Slashdot Mirror
When Your Boss Is An Algorithm (ft.com)
Slashdot reader Presto Vivace shares an article on FT.com about "workers without a workplace, striking against a company that does not employ them...managed not by people but by an algorithm that communicates with them via their smartphones."
And what they are rebelling against is an app update... They might be free to choose when to work but not how to work or, crucially, how much they are paid... Some gig-economy workers and unions are bringing this question to court. They argue that these companies' algorithms exert so much control over workers that they are really employees in the eyes of the law and thus owed hourly minimum wages, sick pay, holiday pay and the like.
The article offers a detailed look at historical precedents for today's strict "service level assessments," noting that for the companies, "algorithmic management solves a problem: how to instruct, track and evaluate a crowd of casual workers you do not employ, so they deliver a responsive, seamless, standardized service." But for workers in the gig economy -- 800,000 in the U.S. alone -- the question becomes whether reporting to an algorithm in an app is liberating -- or exploitative?
The article offers a detailed look at historical precedents for today's strict "service level assessments," noting that for the companies, "algorithmic management solves a problem: how to instruct, track and evaluate a crowd of casual workers you do not employ, so they deliver a responsive, seamless, standardized service." But for workers in the gig economy -- 800,000 in the U.S. alone -- the question becomes whether reporting to an algorithm in an app is liberating -- or exploitative?
Whether it's liberating or exploitative doesn't really matter. Above all, it's temporary until the app replaces the workers entirely.
Get over it, you are a mediocre useless pile of flesh that is inefficient at best, and certainly unneeded to generate wealth.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
Absolutely. And companies like Uber are recruiting real live people to devote their actual working lives and resources to supporting the company's profit-making business, with specific promises of the terms of work and pay. Then changing them (always in the negative direction) without warning, or appeal.
This is why company's everywhere need regulation. Crazy abuse of workers for profit will happen unless standards are imposed and enforced, otherwise it is always a race to the bottom. Uber sounds like it is turning into a sweatshop on the street.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
When the company using them exercises as much control as to how the contractor does the job ad they would over an employee, the "independent" of "independent contractor" is missing.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Oblig: http://marshallbrain.com/manna...
Manna - management by algorithm - the final precursor step to total automation.
I'm impressed: you managed to not mention Ü... a single time in this summary. A....b isn't mentioned either, but this is expected. At least, all "related links" are about Ü... .
I think that company deserves its own icon, just as "the real-life Tony Stark". After all, Bitcoin has its own.
(Salt at your convenience)
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
I had never thought of it, but these types of apps/employment opportunities treat everybody in the organization exactly the same way and looks only their results. Bonuses/promotions/inducements are laid out as an algorithm for everyone to see and understand. If changes are to be made, then they have to be spelled out to a coder who then updates all the "bosses" at the speed of light - as a bonus these changes do not need to be interpreted by management and HR.
This is a hell of a lot better than some of the companies/managers/executives I've worked for.
If the question is that when the rules/conditions are changed, how do you push back? You're only option is to vote with your feet which may not be as bad as it first seems. Say a company like Uber suddenly triples their take from their "employees" because their marketing efforts in somewhere, let's say China, aren't going well and they're sinking a mountain of cash into it. The employees stop taking assignments from the app in response, essentially quitting - now the company, in real time, is getting a response that they've gone too far and now cannot provide the same level of service, upping complaints in the region causing them to back off the problem change, probably have to offer inducements to get the (productive) employees back and update their algorithm for making changes to eliminate this problem in the future.
Now, having said all this, I would wonder if this type of "employer" could be hacked? I could see a black hat offering a service where subscribing employees are given advantages like a lower take from the company (the numbers are fudged going into the company) or given prime assignments over other employees. This ends up treating some employees preferentially and leaving others out in the cold.
Going right back to the situation where some employees are treated favourably and others are essentially abused.
Plus ca change plus ca meme chose.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
The terms "contractor" and "employee" have legal definitions. The question is which one applies here. Uber says, "We're a software company, not a taxi company. The only thing we do is make a phone app to help independent drivers find business." If that were true, every driver would be setting their own prices, and they'd all be competing with each other on price. Because that's part of the legal definition of a contractor, and the maker of a phone app has no business telling independent drivers how much they have to charge the people they transport.
So either Uber is lying and the drivers are actually employees, or else they're coordinating a massive price fixing scheme. There are lawsuits in progress alleging both of these things.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Somebody needs to read the history that started the unions to begin with. People couldn't afford to live even WITH a job, moron.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
If unions can successfully sell themselves as the only lever people have against things like the summary, then they could definitely make a comeback. Everything has a way of coming back in cycles, slightly improved. Look at the industry most of us work in (IT) -- virtual machines, containers, remote hosting -- all that stuff is decades old, and has been brought back with a better supporting environment. Until about the 1970s, even low-level factory workers could raise a family on one income and have a secure retirement on top of that. Wind the clock forward, and we have those same jobs paying just above minimum wage with no benefits, or they don't exist here and former factory workers have to take minimum wage jobs in retail, etc. This is directly attributable to a loss of union membership and leverage. Now, people in the gig economy don't even have stable employment; they have to stitch together tons of part time gigs to even come close to a solid wage. I feel that with automation and algorithmic management, this is going to get even worse.
