach maximum profit from society.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  >Because there's a large number of people who take the writings of Ayan Rand and the policies of Ronald Regan as the best way to run government. Are these people currently running e.g. the UK?
  - cogman10 2y ago
    Well first off, yes for a very long time the party in charge of the UK was the Tories from 2010 all the way up to 2024. But further, the current prime minister of the UK got there by and large by abandoning Labour party positions in favor of explicitly supporting nothing. Starmer literally used Margret Thatcher, the UK equivalent of Regan, as an example of an excellent prime minister. Starmer is very much the UK equivalent of Bill Clinton, a conservative leader of the historically "progressive" party. Starmer has been in power all of 7 months now.
    - constantcrying 2y ago
      It seems very weird that they somehow do have labor laws over there, though. They even forced Uber to make their drivers have worker protections, quite strange to be honest. Maybe Thatcherite neo-liberals sometimes mistake the oppress everyone check box, with the worker rights check box. Who knows...
ge96 2y ago
Not sure if Uber Eats falls under gig work (think so) but I'm glad to have it, I can just turn it on and go. Granted in my case it's not my only job. I usually get $20/hr I know I'm destroying my own car in the process, get in a car crash I'm on my own. But again it's extra money on demand.
- exhilaration 2y ago
  I thought you were covered by Uber's car insurance when you were on their clock?
  - ge96 2y ago
    I would not think/expect that. There is even a commercial insurance you're supposed to have vs. regular
- ge96 2y ago
  The other thing is the instant pay out, being on a bi-weekly pay schedule and unfortunately living check to check, being able to get money the same day as I worked is nice.
benced 2y ago
Because it provides an extremely convenient service that has made life better for most people? People seem to forgot that this class of job used to not exist in our lifetimes. Was it better to be a low-skill worker on the job market in 2010 when these apps didn't exist? If there are specific labor violations you think are taking place, the appropriate remedy is regulation, not banning.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  >Was it better to be a low-skill worker on the job market in 2010 when these apps didn't exist? If you had a job certainly. Basically any job is superior, as you actually do have some rights. >If there are specific labor violations you think are taking place, the appropriate remedy is regulation, not banning. The whole concept is a violation of labor laws. Every aspect is bad.
  - username135 2y ago
    I don't know enough about it, but a general statement like "every aspect is bad" isn't helpful if I wanted to learn more. Do you have some specific issues?
    - sapphicsnail 2y ago
      Look at the protections employees have that independent contractors don't. There's also very little transparency over pay and how you get assigned jobs. I have a personal experience that might be relevant. I used to work for Instacart. One day I was leaving a store with groceries and discovered my car's windshield had been smashed. There was shattered glass all over the inside of my car so I reported that I had vehicle problems through the app amd handed off the order to another driver. I was an independent contractor and didn't get compensated for the damage for my car but I also got flagged for failing to complete a delivery and I stopped getting work. I never tried to get compensated for the windshield but I tried to get the incomplete order removed from my record. I finally got driver support on the phone and the guy just yelled at me for being ungrateful that I could still work for Instacart at all. I'm lucky that I no longer need to work gig apps but my heart goes out to people that have to use those to support themselves.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
janniehater 2y ago
[dead]
southernplaces7 2y ago
>These "jobs" should not be allowed to exist, at all. Piece work is nothing new in the economic landscape of history. I'm not saying I absolutely defend it or think it shouldn't be subject to some sorts of protective rules for workers, but you saying it shouldn't exist at all begs the question of what exactly these many, many workers should do instead to make extra, necessary money instead. If you're of a mind to answer, don't mention something from some neat ideal you have in your mind, describe something practical and accessible in the real world of the present, right now, that could replace their gig wages under existing market dynamics. It's easy to dislike something and say it should be made to go away, but it helps to know how that will affect those who depend on it, and also to ask what they think of its disappearance in their practical lives.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  >but you saying it shouldn't exist at all begs the question of what exactly these many, many workers should do instead to make extra, necessary money instead. The exact same thing they are doing now, except as employees. I do not think this is some utopian vision. Worker rights are a very real thing in other low skill jobs.
  - chii 2y ago
    > The exact same thing they are doing now, except as employees. except that's > that could replace their gig wages under existing market dynamics. so this job will not exist. The wages and costs required to have such a large fleet of employees, not all of whom is constantly employed and productive, but is costing money, will remove this role completely. Or, the number of them will necessarily be reduced, so that timely deliveries would be harder.
    - constantcrying 2y ago
      It is insane to propose that people do not deserve worker protection, because the only way their jobs can be done at reasonable prices is if the workers are abused. Either something is wrong or it isn't and if it is wrong it should be stopped. If that means you have to go get your food yourself and the worker has to work a real job, with a real salary where his employer can not abuse him at his whim, then so be it. You can not argue a moral point by pointing out some economic consequences.
UltraSane 2y ago
Gig workers are a perfect example of how inhumanly ruthless our capitalistic overlords are.
nurumaik 2y ago
Why someone other than me and my employers should decide whether my job is allowed to exist?
- jbaber 2y ago
  You only get to say this if you stake the strong libertarian claim that it's impossible to exploit adults. Make sure you're okay with the most extreme exploitation. e.g. Why should anyone else get between a literally starving person and an employer asking to sign a contract of lifetime servitude?
  - nurumaik 2y ago
    Imo contracts should be non-binding Sign a contract, break a contract, let next contractors decide whether you can be trusted For high responsibility jobs use either reputation or deposit

