7 ms·

I am not defending Shipt and there is no doubt gig workers are in a very vulnerable position. However, the data analysis results as presented in the article do

I am not defending Shipt and there is no doubt gig workers are in a very vulnerable position. However, the data analysis results as presented in the article do not support the article's main point. "40% are getting paid at least 10% less" is not unnatural to expect whenever pay is redistributed, especially since some 30+% are getting at least 10% more. Imagine a _hypothetical_ situation where Shipt is 100% on point and driving a fairer version of the algorithm patch removing a way for workers to "optimize" for short, well paid trips, resulting in pay cuts to those who had learnt how to do it, while not changing/increasing pay for everyone else. We would see the same kind of result: some portion of workers would get paid 10% less, some 10% more. This does show that workers are paid differently for the same work they have been doing, but does not prove the change is unfair.

tossandthrow 2y ago
You are looking for this in the article > It wasn’t a clear case of wage theft, because 60 percent of workers were making about the same or slightly more under the new scheme. Your statement that "some 30+% are getting at least 10% more" assumes that there is no wage theft - which is not cut in stone.
- chgs 2y ago
  Aren’t gig workers contractors? Is it wage theft if I negotiate a lower price with my local timber yard?
  - p_l 2y ago
    Mostly gray area because gig corps don't like actually treating the workers as contractors, they just like the lowered costs. Sometimes that goes afoul when it's ruled that they put requirements that are only valid for employees on contractors.
    - qeternity 2y ago
      > Mostly gray area because gig corps don't like actually treating the workers as contractors, they just like the lowered costs. I don't follow this? Is this predicated on the fact that gig corps can choose not to work with contractors that don't meet their criteria? If so, how is this different from only using lumber yards that consistently meet your expectations?
      - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
        >I don't follow this? The implication of the parent poster seems to be that there are legal requirements regarding contractors and legal requirements regarding employees but gig corps would prefer to treat their workers as one or the other class depending on which is to their benefit - which would be against the law because of the aforementioned concept "legal requirements".
        p_l 2y ago
        Exactly this - there are differences in what you can require from someone on employment contract and external contracting company (whether that company is single person or not) and effectively making one category into another without actually reclassifying (like employing as employee) is considered fraud in most places.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        Can you give an example?
        amanaplanacanal 2y ago
        Your favorite web search engine is your friend here.
        p_l 2y ago
        There are possible frauds from both employer and employee side, but I will list some common "landmines" of miss-classification, though beware that they are picked across different jurisdictions and I do not remember which apply where. All examples are possible items that can be decided to be part of misclassification, usually from contractor to effective employee: - requiring specific dress code is non-enforceable on contractors in many places - contractor is not required to provide specific person to fulfill the job, only a person of appropriate qualifications (it's valid for there to be a check on those qualifications) - in UK case, contractor might be asked to prove that they have a substitute to work in their place! - [Poland, possibly other] having only one client is not illegal, but can be grounds for investigations and if it's your only client where you work for equivalent of full-time job, it will be evidence for tax fraud - You can not enforce working hours on contractors in most jurisdiction, only specific deliverables (taking part of work meetings is deliverable, requiring availability in general of specific person at specific times can be grounds for reclassification) - above is often linked with "gig economy" - rules regarding "contractors" needing to pick up available jobs etc. are often considered illegal skirting of employment law. As sibling comment mentioned, more is available from your local (too) friendly search engine. And employment lawyers and HR specialists.
  - LunaSea 2y ago
    Everybody knows they aren't contractors.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
      In this case would it matter if they were contractors or not? There is a way of calculating the pay for a job. It is predictable. Publish the algorithm. Want to change it? Great. Update the documentation and then publish that. The workers should be able to calculate exactly what they are owed. They can decide to leave or stay. Only in America are people deflecting by bringing up the employment status of people when the issue is a lack of transparency designed to allow wage theft.
      - casercaramel144 2y ago
        [flagged]
        Herrum 2y ago
        I don't think the reasons you are listing are valid at all. 1. If they can game it, they should. If that's a problem, then Shipt should fix their algorithm. 2. It's fine to data wrangle your way to an automated model for e.g. your company's growth projection or for predicting where you can best expand to find more customers. It's not okay to use it to unilaterally change pay agreements with your workers or "contractors". 3. The right of an individual to know what they're getting paid for their work outweighs any company's nebulous claim of its algorithm being a trade secret or something vague like that. Can you imagine businnesses actually operating like this? "You can't know what we'll pay you for this job, its ~~seeeecret~~. Just trust us."
        Brian_K_White 2y ago
        It's amazing that anyone would even try to say that. From now on I'm going to pay my rent according to a secret algorithm of my own devising and my landlord will just have to hope I'm generous this month. I can't have him gaming the lease agreement by only providing the things it says!
  - mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
    Gig workers fall into a grey area between contractor and employee, depending on the particular jurisdiction and particular job. There are many ongoing legal battles trying to update outdated legal frameworks that don't quite account for modern realities. It is not as simple as you buying lumber.