I think a lot of the union bashing is a misinformation campaign. I would love to work in a unionized workplace, just for the convenience of paying a collective bargaining unit to ensure I get a fair salary and have some leverage against employers. Almost all the arguments against unions involve one of these:
- Corruption -- what political organization isn't corrupt? I'd deal with a low level of corruption if I were getting something that benefits me.
- Mediocrity -- as in "I'm a super-genius and employers are lining up to hire me for a high six-figure salary...no way will I help my colleagues by stooping down to their level." All I can say is this -- even if you are a super-genius, there will come a time where management finds a way to not pay you that huge salary regardless of your talent.
- Some anecdote -- the most common one is "I was at a trade show in a convention center, and the union electricians wouldn't let me plug my own things in." This one confuses me -- why wouldn't you want someone to do the job they are assigned to do while you do what you were there for?
Either the entire employment economy will collapse completely, or people are going to rediscover unions the same way they rediscovered VMs and ASPs. As employers slowly gain back all the leverage they lost, people are going to feel the squeeze and want something to restore the balance.
is that in the absence of regulation free enterprise would drive down costs and result in better services without oppressive government rules and the risk of fascist dictatorships rising up out of the enormous power structures necessitated by widespread regulation.
Now, I could write two or three paragraphs debunking the above, but they would be dry and make people feel down. Deregulation is a nice, simple solution to a complex problem. Like most simple solutions to complex problems it causes more problems, but simple solutions feel great, make great sound bites and are easy to market.
It's the difference between Hilary boring everyone to tears saying she's gonna sweat the details on Donald Trump's wall. They're both solutions to our economic problems, but the latter is simpler, bolder and just feels better (as long as you don't think too much about it).
If anyone knows a way to make the hard work of solving complex problems marketable let me know.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
- Didn't come out to our site to meet me in person for the first 2 years I worked in the position.
- Rarely responded to emails or calls when I asked for his input on a certain situation.
- Didn't check my KPIs.
- Didn't do my performance reviews (local HR had to do them and they didn't even know what my duties were).
- Got angry when I talked with the local HR manager about getting a raise after my first year for doing awesome on my KPIs and having sterling feedback from coworkers on-site. (I didn't get that raise, my boss 'vetoed' it).
- Had me work 6 days a week with 10 hours a day in the office (it was a manufacturing plant that worked nearly 24/6 and sometimes 24/7).
- Got angry when I requested PTO usage that was part of my employment contract (10 paid days per year).
- Denied my PTO usage repeatedly.
- Claimed that if I was going to 'be allowed' to use my PTO, I would need to be 'on-call and ready to arrive at the office within 30 minutes'.
- Sabotaged my chances with other positions in the company (not even promotions, but lateral moves to get me out of that shit job).
- Got angry when I gave 4 (yes four) weeks notice that I was resigning.
- Never hired a replacement.
- Got angry at me on my last day at the company because he didn't hire a replacement for me to train.
So yeah, sign me up for an AI boss.
On the other hand, having humans do the work they can do best at the time and having machines do all the rest seems an inevitable outcome of the kind of technological progress that started with the pottery wheel as a replacement for humans trying to approach surfaces of revolution with hand molding. And if machines can now do management better than humans, what's the alternative? To keep the old structures in place even if the price is nation-wide economic inefficiency?
Ezekiel 23:20
Corporate law has changed over time and not for the better. Corporations are defined by law; therefore they exist by regulation which owes all it's force to the power of governments (external governments included.)
The corporate board used to not be easily stacked with friends of the CEO... and that was historically the case. Also, it was less likely that a small population of buddies were on boards of each other's corporation in the past, which is a huge conflict of interest. Changing that would be new; however, modern times created a problem which needs to be addressed. People forget the problems of government power/corruption are human organization problems which exist in every organization.
Some nations such as Germany require by corporate law that boards have a significant portion of the board be WORKERS or their union. This makes so much sense it is hard to understand why it isn't mentioned in the USA.
The intended purpose of a corporation is to provide gainful employment; however, legally we define it as solely looking out for the share holders. That can be altered; in the past, there was a moral aspect in society which to some degree infected management. Ethics essentially has been removed from the culture and what remains is removed in MBA school.
The balance of powers within government systems has to be extended to everything within their grasp otherwise the loopholes will allow for the creation of monsters beyond the power of the system and will corrupt and hijack the government which defines/regulates them. It's like an unchecked disease becoming an epidemic and then killing off everybody at the CDC. That is where we are today...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
In other words, their regular job doesn't pay a living wage, and neither does Uber or they would quit their regular job and do Uber full time. The "gig economy" is a symptom, not a solution, for the rising numbers of the precariate - people who are living with a precarious job because the benefits of the rising economy don't float all boats.