yuvalr1 2y ago

This is true. it also hurts the public, as the drivers are dependent on the number of deliveries the succeed making, thus hurrying up and constantly stressed. This hurts not only their health and quality of delivery, but also increases the risk for traffic accidents. It is in the best of interest of everyone that these people would get a normal salary.

Aloisius 2y ago
As long as they get tips, they will continue to speed. See: pizza delivery people for decades.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  That makes it sound like too much of the responsibility is on drivers. The history of pizza-delivery itself provides a sharp contrast: Domino's Pizza had a "30 minutes or less" guarantee during the 1980s and grew enormously from it, until a 1993 lawsuit over the accidents/deaths forced them to stop. That systemic issue didn't come from delivery drivers, it was a top-down policy from the employer.
alextingle 2y ago
I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with the gig economy model - it's a way of working that suits some workers and clients. But the balance of power needs to be shifted towards the workers (and clients) and away from the platforms. I think this article is spot on. Platforms obfuscate their algorithms, and use that secrecy to play workers off against each other, and against their clients. Regulation would really help. There ought to be a right to... 1. An official explanation for each decision the algorithm makes. That could then be used as the basis for mandatory arbitration, if a party believes it's unfair. 2. Effective, and timely support from a human being, if that's required. Together those would force the platforms to make their systems fairer (else be swamped by dealing with arbitration decisions), and easy to navigate (else be swamped by costly support calls).
- crmd 2y ago
  I hope I'm not nitpicking semantics, but I believe part of the solution is in the discourse is to specify platform owners as the greedy actors here. E.g.: >The balance of power needs to be shifted towards the workers (and clients) and away from the platform owners. >Platform owners obfuscate their algorithms, and use that secrecy to play workers off against each other The platforms themselves are just code and capital, while actual human beings are leveraging them to implement this awful neo-taylorism on their workers. It would be like my grandfather being mad at "the factory" for horrible working conditions, rather than the shitty owner of the factory.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > Platforms obfuscate their algorithms, and use that secrecy to play workers off against each other, and against their clients. Yeah, the secrecy is--if not evil on its own--a key component that allows evil (and maybe unlawful) things to occur. A similar critique can be applied to content-moderation, where "security through obscurity" makes no sense because the whole point is to foster clear rules people can internalize and an authority they can trust.
pjc50 2y ago
Have you seen the discourse about this on social media? People are furious that the price of delivered food has gone up recently. They're not going to vote for increased prices. That and heavy astroturf campaigns by the middlemen guarantee that this situation will remain. And so long as there's more cheap workers available who can easily be replaced, it's hard for the workers to do anything about it.
- skyyler 2y ago
  >heavy astroturf campaigns by the middlemen guarantee that this situation will remain Paying attention to California Prop 22 in 2020 shook me to my core in a way that I haven't been able to properly express. The money put into swaying public opinion for that was staggering. It makes me fearful for the future ahead of us.
- albrewer 2y ago
  > People are furious that the price of delivered food has gone up recently If I was confident that increase was mostly going to the driver, I'd be fine with it.

nateglims 2y ago

> I really do not understand why governments aren't working hard to make this kind of gig-economy illegal. It makes money and the current governing/legal doctrine says the government should give a lot of leeway to that. Biden has been touted as the most pro-labor president since about LBJ, but a lot of this is just letting the NLRB mediate every individual starbucks that unionized.