- or_am_i 2y ago
  To clarify, I was basing the "some 30%" on the wage change distribution histogram that comes somewhat further down in the article from the statement you quote.
- alwa 2y ago
  Maybe not cut in stone, but if the data are derived from the workers’ payout receipts, it would seem likely that this was the amount that was paid out by Shipt. Or do you mean that third parties might be skimming something off after the company pays out?
- NovemberWhiskey 2y ago
  I mean, it wasn't "a clear case of wage theft" as these weren't wage workers; and in any case it's not like they weren't told ahead of time how much the order would pay.
  - mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
    Do you know that for a fact they were told the total amount including tips, as well as all the details of the job, like items needed and delivery locations ahead of time? Gig apps often withhold info until after a worker accepts, to reduce workers ability to focus on desirable orders. In some jurisdictions Uber drivers don't see the final destination until after they accept a ride.
febeling 2y ago
I had similar thoughts. But let's not overlook the information asymmetry, which contributed to the dissatisfaction. I don't want to live in a world which is controlled unilaterally, and intransparently by a group of people who assume they have a full picture of the situation and assume they understand moral completely, and also don't think it necessary to explain how they think so highly of themselves.
- braza 2y ago
  > I don't want to live in a world which is controlled unilaterally, and intransparently by a group of people who assume they have a full picture of the situation and assume they understand moral completely I have thought about this topic for a while at the time that I worked with Law data (e.g. Family Law and Military Law), and I just came to the conclusion that several societal institutions and it's agents are inherently intransparent, even in situations where some "illusionist transparency" (there's transparency, but the magician deviates your attention to another side) is given (e.g. judiciary system, under-the-table political agreements, etc.). That's one of the reasons I would like to have a more algorithmic society with human in the loop calling the final shots and placing the rationale on top. An algorithm will have human and institutional biases but in some sort, you can explain part of it and fine-tune it; a human making the final call on top of a given option would need to explain and rationally explain its decision. At best a human actor will use logic and make the right call, at worst it will transparently expose the biases of the individual.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    << That's one of the reasons I would like to have a more algorithmic society with human in the loop calling the final shots and placing the rationale on top. An algorithm will have human and institutional biases but in some sort, you can explain part of it and fine-tune it; a human making the final call on top of a given option would need to explain and rationally explain its decision. At best a human actor will use logic and make the right call, at worst it will transparently expose the biases of the individual. I will admit that it is an interesting idea. I am not sure it would work well as a lot of the power ( and pressure to adjust as needed ) suddenly would move to the fine-tuning portion of the process to ensure human at the top can approve 'right' decisions. I am going to get my coffee now.
kazinator 2y ago
"Only 68% of us are paid within one standard deviation of the mean salary. Don't tell me this is normal!"
oefrha 2y ago
> 40% are getting paid at least 10% less That statement is wrong either way. Looking at the graph, ~22% got a >10% cut while ~36% got a >10% raise. Overall ~43% got a cut while ~57% got a raise. And if there’s any doubt, later on they dropped the “at least 10% less” qualifier for the 40% figure in text: > But we felt that it was important to shine a light on those 40 percent of workers who had gotten an unannounced pay cut through a black box transition. Can’t believe they (accidentally? intentionally?) screwed up the very first concrete figure given in the article. Guess what, discussion is now based on the wrong figure. Also, the y-axis of the plot is labeled “number of workers” when it should be “percentage of participating workers”, unless they had exactly 100 participants (they say they had 200+). Lousy presentation. I’m all for transparency, obviously. Edit: In addition, since participation is entirely voluntary, common sense tells me that the data they gather should skew more negative, since people negatively affected are much more likely to participate.
- pxx 2y ago
  it seems clear to me from first principles and from experience [0] that the result from voluntary compensation sharing skews low compared to the actual population. it's the people who want to complain about low wages who participate in such schemes. that's not to say sharing wages is bad. this can still provide upward pressure on said wages. but the people who participate in the beginning are likely from the lower end of the distribution. [0] websites like levels.fyi seem to consistently skew low when estimating higher percentiles
Workaccount2 2y ago
Few things are more internet than people telling half truths and whole lies to try and get their way.
usgroup 2y ago
The article says the same: > For the shoppers who were being paid under the new algorithm, we found that 40 percent of workers were earning more than 10 percent less than they would have under the old algorithm. What’s more, looking at data from all geographic regions, we found that about one-third of workers were earning less than their state’s minimum wage. > It wasn’t a clear case of wage theft, because 60 percent of workers were making about the same or slightly more under the new scheme. But we felt that it was important to shine a light on those 40 percent of workers who had gotten an unannounced pay cut through a black box transition. Those paragraphs are then literally followed by a graph showing the conservation of fees overall but the redistribution of wages to other workers. Seems to me that workers started cherry picking assignments leaving a bulk of orders which could not be realised, so they decided to (1) change the algorithm to avoid this, and (2) not publish it so it couldn't be gamed as easily.