Those unions that you hate so much gave enough people a better job that even non-union companies had to offer better wages and conditions than they otherwise would have. Now with 40 years of union-busting Reaganomics taking away these jobs, the end game is upon us.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
In the 80s much of the economic growth moved to the underdeveloped parts of the world. China, India, eastern Europe, Brazil etc.
They have a mixed record of putting the growth to good use. Don't ignore the successes. Eastern Europe is full of them. They still have cheap costs, but have growing 'consumer classes'. China is the obvious 300 pound gorilla in the room, they will find their own way, eventually. India? The same, but different.
But in the long run what were we (the developed world) going to do? Developed world middle class takes a beating, developing world middle class gets it's start (where corruption doesn't doom the effort). Economics is working, but putting it too bluntly gets you ignored, as the short term losers have votes.
It all turns on China. They have a banking mess, real estate and stock bubble to clear in the short run. Capital flight from China is creating a real estate bubble on the west coast of North America. That could turn real ugly...when the Chinese middle class realize they've been boned by the exchange rate peg (lose half the value of their hard snuck-out overseas investments at about the same time their domestic holdings take a beating).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
4: The contractor cannot be interviewed by, hired, or fired by a company employee they are a direct report to
That's insane and impossible.
I need some software writing. I decide to engage a contractor to do it for me. Talking to them beforehand is interviewing them, so I can't do that. Asking them take on the work in return for payment is hiring them, so I can't do that. Deciding they're a complete fuckwit, something I couldn't tell beforehand because I couldn't interview them, I can't terminate their contract because that would be firing them.
How exactly do I engage them then?
Utter fucking nonsense.
It's about you working as a delivery worker, but you receive orders from a remote computer, through a smartphone. They're of the kind "you have 20 seconds to comply and accept to go to A to collect the package", "distance to B : 3.24 miles, estimated time of arrival : 12:40. 12:39 remaining.. 12:38 remaining...". BUT you can refuse that delivery in the first place ; it goes to a pool of checked-in delivery boys in the right area and time, not to you in particular.
But they ask you to register as an independent business, so that they don't concern themselves with such stuff as sick leave, paying for unemployment, health care, retirement ; parental leave, or even possibly the consequences of getting run over by a car?
So.. Very tempting if you have absolutely nothing to do and would like to deliver burgers or something dumb like that at 2 AM and earn a pittance, but it will be a new Uber-like scandal. The business model is : illegal employment, over the internet!
That depends on how you want to live. Even minimum wage in America is more than is earned by 80% of the world. People don't work a second job to survive, they do it to improve their life and afford extra things.
"Minimum wage" doesn't mean "survival wage". You need at least a survival wage to pay for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, health care and so forth.
If a minimum wage job doesn't pay a survival wage - and such is the consensus on US minimum wages - then you darned well will get pushed into working a second, or even third jobs.
It really doesn't matter how much better USA minimum wage pays than pay in Kolkata if the cost of living in the USA is significantly higher than it is in Kolkata. Which it is, hence the popularity of outsourcing skilled jobs to places like India. People over there can earn a comfortable living on less than the US minimum wage because their living expenses are lower - they're not just taking advanced programming jobs for $10/hour because they're selfless public benefactors.
As geeks, you should aready know this story.
Which is why a moderately large tech company in Seattle thinks that US$10.00/hour for an Oracle certified database manager is an appropriate wage.
If someone is willing to accept the job, then it is an appropriate wage.
Which is why a moderately large tech company in Seattle thinks that US$10.00/hour for an Oracle certified database manager is an appropriate wage.
If someone is willing to accept the job, then it is an appropriate wage.
They may not have a choice, is it still acceptable then?
This is my sig, there are many like it but this one is mine
Frankly, I don't disagree.... but I think my state is on the right track by putting serious limits on what can be called a "contract" position and doesn't allow people to just be hired as contractors instead of employees. It HAS to either be temporary work or an actual external service as could be provided to multiple customers.
Just bringing someone in with all the trappings of employment and calling them a contractor doesn't cut it here, and I think that is entirely appropriate.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The problem with "worker choice" is that it is limited to what potential employers are offering them. In a "healthy" economic situation, supply and demand are well-balanced and the notion of making a choice works fine for either side. However, we're currently in a situation where a large pool of workers are competing for a significantly smaller pool of employer job offerings. Employers are able to dictate highly unfavorable terms to all potential workers because if Alice and Bob won't accept their terms, equally qualified Charlie probably will, so Alice and Bob must either accept those terms from someone to obtain gainful employment or stick to their principles and slowly go bankrupt and end up on welfare.
But what about the employers that aren't assholes? Well, that'd be nice, but we're on the dark side of capitalism now; all employers that are pursuing the almighty dollar during a huge glut of available labor will trend towards being assholes, otherwise they're not going to be able to compete.
The argument that "the worker can choose" in the current economic climate is akin to offering someone meals with cyanide, hemlock, arsenic, or they can opt not to eat any of those meals and die of slow starvation...but hey, "they had a choice! It was their choice!"