zkid18 2y ago

I recently learned that a courier in Panama can earn around $1,400 a month. Yes, you likely have to work six days a week, but that's well above the average salary in the country. I'm not sure how the sentiment is in developed countries like the US and the UK. Still, here in Latin America, this presents an opportunity for poorer communities to provide dinner for a family.

constantcrying 2y ago
In most of the western world the sentiment is that basic worker rights are a necessary element of social stability. And that just because a job "presents an opportunity for poorer communities to provide dinner for a family" it should not be excluded from receiving basic labor protections.
- zkid18 2y ago
  I’m not arguing that it’s an unnecessary element. Rather, I don’t agree with the original statement that the government should shut down the services.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > basic worker rights are a necessary element of social stability That's the argument for the owners of capital - give them rights so that you can have social stability. The argument for most people is that rights are universal, and it is fair, just, and essential for workers to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    >The argument for most people is that rights are universal No, they are not. Clearly the US and Germany do not have the same rights. They also have changed over time and will change in the future, as the labor market changes. >and it is fair, just, and essential for workers to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc. But these are not the rights a worker in Germany has. Worker rights in Germany derive from the belief that the employer has a duty to care for his employees, which also does include limiting the freedom of their workers, if necessary. E.g. you are forced to pay health insurance as an employee. Additionally social stability is good for everyone, especially the workers.

conception 2y ago

In CA at least, Uber effectively bought the protection through an effective ad campaign to pass by popular vote an effectively unrecoverable law to protect themselves.

yusyusyus 2y ago
Voters have no agency? Kind of a dim view on democratic processes.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Functional democracy is much more than just "everyone casts a vote"
- miltonlost 2y ago
  Voters are heavily influenced by propaganda. If they weren't, then there wouldn't be advertising.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dartos 2y ago
  Convince me that voters, at large, have agency. Ad spend and marketing reach is a great predictor or election outcomes. This last US election really lowered my optimism about the democratic process.
  - Nasrudith 2y ago
    While deeply dismaying on multiple levels Trump was outspent in election budgets. While there are many things to damn voters for being mere puppets is a worse overly-reductive explanation than that the majority are just bad people.
    - dartos 2y ago
      > being mere puppets is a worse overly-reductive explanation than that the majority are just bad people I don't think the majority are bad people. I've only met a few people that I'd call "bad" who just want harm to come to others. I think the majority of people are basically puppets when it comes to voting. Some states even have ballots that let you check a single "democrat" or "republican" box and will cast all your votes for that party for each office in the running. You don't even need to think. Just check the elephant or the donkey. Joe Roegan has an insane amount of listeners and they're mostly going to vote across the lines he appears to like (and they did) In the past, the news channel with the most viewers held that influence, which is why ad spend has been such a good predictor for election sucess.

cogman10 2y ago

> I really do not understand why governments aren't working hard to make this kind of gig-economy illegal. Because there's a large number of people who take the writings of Ayan Rand and the policies of Ronald Regan as the best way to run government. Workers' rights are being eroded because we've slowly dismantled and privatized as much of the government as possible. Workers' rights are incompatible with small government and or libertarian ideals. Much like other rights such as civil rights. Or rights to clean water, air, and food. Big government isn't perfect, but for its flaws there are benefits having a large organization with a bigger stick to beat in line robber barons whose entire goal is to undermine rights as much as possible to leach maximum profit from society.

constantcrying 2y ago
>Because there's a large number of people who take the writings of Ayan Rand and the policies of Ronald Regan as the best way to run government. Are these people currently running e.g. the UK?
- cogman10 2y ago
  Well first off, yes for a very long time the party in charge of the UK was the Tories from 2010 all the way up to 2024. But further, the current prime minister of the UK got there by and large by abandoning Labour party positions in favor of explicitly supporting nothing. Starmer literally used Margret Thatcher, the UK equivalent of Regan, as an example of an excellent prime minister. Starmer is very much the UK equivalent of Bill Clinton, a conservative leader of the historically "progressive" party. Starmer has been in power all of 7 months now.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    It seems very weird that they somehow do have labor laws over there, though. They even forced Uber to make their drivers have worker protections, quite strange to be honest. Maybe Thatcherite neo-liberals sometimes mistake the oppress everyone check box, with the worker rights check box. Who knows...