tossandthrow 2y ago

You are looking for this in the article > It wasn’t a clear case of wage theft, because 60 percent of workers were making about the same or slightly more under the new scheme. Your statement that "some 30+% are getting at least 10% more" assumes that there is no wage theft - which is not cut in stone.

chgs 2y ago
Aren’t gig workers contractors? Is it wage theft if I negotiate a lower price with my local timber yard?
- p_l 2y ago
  Mostly gray area because gig corps don't like actually treating the workers as contractors, they just like the lowered costs. Sometimes that goes afoul when it's ruled that they put requirements that are only valid for employees on contractors.
  - qeternity 2y ago
    > Mostly gray area because gig corps don't like actually treating the workers as contractors, they just like the lowered costs. I don't follow this? Is this predicated on the fact that gig corps can choose not to work with contractors that don't meet their criteria? If so, how is this different from only using lumber yards that consistently meet your expectations?
    - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
      >I don't follow this? The implication of the parent poster seems to be that there are legal requirements regarding contractors and legal requirements regarding employees but gig corps would prefer to treat their workers as one or the other class depending on which is to their benefit - which would be against the law because of the aforementioned concept "legal requirements".
      - p_l 2y ago
        Exactly this - there are differences in what you can require from someone on employment contract and external contracting company (whether that company is single person or not) and effectively making one category into another without actually reclassifying (like employing as employee) is considered fraud in most places.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        Can you give an example?
        amanaplanacanal 2y ago
        Your favorite web search engine is your friend here.
        p_l 2y ago
        There are possible frauds from both employer and employee side, but I will list some common "landmines" of miss-classification, though beware that they are picked across different jurisdictions and I do not remember which apply where. All examples are possible items that can be decided to be part of misclassification, usually from contractor to effective employee: - requiring specific dress code is non-enforceable on contractors in many places - contractor is not required to provide specific person to fulfill the job, only a person of appropriate qualifications (it's valid for there to be a check on those qualifications) - in UK case, contractor might be asked to prove that they have a substitute to work in their place! - [Poland, possibly other] having only one client is not illegal, but can be grounds for investigations and if it's your only client where you work for equivalent of full-time job, it will be evidence for tax fraud - You can not enforce working hours on contractors in most jurisdiction, only specific deliverables (taking part of work meetings is deliverable, requiring availability in general of specific person at specific times can be grounds for reclassification) - above is often linked with "gig economy" - rules regarding "contractors" needing to pick up available jobs etc. are often considered illegal skirting of employment law. As sibling comment mentioned, more is available from your local (too) friendly search engine. And employment lawyers and HR specialists.
- LunaSea 2y ago
  Everybody knows they aren't contractors.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
    In this case would it matter if they were contractors or not? There is a way of calculating the pay for a job. It is predictable. Publish the algorithm. Want to change it? Great. Update the documentation and then publish that. The workers should be able to calculate exactly what they are owed. They can decide to leave or stay. Only in America are people deflecting by bringing up the employment status of people when the issue is a lack of transparency designed to allow wage theft.
    - casercaramel144 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - Herrum 2y ago
        I don't think the reasons you are listing are valid at all. 1. If they can game it, they should. If that's a problem, then Shipt should fix their algorithm. 2. It's fine to data wrangle your way to an automated model for e.g. your company's growth projection or for predicting where you can best expand to find more customers. It's not okay to use it to unilaterally change pay agreements with your workers or "contractors". 3. The right of an individual to know what they're getting paid for their work outweighs any company's nebulous claim of its algorithm being a trade secret or something vague like that. Can you imagine businnesses actually operating like this? "You can't know what we'll pay you for this job, its ~~seeeecret~~. Just trust us."
        Brian_K_White 2y ago
        It's amazing that anyone would even try to say that. From now on I'm going to pay my rent according to a secret algorithm of my own devising and my landlord will just have to hope I'm generous this month. I can't have him gaming the lease agreement by only providing the things it says!
- mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
  Gig workers fall into a grey area between contractor and employee, depending on the particular jurisdiction and particular job. There are many ongoing legal battles trying to update outdated legal frameworks that don't quite account for modern realities. It is not as simple as you buying lumber.
or_am_i 2y ago
To clarify, I was basing the "some 30%" on the wage change distribution histogram that comes somewhat further down in the article from the statement you quote.
alwa 2y ago
Maybe not cut in stone, but if the data are derived from the workers’ payout receipts, it would seem likely that this was the amount that was paid out by Shipt. Or do you mean that third parties might be skimming something off after the company pays out?
NovemberWhiskey 2y ago
I mean, it wasn't "a clear case of wage theft" as these weren't wage workers; and in any case it's not like they weren't told ahead of time how much the order would pay.
- mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
  Do you know that for a fact they were told the total amount including tips, as well as all the details of the job, like items needed and delivery locations ahead of time? Gig apps often withhold info until after a worker accepts, to reduce workers ability to focus on desirable orders. In some jurisdictions Uber drivers don't see the final destination until after they accept a ride.

