zlacker

[parent] [thread] 71 comments
1. cryosh+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-03-30 17:52:11
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.

replies(7): >>Frost1+H1 >>london+K2 >>produc+K6 >>darksa+E8 >>hogFea+3b >>creato+Ec >>jackso+xc1
2. Frost1+H1[view] [source] 2020-03-30 18:01:36
>>cryosh+(OP)
>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.

"Shhh... don't let the Plebes know they're still getting robbed. We're going to fight this, negotiate something a little lower and still come out way ahead." -Our Corporate Lords and Vassels

In all seriousness, it goes to show you how little people have come to expect. Some of these strikes historically have had unrealistic expectations in requests from what I recall. Labor rights have declined so far in this country that demands from strikes are now almost fully reasonable, leaving little room to negotiate back from.

3. london+K2[view] [source] 2020-03-30 18:06:22
>>cryosh+(OP)
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.

replies(2): >>toomuc+F3 >>Americ+De
◧◩
4. toomuc+F3[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 18:12:32
>>london+K2
With the federal government putting what is essentially temporary UBI (as part of the "CARES Act" stimulus program) in place for those who have lost work or hours due to COVID, this is the best time to flex your labor muscle. If Amazon does not meet their demands, these folks can fall back to unemployment insurance for up to 10 months.

I apologize for the wall of text below, feel free to minimize this comment ([-] sign next to delete above), but it is crucial to demonstrate how broad this support is to the working class.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-stimulus-package... (F.A.Q. on Stimulus Checks, Unemployment and the Coronavirus Plan)

> Benefits will be expanded in an attempt to replace the average worker’s paycheck, explained Andrew Stettner, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, a public policy research group. The average worker earns about $1,000 a week, and unemployment benefits often replace roughly 40 to 45 percent of that. The expansion will pay an extra amount to fill the gap. Under the plan, eligible workers will get an extra $600 per week on top of their state benefit. But some states are more generous than others. According to the Century Foundation, the maximum weekly benefit in Alabama is $275, but it’s $450 in California and $713 in New Jersey.

> Are gig workers, freelancers and independent contractors covered? Yes, self-employed people are newly eligible for unemployment benefits. Self-employed workers will also be eligible for the additional $600 weekly benefit provided by the federal government.

> If you’ve received a diagnosis, are experiencing symptoms or are seeking a diagnosis — and you’re unemployed, partly unemployed or cannot work as a result — you will be covered. The same goes if you must care for a member of your family or household who has received a diagnosis.

> What if my child’s school or day care shut down? If you rely on a school, a day care or another facility to care for a child, elderly parent or another household member so that you can work — and that facility has been shut down because of coronavirus — you are eligible.

> What if I’ve been advised by a health care provider to quarantine myself because of exposure to coronavirus? And what about broader orders to stay home? People who must self-quarantine are covered. The legislation also says that individuals who are unable to get to work because of a quarantine imposed as a result of the outbreak are eligible.

replies(2): >>SpicyL+e5 >>mech42+mc
◧◩◪
5. SpicyL+e5[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 18:21:58
>>toomuc+F3
The general public is only going to support strikes to the extent that they look like protests against unacceptable treatment. If the strikers start "flexing their labor muscle" - if it looks like they're exploiting rather than responding to the crisis - the millions of unemployed Americans are going to sour on it very quickly.
replies(1): >>toomuc+C5
◧◩◪◨
6. toomuc+C5[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 18:25:00
>>SpicyL+e5
We can re-evaluate in a few weeks when the healthcare system and supply chains are failing under extreme load (hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions infected). Why work a terrible job when the federal government will compensate you to remain home in safety? Meet their demands or experience pain. It's not emotional, it's economic cause and effect.

I will admit I'm enjoying the schadenfreude of workers finally having some power due to a Congressional response to a pandemic, much to the chagrin of "but that's how the free market works" apologists.

replies(2): >>SpicyL+47 >>throwa+Ga
7. produc+K6[view] [source] 2020-03-30 18:31:30
>>cryosh+(OP)
I hope you realize that this is a sided marketplace. One side having demands means the other side has to pay for it. Now imagine all those families who are at home with many of them jobless - and them paying all these additional costs.

