zlacker

>>onewho+(OP)
Here are their demands: https://medium.com/@GigWorkersCollective/instacart-emergency...

- Safety precautions at no cost to workers — PPE (at minimum hand sanitizer, disinfectant wipes/sprays and soap).

- Hazard pay — an extra $5 per order and defaulting the in-app tip amount to at least 10% of the order total.

- An extension and expansion of pay for workers impacted by COVID-19 — anyone who has a doctor’s note for either a preexisting condition that’s a known risk factor or requiring a self-quarantine.

- The deadline to qualify for these benefits must be extended beyond April 8th.

>>elicas+z2
honestly, i'm surprised that their demands are so few and so modest. i was expecting significantly higher numbers for the hazard pay portion of their demands.

i can't understand what might prevent amazon and instacart from assenting to these demands as soon as they have the logistical ability to provide the necessary items to their staff.

the national situation isn't permissive of corporations dragging their feet when essential services are down at the moment.

on the other hand, workers treated to a hopefully quick victory will not forget this when the pandemic ends. if we're lucky, the balance of power will shift to their favor.

>>cryosh+p8
Workers can only demand what the market will bear, and considering there are a lot of people looking for any sort of work right now, and training up to become one of these workers doesn't take long, these workers aren't in a position to demand much.

Hazard pay is moot for workers who have already caught COVID-19 too, which I would guess is a reasonably chunk of delivery workers by now.

>>london+9b
You’re getting downvoted, but this is absolutely correct. There is no reason at all you would expect the pay of low-skilled workers to increase during a period of increasing unemployment. For every union member that refuses to work without increased benefits, there’ll be a queue of newly unemployed people willing to work for less. The unions have no sway over the supply of labor here, the only thing they can exploit is the threat to temporarily disrupt service during a crisis. Something which won’t go over well with all the country’s unemployed, and everybody who’s going to have to pay the increased prices.

>>Americ+2n
OK I usually agree with this but the elephant in the room is- what if some large number of those let go and also employed drop dead and people perceive it's because of Instacart/Amazon's callous attitude towards their safety?

Serious question, not being combative with you.

Doesn't Amazon have a very real hazard here which could result in burdensome regulation and or customer defection?

>>david_+0J
As Amazon or any of these other companies aren’t organisations devoted to the study of epidemiology or medical expertise, the only thing they can possibly do is follow the guidelines/regulations imposed on them. I’m not sure what that has to do with compensation though.

>>Americ+1M
You're talking compensation not going up because too many people want the jobs and Amazon employees quit or strike because of COVID-19 working conditions so it's all connected.

I appreciate that you either can't see that or don't buy it so I end my participation here having tried to make the point as clear as I could. That is not a sly way of saying "I'm right, you're wrong" by the way. I am just out of words and ideas and time to re-express the relationship again.

Very best to you.

>>david_+9S
Your thesis seems to be that the conditions that would lead these workers to strike would be sufficient to also deter all of the millions of newly unemployed people. A proposition which is unfounded and completely defies logic. Your question about how these companies should ensure business continuity with the threat of their workers getting sick is both unrelated to remuneration, and not a question those companies are in a position to answer themselves. That responsibility would fall upon a regulating body.