Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In truth, they're not doing them a service. It's just business.
I do agree that it's the delivery people that are at the ass end of the equation here and it's mainly due to th apps being able.to classify them as contractors instead of employees.
Riddle me this though. Amazon wanted to bring in real employees with actual benefits but was told to GTFO but delivery apps and Uber can hire as many "contractors" as they want and these same clowns say nothing?
As someone whose job it is to get money people like gig workers are legally entitled too, on a daily basis, based on their misclassification, these app services are all one and the same to me. The nonsense they've been allowed to get away with is detestable.
But that shouldn't stop a business who uses them to make profit from allowing the drivers to use their bathrooms.
Besides the obvious aspect of government injecting themselves needlessly into business transactions, I still don't see the benefit of a delivery service over the traditional "kid with his own car" that existed for years. I hear restaurant owners complain about being pretty much forced to use these services now because the customer goes straight to the apps instead of just calling the restaurant. It seems as if the app developers have inserted themselves maliciously into a transaction that they have zero input in otherwise, only to siphon fees from those who work to provide the real product, AND the customer.
This is a great example of the insidious creep of technology into otherwise benign aspects of life which don't demand the aid of said technology. I'll keep supporting those businesses which actually provide jobs and a needed product over opportunists injecting themselves into transactions where they are not needed.
There's no advantage apart from catering to lazy, childless, infantile 30 year-olds who lead hedonistic lifestyles. It's about making life as easy and effortless as possible. In turn people start losing their sense of reality.
It's the same people who get others to do laundry, grocery delivery,
furniture assembly, etc. Soon there'll be apps to have someone shake your sick after you pee or wipe your ass.
It's one thing having some pimply teenager deliver your food for beer and gas money. It's another having grown adults do it.
I'll never forget. I was in a business meeting a few years ago with a rep from another company. We got to talking about NYC and how she moved here, yada yada. She mentioned something like, "I love NYC, I use seamless for every meal". She must've seen my surprised look as I asked her " like a few times a week"? She goes, "no, literally every day. I love it". I think I had a look of disgust and offended her.
Last edited by Bklynball; 04-30-2021 at 04:34 PM..
Besides the obvious aspect of government injecting themselves needlessly into business transactions, I still don't see the benefit of a delivery service over the traditional "kid with his own car" that existed for years. I hear restaurant owners complain about being pretty much forced to use these services now because the customer goes straight to the apps instead of just calling the restaurant. It seems as if the app developers have inserted themselves maliciously into a transaction that they have zero input in otherwise, only to siphon fees from those who work to provide the real product, AND the customer.
This is a great example of the insidious creep of technology into otherwise benign aspects of life which don't demand the aid of said technology. I'll keep supporting those businesses which actually provide jobs and a needed product over opportunists injecting themselves into transactions where they are not needed.
I did make an effort to list out what a few of the differences are. It's fine if that's not very convincing, but I do think that the rise of unrelated companies / services doing similar things in other parts of the world that sometimes have very different labor laws point to those differences not being just nominal differences.
I agree calling is better when you know the restaurant and they're pretty good with delivery--I do that, too.
Life doesn't demand this technology--life doesn't demand a lot of things that exist whether good or bad. Nobody really needs delivery apps, jet skis, or death metal to survive, but they're there, and there is a client base.
The insidious bits, somewhat different from place to place, is the odd grey zone of these gig jobs and the massive monopolistic consolidation of these services into one large, dominant corporation.
In truth, they're not doing them a service. It's just business.
I do agree that it's the delivery people that are at the ass end of the equation here and it's mainly due to th apps being able.to classify them as contractors instead of employees.
Riddle me this though. Amazon wanted to bring in real employees with actual benefits but was told to GTFO but delivery apps and Uber can hire as many "contractors" as they want and these same clowns say nothing?
Are all of these people really against classifying delivery workers as employees?
Yes. Absolutely. Prop 22 in CA was just the start of their nationwide campaigns against making delivery workers employees.