Have empathy both ways.

replies(4): >>vkou+r9 >>munk-a+Rc >>pixelb+hh >>gaius_+wl
◧◩◪◨⬒
8. SpicyL+47[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 18:33:25
>>toomuc+C5
Right, that's the framing that will make people lose sympathy. "Give us what we want or you'll be in a world of pain" is an obviously sociopathic response to a pandemic; if the organizers took such a stance I honestly think strike-breakers might be resurrected to deal with it.
replies(1): >>toomuc+G7
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
9. toomuc+G7[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 18:37:55
>>SpicyL+47
> if the organizers took such a stance I honestly think strike-breakers might be resurrected to deal with it.

That'll sell well in an election year with states and the federal government overextending themselves already due to a woefully inadequate initial response. We can't even get masks and ventilators manufactured at the necessary rate, and we're going to send force to assist Amazon Fulfillment? We're not even sending in force to assist first responders and medical practitioners.

Amazon workers have options during this, including just going home. That's Amazon's problem, not the country's. No one is entitled to cheap delivered ecommerce services. If Amazon can't make the economics work without coerced labor, good riddance.

replies(1): >>SpicyL+ja
10. darksa+E8[view] [source] 2020-03-30 18:42:50
>>cryosh+(OP)
I agree that they're reasonable demands, but I'd also state that the business models were never really sustainable in the first place, so prices probably need to be raised in order to do so. I used to have a view into their delivery economics and they looked insurmountable. My friend, who currently works for Amazon's delivery program for Fresh and Now, tells me that only a few markets have achieved profitability, and even then we're talking about averaging cents per order. An increase in costs of >$5/order would mean either an increase in prices or a huge hit to cash flow.
replies(1): >>kevinv+7e
◧◩
11. vkou+r9[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 18:46:50
>>produc+K6
If five bucks, and a bottle of hand sanitizer is too much for them to pay, they are free to risk their lives, by doing their own shopping.

If their job is so important that you can't make do without it, pay them more, or consider doing it yourself for less.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
12. SpicyL+ja[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 18:50:39
>>toomuc+G7
We're absolutely sending in force to assist first responders and medical practitioners. The National Guard has been building overflow facilities across the country, and the Navy's landed in LA and New York with hospital ships.
◧◩◪◨⬒
13. throwa+Ga[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 18:52:20
>>toomuc+C5
For better or worse, your schadenfreude will only last as long as the aid package. When the money runs out, the power dynamic reverses, and the economic aftermath may well leave poorer Americans in a worse bargaining position than they were before (as economic downturns often do).
replies(1): >>toomuc+Sa
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
14. toomuc+Sa[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 18:53:16
>>throwa+Ga
Let's see what the electorate looks like, and its appetite for change is, after 10 months of a raging global pandemic.

We're only a few weeks in, and we've already drastically expanded benefits to those in need (the stimulus bill I mentioned upthread) much more than we would've under normal circumstances. Quite a bit of change can occur in a year, no?

replies(1): >>throwa+Ic
15. hogFea+3b[view] [source] 2020-03-30 18:54:36
>>cryosh+(OP)
This is what inflation looks like. If this continues, the US is going to be in a world of hurt (if workers demand more, guess what is happening prices). Inflation would utterly ravage the economy right now.

Just generally too: if Amazon announced they were hiking prices 50% overnight, how would you react? This move is pretty scummy.