ge96 2y ago

Not sure if Uber Eats falls under gig work (think so) but I'm glad to have it, I can just turn it on and go. Granted in my case it's not my only job. I usually get $20/hr I know I'm destroying my own car in the process, get in a car crash I'm on my own. But again it's extra money on demand.

exhilaration 2y ago
I thought you were covered by Uber's car insurance when you were on their clock?
- ge96 2y ago
  I would not think/expect that. There is even a commercial insurance you're supposed to have vs. regular
ge96 2y ago
The other thing is the instant pay out, being on a bi-weekly pay schedule and unfortunately living check to check, being able to get money the same day as I worked is nice.

benced 2y ago

Because it provides an extremely convenient service that has made life better for most people? People seem to forgot that this class of job used to not exist in our lifetimes. Was it better to be a low-skill worker on the job market in 2010 when these apps didn't exist? If there are specific labor violations you think are taking place, the appropriate remedy is regulation, not banning.

constantcrying 2y ago
>Was it better to be a low-skill worker on the job market in 2010 when these apps didn't exist? If you had a job certainly. Basically any job is superior, as you actually do have some rights. >If there are specific labor violations you think are taking place, the appropriate remedy is regulation, not banning. The whole concept is a violation of labor laws. Every aspect is bad.
- username135 2y ago
  I don't know enough about it, but a general statement like "every aspect is bad" isn't helpful if I wanted to learn more. Do you have some specific issues?
  - sapphicsnail 2y ago
    Look at the protections employees have that independent contractors don't. There's also very little transparency over pay and how you get assigned jobs. I have a personal experience that might be relevant. I used to work for Instacart. One day I was leaving a store with groceries and discovered my car's windshield had been smashed. There was shattered glass all over the inside of my car so I reported that I had vehicle problems through the app amd handed off the order to another driver. I was an independent contractor and didn't get compensated for the damage for my car but I also got flagged for failing to complete a delivery and I stopped getting work. I never tried to get compensated for the windshield but I tried to get the incomplete order removed from my record. I finally got driver support on the phone and the guy just yelled at me for being ungrateful that I could still work for Instacart at all. I'm lucky that I no longer need to work gig apps but my heart goes out to people that have to use those to support themselves.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

janniehater 2y ago

[dead]

southernplaces7 2y ago

>These "jobs" should not be allowed to exist, at all. Piece work is nothing new in the economic landscape of history. I'm not saying I absolutely defend it or think it shouldn't be subject to some sorts of protective rules for workers, but you saying it shouldn't exist at all begs the question of what exactly these many, many workers should do instead to make extra, necessary money instead. If you're of a mind to answer, don't mention something from some neat ideal you have in your mind, describe something practical and accessible in the real world of the present, right now, that could replace their gig wages under existing market dynamics. It's easy to dislike something and say it should be made to go away, but it helps to know how that will affect those who depend on it, and also to ask what they think of its disappearance in their practical lives.

constantcrying 2y ago
>but you saying it shouldn't exist at all begs the question of what exactly these many, many workers should do instead to make extra, necessary money instead. The exact same thing they are doing now, except as employees. I do not think this is some utopian vision. Worker rights are a very real thing in other low skill jobs.
- chii 2y ago
  > The exact same thing they are doing now, except as employees. except that's > that could replace their gig wages under existing market dynamics. so this job will not exist. The wages and costs required to have such a large fleet of employees, not all of whom is constantly employed and productive, but is costing money, will remove this role completely. Or, the number of them will necessarily be reduced, so that timely deliveries would be harder.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    It is insane to propose that people do not deserve worker protection, because the only way their jobs can be done at reasonable prices is if the workers are abused. Either something is wrong or it isn't and if it is wrong it should be stopped. If that means you have to go get your food yourself and the worker has to work a real job, with a real salary where his employer can not abuse him at his whim, then so be it. You can not argue a moral point by pointing out some economic consequences.

UltraSane 2y ago

Gig workers are a perfect example of how inhumanly ruthless our capitalistic overlords are.

nurumaik 2y ago

Why someone other than me and my employers should decide whether my job is allowed to exist?

jbaber 2y ago
You only get to say this if you stake the strong libertarian claim that it's impossible to exploit adults. Make sure you're okay with the most extreme exploitation. e.g. Why should anyone else get between a literally starving person and an employer asking to sign a contract of lifetime servitude?
- nurumaik 2y ago
  Imo contracts should be non-binding Sign a contract, break a contract, let next contractors decide whether you can be trusted For high responsibility jobs use either reputation or deposit