You may be talking about different "all." I'm referring to NYC council members which I assume the person I was responding to meant as well. It's a shame, in my opinion, that prop 22 that passed, but you understand that the CA ballot initiative system is a system that goes by direct vote and not by council members (including NYC council members). It was an aggressive campaign waged by the gig companies, and I think it went poorly for laborers overall, but it also wasn't unanimous. Obviously, with a state as large as CA, pretty much nothing is going to be passed unanimously by ballot initiative.
You may be talking about different "all." I'm referring to NYC council members which I assume the person I was responding to meant as well. It's a shame, in my opinion, that prop 22 that passed, but you understand that the CA ballot initiative system is a system that goes by direct vote and not by council members (especially not NYC members). It was an aggressive campaign waged by the gig companies, and I think it went poorly for laborers overall, but it also wasn't unanimous. Obviously, with a state as large as CA, pretty much nothing is going to be passed unanimously by ballot initiative.
If they aren't why aren't they proposing such a law? Speaks volumes, no?
I did make an effort to list out what a few of the differences are. It's fine if that's not very convincing, but I do think that the rise of unrelated companies / services doing similar things in other parts of the world that sometimes have very different labor laws point to those differences not being just nominal differences.
I agree calling is better when you know the restaurant and they're pretty good with delivery--I do that, too.
Life doesn't demand this technology--life doesn't demand a lot of things that exist whether good or bad. Nobody really needs delivery apps, jet skis, or death metal to survive, but they're there, and there is a client base.
The insidious bits, somewhat different from place to place, is the odd grey zone of these gig jobs and the massive monopolistic consolidation of these services into one large, dominant corporation.
I wasn't knocking you, your explanation was thorough and interesting and likely touched on a few of the reasons why these apps sustain themselves in the market. I still feel that if restaurant owners explained themselves better to the customers who demand these needless services, they might be able to overcome the extra costs they introduce into the transaction.
You may be talking about different "all." I'm referring to NYC council members which I assume the person I was responding to meant as well. It's a shame, in my opinion, that prop 22 that passed, but you understand that the CA ballot initiative system is a system that goes by direct vote and not by council members (including NYC council members). It was an aggressive campaign waged by the gig companies, and I think it went poorly for laborers overall, but it also wasn't unanimous. Obviously, with a state as large as CA, pretty much nothing is going to be passed unanimously by ballot initiative.
Sorry I misread you, I thought the all you were referring to was the apps, not the council members!
If they aren't why aren't they proposing such a law? Speaks volumes, no?
No, it doesn't speak volumes to me. There are certain limits on how much power city council has to legislate over things and that includes employment classification as I'm not sure what power is within the city council to change that so there's first the legal side of things and what power there is--I remember this conversation stemming from Uber/Lyft and that the city council wanted state action which probably means it needs to be done on the state level. I may be wrong on this in general or potentially specific to delivery app gigs but somehow not rideshare gigs. I'm happy to learn more.
You can potentially vote for or against legislating app delivery people get bathroom access and have that decoupled from what you think the employment classification status should be. It's possible that those who are more sympathetic to delivery app workers getting restroom access are also more sympathetic to having gig workers as employees, but I don't have any stats on that so I don't know where that lands in terms of intent. Voting on this also doesn't mean you can't tender a vote on employee reclassification, but again, I don't really know if city council has the ability to do much on that specifically.
I'm curious as to what your take on the issue is. I think the gig workers for these platforms should be classified as employees of the platform and thus subject to employee labor laws*. I also think that there is a reasonable case for there being a monopoly in terms of delivery app companies (well, really just company). Specific to this, I think this is a quick palliative within the reach of city council, but it's not the best ultimate solution which would seemingly have to be taken as a fight to the state level and which the massive gig companies will almost certainly launch a massive promotional blitz to prevent such.
*employee labor law reform is another massive can of worms though
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 04-30-2021 at 05:14 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