replies(2): >>aphext+bc >>munk-a+tc
◧◩
16. aphext+bc[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:00:36
>>hogFea+3b
Instant grocery delivery is a luxury. Customers can and should be asked to pay more for the service. Otherwise do it yourself. It is completely unsustainable to expect an hour's worth of labor for $5.
replies(3): >>rstupe+ed >>jahaja+An >>creato+0y
◧◩◪
17. mech42+mc[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:01:41
>>toomuc+F3
Umm - maybe I'm out of date, but if you quit a job/walk out, you're not eligible for unemployment?
replies(1): >>toomuc+Xc
◧◩
18. munk-a+tc[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:02:05
>>hogFea+3b
Sorry - can you clarify if the workers demanding PPE is the portion you're calling scummy? Or the modest hazard pay?
replies(1): >>hogFea+8f
19. creato+Ec[view] [source] 2020-03-30 19:02:40
>>cryosh+(OP)
An extra $5 per order might be a lot... I don't know how many orders per day is typical, but it wouldn't take that many orders for this to add up to a pretty significant amount.
replies(3): >>Munky-+id >>rpdill+zg >>scolle+DW
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
20. throwa+Ic[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:02:47
>>toomuc+Sa
There is that possibility, and while I can understand the desire for a change of administration after all of this, I can't understand why socialists are so positively gleeful. The federal government (not just the administration, but the CDC and the FDA as well) have failed in every conceivable regard in this pandemic response (somehow after 3 global outbreaks including 2 respiratory diseases in recent years, the CDC couldn't be bothered to secure a supply of masks and ventilators, never mind the testing debacle) while private industry and state/local governments are picking up the slack (scaling up testing capacity, innovating on treatments and interventions, lobbying for aid, scaling up supply chains, etc). Maybe the media will take care to spin this as a "failure of capitalism" somehow, but as far as the truth is concerned, it doesn't strike me as favoring more government.
replies(1): >>toomuc+4e
◧◩
21. munk-a+Rc[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:03:21
>>produc+K6
It's a time of emergency - the fact that the US government is AWOL when it comes to helping to subsidize necessary services like these is the real issue.
◧◩◪◨
22. toomuc+Xc[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:04:02
>>mech42+mc
Under business as usual, no.
◧◩◪
23. rstupe+ed[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:05:25
>>aphext+bc
...an extra $5 and minimum 10% tip, not $5 per order.
replies(2): >>magica+2e >>aphext+Ru
◧◩
24. Munky-+id[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:05:50
>>creato+Ec
We're talking about someone seriously increasing their likelihood for contracting a potentially life threatening illness. 5$ per potential exposure is not exactly that much considering the gravity of the situation.
replies(2): >>grumpl+de >>judge2+Vg
◧◩◪◨
25. magica+2e[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:10:43
>>rstupe+ed
> minimum 10% tip

default to 10% instead of 5%; it's a UX nudge. The user can always change it.

replies(1): >>rstupe+wg
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
26. toomuc+4e[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:10:48
>>throwa+Ic
> Maybe the media will take care to spin this as a "failure of capitalism" somehow, but as far as the truth is concerned, it doesn't strike me as favoring more government.

The Fed is predicting 47 million unemployed [1], at a 32% unemployment rate. That's a lot of folks without health insurance. 68k people in the US die every year because of lack of access to healthcare, and 50% of bankruptcies are due to medical debt, under "normal" circumstances. That is a "failure of capitalism" not replicated in other developed countries.

Sometimes, to fix a system, you must break it. This is the "break it" part. [2]

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-job-losses-could...

[2] https://reason.com/2020/03/27/pandemic-related-unemployment-...

replies(1): >>throwa+Pe
◧◩
27. kevinv+7e[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:10:59
>>darksa+E8
Charging an extra $5/order sounds extremely reasonable given the circumstances.
replies(1): >>darksa+1l
◧◩◪
28. grumpl+de[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:11:29
>>Munky-+id
Aren't they dropping off the products in cardboard boxes without ever coming near another human?
replies(1): >>maynea+5f
◧◩
29. Americ+De[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:13:47
>>london+K2
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.
replies(2): >>david_+BA >>munk-a+qB
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
30. throwa+Pe[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:14:47
>>toomuc+4e
EDIT: The parent has significantly revised their comment since I replied such that my comment doesn't make sense in the new context.
◧◩◪◨
31. maynea+5f[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:16:11
>>grumpl+de
They're also spending half their time in grocery stores.
replies(1): >>grumpl+Zj
◧◩◪
32. hogFea+8f[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:16:30
>>munk-a+tc
Er no. It is waiting for a pandemic, and then removing your labour to demand a significant wage hike (I have no idea how this will work out but it is clearly significantly beyond 20%+..."modest" is not an accurate description). There are likely vulnerable people who rely on this service to feed themselves, removing their food so you can make a quick buck is pretty scummy.

Again, how would you feel about Amazon hiking the price of hand sanitizer 50%?

It will be great to see this play out though. I live somewhere (unf) that had unions running govt for a period of decades. The US never really had this so is under the illusion that this kind of thing achieves it aims. It doesn't. What happens is most of these people don't have jobs anymore, you have to hike interest rates so most people lose their homes (and bye bye, VC funding...that will just stop overnight...I would guess the majority of the people on here will lose their jobs, and modify their opinions too late), and the price of food starts increasing daily.

