Slashdot Mirror
Dark Side of Gig Economy: Some Instacart Workers Go On Strike Over Pay That Can Be as Low as $1 Per Hour (fastcompany.com)
From a report: Instacart shoppers and drivers -- the people who gather your groceries and deliver them to you after you order via the Instacart app -- are on strike. While independent contractors can't technically strike, via a Facebook group some of the company's thousands of employees have organized a "no delivery day" in the hopes of getting higher wages, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. The strike is only taking place in a few of the 154 cities nationwide that Instacart operates in. The action may be small, but the grievances are big. While Instacart, the 5-year-old San Francisco startup, is valued at $3.4 billion, it allegedly pays its workers as little as $1 per order. Ars Technica has a great breakdown of all the issues surrounding how Instacart employees get paid and it's complex, with three different income streams coming together Voltron-like to form a wage. The result, though, is that some shoppers are being paid less than the federal minimum wage, like a Jackson, Miss., worker who put in a 19-hour week in Jackson, Mississippi, that paid out $37.75 (roughly $2/hour). That's far below the $14/hour wage that Ars Technica says Instacart is targeting.
I think the gun pointing to their head is the need to eat and have somewhere to live.
Again, where's the gun to their head to do this contract job?
If you don't have a job, you starve.
That's a gun to the head.
This is not a bug but a key feature of gig economy.
It is. The "feature" is that by calling workers "independent contractors", Instacart can violate all of the laws set up to make sure that employers don't take advantage of workers. Morality, ethics, and common decency have no place in business-- all that matters is paying workers as little as possible in order for the company to make as much profit as possible.
The only way it's economically viable for most people to get someone else to go shopping at a retail store for them is to pay that person much, much less than it otherwise would cost conventionally to do that.
The gig economy seems entirely oriented around pay schemes that are so complicated that most of the people signing up to do the work can't figure out up front they won't make any money doing the work.
HMm...I guess I must have missed it in the article, that this was the ONLY job in town for everyone.
Yeah, the asshole libertarians think that a two dollar an hour wage is fine, because of course if people don't like it they can just go get a different job.
This is exactly why people think libertarians are assholes.
HMm...I guess I must have missed it in the article, that this was the ONLY job in town for everyone.
Obviously these folks have a wide range of employment immediately available and choose the lowest paying option. They're just ignoring the better paying alternatives because they enjoy this line of work so much. I'm sure that's what's happening.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Not so much that, but more that NOT EVERY JOB out there is meant to be made a career of, nor sole source of income to support yourself/family.
This should be common sense, no?
Each job should pay what it is worth. Do you think a burger flipper should make the same as a highly skilled computer programmer?
Should I have to pay $15/hr to get one of the neighborhood kids to pull weeds in my garden one weekend?
Is it worth $30K/yr for someone to put flyers on cars in a parking lot for an hour or two a day?
Seriously, not all jobs are meant or worth paying a wage to live off of....some ARE only for extra money on the side, or starting jobs for teens.
This has been the norm for decades, and only recently for some reason, has everyone started thinking that ANYTHING you could possibly do for money should pay enough to be your sole source of income.
Not all jobs are worth that....
If the individual doesn't like the jobs they are being offered, then THEY need to figure out what to do or what jobs to seek that do give enough compensation to live off of solely.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You seem to think this is a right that everyone is inherently born with...?
If you're an American working as productively as you're capable of, you deserve food, shelter, and health care. I didn't say it was a "right"; it's just the right thing to do. Some people are born simple and will never make it beyond "burger flipper." They shouldn't be left hungry or have to splint their own broken arm. Like I said, this support doesn't have to be 100% borne by the employer. Leaving the weak to die isn't something a civilized society should do.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
I know someone who used to brag about how he had a lady who would clean his whole house, wash his dishes, do his laundry, for $5 an hour because she was an illegal alien and was basically desperate for money. Not surprisingly, most people upon hearing this did not rush out to get their own service slave. They just thought to themselves about what a sleaze this person was. That's basically what the gig economy is doing. Finding the people who are the most desperate and taking advantage of their situation. The fact that people are willing to do a job for a low rate does not mean it is right for you to perpetuate that situation. Just because you do it through a flashy app, it doesn't change anything.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Because things were good when the kids were born and no one has a fucking crystal ball? I mean I know you're trying to get at the whole 'you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them' line but life just isn't that fucking simple for anyone.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If you're a human being working as productively as you're capable of, you deserve food, shelter, and health care. I didn't say it was a "right"; it's just the right thing to do. Some people are born simple and will never make it beyond "burger flipper." They shouldn't be left hungry or have to splint their own broken arm. Like I said, this support doesn't have to be 100% borne by the employer. Leaving the weak to die isn't something a civilized society should do.
Fixed that for you.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Basically, using the guise of 'independent contractor', companies are skirting our (American) wage regulations and shafting workers whenever and whereever they can. And people wonder where that income disparity is coming from.
This here is a nice shiny example.
If more young people, didn't have kids too soon before they can afford them
Wrong. The average age at which people have children is going up, and it has been for years. The trend has been toward older parents since at least the 1970s.
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressr...
if they didn't always go out and buy the latest shiny $$$ smart phone, didn't eat out all the time, etc, etc.
Oh, teens and 20-somethings in the 70s didn't blow money on stupid shit? Give me a break.
They did marry earlier though, and it is much easier to save for a house when funneling two incomes into it.
If you don't make Pro Athlete or rock star money, then you should know you can't live even close to that lifestyle and spend money like that.
We are talking about people getting paid $1/hour. I doubt they aspire to a celebrity lifestyle. If anything, they aspire to be free from the ever-present fear of homelessness.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.