febeling 2y ago

I had similar thoughts. But let's not overlook the information asymmetry, which contributed to the dissatisfaction. I don't want to live in a world which is controlled unilaterally, and intransparently by a group of people who assume they have a full picture of the situation and assume they understand moral completely, and also don't think it necessary to explain how they think so highly of themselves.

braza 2y ago
> I don't want to live in a world which is controlled unilaterally, and intransparently by a group of people who assume they have a full picture of the situation and assume they understand moral completely I have thought about this topic for a while at the time that I worked with Law data (e.g. Family Law and Military Law), and I just came to the conclusion that several societal institutions and it's agents are inherently intransparent, even in situations where some "illusionist transparency" (there's transparency, but the magician deviates your attention to another side) is given (e.g. judiciary system, under-the-table political agreements, etc.). That's one of the reasons I would like to have a more algorithmic society with human in the loop calling the final shots and placing the rationale on top. An algorithm will have human and institutional biases but in some sort, you can explain part of it and fine-tune it; a human making the final call on top of a given option would need to explain and rationally explain its decision. At best a human actor will use logic and make the right call, at worst it will transparently expose the biases of the individual.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  << That's one of the reasons I would like to have a more algorithmic society with human in the loop calling the final shots and placing the rationale on top. An algorithm will have human and institutional biases but in some sort, you can explain part of it and fine-tune it; a human making the final call on top of a given option would need to explain and rationally explain its decision. At best a human actor will use logic and make the right call, at worst it will transparently expose the biases of the individual. I will admit that it is an interesting idea. I am not sure it would work well as a lot of the power ( and pressure to adjust as needed ) suddenly would move to the fine-tuning portion of the process to ensure human at the top can approve 'right' decisions. I am going to get my coffee now.

kazinator 2y ago

"Only 68% of us are paid within one standard deviation of the mean salary. Don't tell me this is normal!"

oefrha 2y ago

> 40% are getting paid at least 10% less That statement is wrong either way. Looking at the graph, ~22% got a >10% cut while ~36% got a >10% raise. Overall ~43% got a cut while ~57% got a raise. And if there’s any doubt, later on they dropped the “at least 10% less” qualifier for the 40% figure in text: > But we felt that it was important to shine a light on those 40 percent of workers who had gotten an unannounced pay cut through a black box transition. Can’t believe they (accidentally? intentionally?) screwed up the very first concrete figure given in the article. Guess what, discussion is now based on the wrong figure. Also, the y-axis of the plot is labeled “number of workers” when it should be “percentage of participating workers”, unless they had exactly 100 participants (they say they had 200+). Lousy presentation. I’m all for transparency, obviously. Edit: In addition, since participation is entirely voluntary, common sense tells me that the data they gather should skew more negative, since people negatively affected are much more likely to participate.

pxx 2y ago
it seems clear to me from first principles and from experience [0] that the result from voluntary compensation sharing skews low compared to the actual population. it's the people who want to complain about low wages who participate in such schemes. that's not to say sharing wages is bad. this can still provide upward pressure on said wages. but the people who participate in the beginning are likely from the lower end of the distribution. [0] websites like levels.fyi seem to consistently skew low when estimating higher percentiles

Workaccount2 2y ago

Few things are more internet than people telling half truths and whole lies to try and get their way.

usgroup 2y ago

The article says the same: > For the shoppers who were being paid under the new algorithm, we found that 40 percent of workers were earning more than 10 percent less than they would have under the old algorithm. What’s more, looking at data from all geographic regions, we found that about one-third of workers were earning less than their state’s minimum wage. > It wasn’t a clear case of wage theft, because 60 percent of workers were making about the same or slightly more under the new scheme. But we felt that it was important to shine a light on those 40 percent of workers who had gotten an unannounced pay cut through a black box transition. Those paragraphs are then literally followed by a graph showing the conservation of fees overall but the redistribution of wages to other workers. Seems to me that workers started cherry picking assignments leaving a bulk of orders which could not be realised, so they decided to (1) change the algorithm to avoid this, and (2) not publish it so it couldn't be gamed as easily.