And btw, this should be obvious but apparently isn't, this is going to go on for at least a year. At some point, people are going to have to learn how to go about their daily life without infecting other people. The alternative is: most of these jobs stop existing, and the economy shrinks significantly (10%+). Lockdown and people deciding they need "hazard pay" to do their normal job isn't a permanent solution (central banks will be watching this closely and will be ready to hike rates as soon as it starts).

replies(1): >>saagar+Ql
◧◩◪◨⬒
33. rstupe+wg[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:24:10
>>magica+2e
ok I read it as minimum 10%, not thinking the UI would let you change it lower.
◧◩
34. rpdill+zg[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:24:23
>>creato+Ec
Agreed. At that price, I'll go to the store myself. Assuming I'm not totally alone, it might be reasonable to expect that this strike will therefore increase the number of people going to central meeting places during the outbreak. Interesting.
replies(1): >>JoshTr+hl
◧◩◪
35. judge2+Vg[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:27:35
>>Munky-+id
A delivery of instacart containing $100+ in groceries is different from the average food delivery since the food delivery personnel will very likely be delivering more orders per hour compared to the instacart workers; the $5 extra per delivery might end up meaning more to the food delivery workers than instacart, making it a pretty impossible demand if they want universal integration. Something like "hourly pay increase of $20" would be better.

I also think instacart workers might be at higher risk of virus exposure because, as I understand it, they need to go into the store and pick out groceries - while food delivery workers only really interact with the food bag at the counter. I'm also not sure how often the different contactless delivery options are chosen, but instacart would include more exposure if you needed to hand every grocery bag to the customer compared to one or two food bags.

replies(1): >>sbr464+on
◧◩
36. pixelb+hh[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:30:46
>>produc+K6
This ignores how far the market place has listed to one side already. At this point in time I find it a little hard to summon empathy for billionaires.
replies(1): >>produc+763
◧◩◪◨⬒
37. grumpl+Zj[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:47:13
>>maynea+5f
Aren't the people who prepare the order different than the people that deliver it? The preparers are the ones who need the hazard pay and protections imo.
replies(2): >>jiansh+2n >>maynea+SH
◧◩◪
38. darksa+1l[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:53:27
>>kevinv+7e
It's reasonable to me. Maybe not so reasonable to someone unemployed, diagnosed, and only buying online because they're responsibly self isolating. It's probably the right thing to do in the end, because the business model was never sustainable in the first place, but I would still think hard about how to prevent people from infecting others in an attempt to save money.
◧◩◪
39. JoshTr+hl[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:55:30
>>rpdill+zg
> At that price, I'll go to the store myself.

To save $5? Really?

Right now, I'd pay $25/order to actually get a delivery window.

replies(3): >>rpdill+pq >>farisj+Kq >>ergoco+2r
◧◩
40. gaius_+wl[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:56:49
>>produc+K6
Username checks out.
replies(1): >>produc+U53
◧◩◪◨
41. saagar+Ql[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 19:58:42
>>hogFea+8f
They're demanding a wage hike because they're literally being exposed to the virus…
replies(1): >>hogFea+sm
◧◩◪◨⬒
42. hogFea+sm[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 20:03:02
>>saagar+Ql
Yes, everyone will be exposed to the virus.

As I specifically mentioned: this is going to last for a year (probably more). Everyone is going to have to learn how to continue doing their job with that.

There is no other option: the govt doesn't have enough money, business doesn't have enough money, consumers don't have enough money...everyone is going to have to do their job with this happening.

replies(1): >>saagar+0n
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
43. saagar+0n[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 20:07:07
>>hogFea+sm
> Yes, everyone will be exposed to the virus.

Not equally. You can't possibly be saying that someone who is able to completely self-isolate by working at home is in the same position as the person who is out grabbing groceries?

replies(1): >>hogFea+ts
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
44. jiansh+2n[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 20:07:18
>>grumpl+Zj
Not always and I'd suspect that being a "Full-Service Shopper" (vs "In-Store Shopper") pays better so a large percentage are likely both preparer and deliverer.

Source: https://shoppers.instacart.com/

replies(1): >>jackso+Xb1
◧◩◪◨
45. sbr464+on[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 20:10:12
>>judge2+Vg
They charge large delivery fees now, a $100 order will have about a $10-20 fee added. I’m not sure where that goes though.
◧◩◪
46. jahaja+An[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 20:11:31
>>aphext+bc
This. So much. People are behaving like it's an essential utility for the broader public, rather than a luxury for the (upper) middle-class. Usually sounds very similar with Uber and other low-paying services.
◧◩◪◨
47. rpdill+pq[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 20:29:13
>>JoshTr+hl
Delivery is already quite expensive for me to rely on for regular usage. To conserve resources, my strategy has been to buy a bunch not very frequently, which minimizes my trips to stores and doesn't incur the surcharges. $5 can feed me for a meal, so that money does make a difference to me, at least over time.
replies(1): >>ulises+rq1
◧◩◪◨
48. farisj+Kq[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 20:31:07
>>JoshTr+hl
I agree with you. I live with a women who is 70 years old and a women who is 65 on chemotherapy and only has 1.5 lungs. I tipped my Costco delivery person $50 yesterday for the luxury of me not having to go out and potentially expose those women to more danger in my household. In normal circumstances, I would say its too expensive, but I am more then willing to pay someone else extra for incurring those health risks. Frankly they deserve it during these times.
replies(1): >>xur17+LC
◧◩◪◨
49. ergoco+2r[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 20:32:40
>>JoshTr+hl
Yes... Really. Not everyone is wealthy.

It's tricky to discuss whether the price is worth the service. Because it depends on many factors (e.g. how much you make)

We'll just vote with our wallets.

replies(1): >>ulises+Op1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
50. hogFea+ts[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 20:42:38
>>saagar+0n
I am sure it must be a great luxury to have the choice of being able to "completely self-isolate"...but that is not going to cover the majority of the population and even those who do are not going to be able to do that for a year. It just isn't rational.
replies(1): >>munk-a+nv
◧◩◪◨
51. aphext+Ru[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 21:01:37
>>rstupe+ed
I'm referring to what they make now. A shopper grosses under $5/trip without tips.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
52. munk-a+nv[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 21:04:46
>>hogFea+ts
As a result of our enjoyment of this luxury I think it's perfectly rationale that the market responds by increasing compensation for these jobs that don't have that luxury and maybe correct the insane wage disparity between folks that need to continue doing manual labour and all of those that can work through our computers alone.

As a bonus, we might just start addressing the extreme and ridiculous levels of wealth inequality we have in society today through that process.

◧◩◪
53. creato+0y[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 21:27:59
>>aphext+bc
It says additional $5 per order. I don't know how many orders per hour is typical, but this could easily be $20-50/hour if the deliveries can be batched by location?

For the record, I'd be perfectly happy with the price of these delivery services increasing by $5 if it went to the gig worker fulfilling it. That's already a lot less than I tip food delivery drivers.

◧◩◪
54. david_+BA[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 21:52:14
>>Americ+De
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?

replies(1): >>Americ+CD
◧◩◪
55. munk-a+qB[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 21:58:27
>>Americ+De
As a counter, low skilled workers absolutely should get a pay increase because their work is more valuable and the hazards they face are more extreme - "professional class" workers should expect a real income pay reduction during this crisis since their labour is relatively lowered in value compared to during a normal world state.

Additionally, we, as a society, should value minimizing the number of people working in these roles and their interactions to ensure they remain healthy and don't become transmission vectors.

replies(2): >>Americ+RE >>true_r+IU
◧◩◪◨⬒
56. xur17+LC[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 22:11:17
>>farisj+Kq
Does your grocery offer pickup? Normally it's $5 at mine, but free for now, and you don't have to get out of your car or interact with anyone, just pop the trunk.
◧◩◪◨
57. Americ+CD[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 22:19:16
>>david_+BA
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.
replies(1): >>david_+KJ
◧◩◪◨
58. Americ+RE[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 22:31:37
>>munk-a+qB
That’s an abstract view of value, based entirely upon your own personal views and opinions. The labor is only worth the equilibrium point between what somebody is willing to pay for it, and what remuneration somebody is willing to accept for it. The truth is that for all of these low skilled industries that are seeking pay rises, there is currently an influx of available labor that could fill those positions. If they are not willing to work for that level of pay, there are most certainly others who would be willing to do so. They do not have the power to prevent people from applying for those roles, should they become available. The only card they have to play is to exploit the threat of a temporary disruption to service. They may have some luck exploiting this, but it can only get them so far. It’s also no different from any of the other price gouging that’s often derided here on HN. When huge portions of the population are facing unemployment, there is no reasonable basis for demanding pay rises, especially in low skilled industries, where the labor can be so easily replaced.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
59. maynea+SH[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 23:01:02
>>grumpl+Zj
Both of the instacart orders I've gotten since LA shut down did both parts.
◧◩◪◨⬒
60. david_+KJ[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 23:20:30
>>Americ+CD
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.

replies(1): >>Americ+wL
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
61. Americ+wL[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-30 23:37:39
>>david_+KJ
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.
◧◩◪◨
62. true_r+IU[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 00:42:30
>>munk-a+qB
It depends on the job. For warehouse employees, they are absolutely necessary since packaging is both hard, tedious work, and also specialized enough that you can’t have customers do it for themselves.

But Instacart is just grocery shopping. At a certain price point, people will go into stores themselves, or self organize to do bulk purchases for a small group. Right now in NYC, some people have started a charity to deliver goods to older residents in apartments for free. Instacart can’t compete with that.

◧◩
63. scolle+DW[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 01:02:41
>>creato+Ec
It's requisite compensation, no? Are you seriously advocating against that?
replies(1): >>creato+AX
◧◩◪
64. creato+AX[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 01:12:15
>>scolle+DW
I wasn't advocating one way or the other. It was a genuine question. If 10 orders per hour is typical, that is $50/hr on top of what they are already making. Even just 4 orders per hour is an additional $20/hr. That could put the total pay to at least $30/hr? I think maybe that's fine for a luxury service like this, but that kind of pay probably shrinks the market for this service considerably, I can't imagine the margins in this business are very high.

Personally, I would be fine with paying $5 extra per order of groceries, but I'm not a user of services like this.

replies(2): >>jackso+gc1 >>scolle+Spe
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
65. jackso+Xb1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 04:24:25
>>jiansh+2n
FSS are paid by the order–you see a preview of how much you'll make before accepting an order (broken down into IC pay, mileage pay, and customer tip). ISS are paid by the hour and sign on with an hourly wage agreement.

Haven't worked as an ISS, but I presume that they have no say in their orders as they aren't paid per order. I actually have no idea if they even get a portion of tips.

source: have run for Instacart before.

◧◩◪◨
66. jackso+gc1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 04:27:33
>>creato+AX
It will probably be a relatively opaque increase in cost. A lot of the cost of using IC/Shipt/etc. is actually in the cost of the products rather than in the delivery fee. Each service has its _own_ cost for each product (in fact, as a shopper it is suggested to download the customer app so you can answer questions about prices).

True "delivery fees" are only enacted for non-subscriber or small orders.

source: am infrequent Shipt/IC shopper

67. jackso+xc1[view] [source] 2020-03-31 04:33:40
>>cryosh+(OP)
> honestly, i'm surprised that their demands are so few and so modest

The biggest problem here is that this is one of the most "expendable" workforces we've ever seen–hiring cost is rock-bottom, training is done through an app (requiring no human interaction or pay), and shoppers are just sent a shirt and prepaid card (Shipt) or a lanyard and card (Instacart).

I feel like the organizers understand this and know that if the overlords decide they don't want to deal with the strike, their accounts can be deactivated with the click of a mouse, wasting less than $50 in resources (though usually less because of the ROI they've already exhibited). All the company has to do is ramp up advertising or add some new hire incentives.

Keeping the demands reasonable is how they're self-preserving. Anything too extreme, and they just get replaced with no change. It's a good _starting point_, but there definitely need to be more protections for our gig economy workers in the future.

◧◩◪◨⬒
68. ulises+Op1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 08:21:46
>>ergoco+2r
You’re going to spend about 200 dollars on groceries and complain about an extra 5?

Come on now.

◧◩◪◨⬒
69. ulises+rq1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 08:28:35
>>rpdill+pq
Ok so what? You’re not the target customer. If you’re sweating five bucks don’t use Instacart.
◧◩◪
70. produc+U53[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 20:35:10
>>gaius_+wl
Go back to reddit
◧◩◪
71. produc+763[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-03-31 20:36:28
>>pixelb+hh
Just stop with this billionaires argument please and framing it as workers vs. billionaires. I am more talking about families who will have to pay more now to address some of the Union's demands.
◧◩◪◨
72. scolle+Spe[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-04-05 14:35:07
>>creato+AX
Fair enough. Sorry for the hostility. I agree with you on the luxury angle. I think some portion of the cost should be passed to the consumer, but I am also in favor of the drivers being on payroll to "flatten" variability in order cost and provide income (among other things) protection for the worker. To me, the natural response to even a modicum of front-line exploitation (especially in turbulent times) should be met with scrutiny.
[go to top]