That’s the root of the problem. They should be employees and paid by their employer.
I strongly disagree. Employment is not a mutually beneficial relationship. Employment is an encumbrance on the worker, especially a non-union worker. As an employer, DoorDash can demand exclusivity. DoorDash would be allowed to add a non-compete clause, prohibiting employees from performing courier work on the side, or for competing platforms. I don’t want my working hours dictated to me on a schedule. I don’t want to have to negotiate time off or finding someone to cover my shift.
Employment would allow them to force drivers to take all “assignments”. I like being able to refuse service to a particular vendor or abusive customer. I don’t want to be forced to wait in the drive thru line for 45 minutes at a Taco Bell in a high-crime area.
Courier service is menial labor. When I look at other large businesses that utilize menial labor, I am not particularly struck by the equity of their employment agreements. I don’t see “employment” working out too well for the workers of Walmart, for example.
I do not appreciate Doordash offloading its responsibility of paying and “disciplining” its workers onto customers. Do you honestly have no problem with that?
No, I don’t have a problem with that. I think DoorDash retains too much control over pay and discipline of workers, and interferes too much between customers and workers.
DoorDash punishes workers for refusing orders, by downgrading their priority for higher paying offers. When a customer insists on placing a $3 offer for a 9-mile delivery, every driver in the area will reject it. That single shitty order results in every active driver having their “Acceptance Rate” stat lowered. DoorDash should not be giving customers this particular power over drivers. It is the customer who should be “punished” for making an offer so far below minimum wage.
You seem to be portraying “libertarianism” as a negative attribute for a worker. I don’t concede that at all.
A menial laborer has a sudden, unexpected opportunity fall in his lap. He wins tickets to a baseball game for him and his daughter.
As an employee, he has to weigh the ramifications of going to the game against his obligation to his employer. He has to face their attendance policy. A policy he had no meaningful input in developing, that he can either accept, or lose his job. That policy says he has to be at his station, stacking product on retail shelves, or earn himself a mark toward termination.
As a contractor, he writes his own attendance policy. The only consequence he faces for skipping work is he doesn’t get paid.
As an employee, he will likely have to say “Sorry, I can’t afford to skip my job stacking boxes on shelves, even for the opportunity to share this game with my kid. Can I get cash value instead?”
As a contractor, turning down the tickets doesn’t even begin to enter his thoughts. The time at the game is more valuable to him than the compensation for stacking boxes on shelves, so he turns off his driver app and goes to the game. His “company” doesn’t care that he skipped work to go to a game. They just keep dispatching work to the people who show up.
The “employment” model is absolutely terrible for the menial laborer, especially for non-union workers. It gives business entirely too much control over the lives of its workers. It’s completely disgusting that we allow major corporations to use this model.
The primary compensation method for most menial labor should be piecework, not hourly. A business needs to set a piecework rate high enough that new, inexperienced workers are willing to perform. Experienced, efficient, and proficient menial laborers who can optimize their production and produce several times the rate of a new worker should be paid several times higher.
Hourly wages should be reserved for skilled jobs, or where the worker is spending a substantial part of their time waiting for processes to finish rather than proceeding at their own pace.
Employer-sponsored healthcare and other essential programs are not “benefits”. They are entanglements designed to make it harder for the employee to say “no” to the employer’s demands. They aren’t benefits; they are extortions.
I strongly disagree. Employment is not a mutually beneficial relationship. Employment is an encumbrance on the worker, especially a non-union worker. As an employer, DoorDash can demand exclusivity. DoorDash would be allowed to add a non-compete clause, prohibiting employees from performing courier work on the side, or for competing platforms. I don’t want my working hours dictated to me on a schedule. I don’t want to have to negotiate time off or finding someone to cover my shift.
Employment would allow them to force drivers to take all “assignments”. I like being able to refuse service to a particular vendor or abusive customer. I don’t want to be forced to wait in the drive thru line for 45 minutes at a Taco Bell in a high-crime area.
Courier service is menial labor. When I look at other large businesses that utilize menial labor, I am not particularly struck by the equity of their employment agreements. I don’t see “employment” working out too well for the workers of Walmart, for example.
No, I don’t have a problem with that. I think DoorDash retains too much control over pay and discipline of workers, and interferes too much between customers and workers.
DoorDash punishes workers for refusing orders, by downgrading their priority for higher paying offers. When a customer insists on placing a $3 offer for a 9-mile delivery, every driver in the area will reject it. That single shitty order results in every active driver having their “Acceptance Rate” stat lowered. DoorDash should not be giving customers this particular power over drivers. It is the customer who should be “punished” for making an offer so far below minimum wage.
Wow, what a bad set of takes.
You want Doordash to get the benefits of a company, but not the responsibilities of one. Because: libertarianism, or something
You seem to be portraying “libertarianism” as a negative attribute for a worker. I don’t concede that at all.
A menial laborer has a sudden, unexpected opportunity fall in his lap. He wins tickets to a baseball game for him and his daughter.
As an employee, he has to weigh the ramifications of going to the game against his obligation to his employer. He has to face their attendance policy. A policy he had no meaningful input in developing, that he can either accept, or lose his job. That policy says he has to be at his station, stacking product on retail shelves, or earn himself a mark toward termination.
As a contractor, he writes his own attendance policy. The only consequence he faces for skipping work is he doesn’t get paid.
As an employee, he will likely have to say “Sorry, I can’t afford to skip my job stacking boxes on shelves, even for the opportunity to share this game with my kid. Can I get cash value instead?”
As a contractor, turning down the tickets doesn’t even begin to enter his thoughts. The time at the game is more valuable to him than the compensation for stacking boxes on shelves, so he turns off his driver app and goes to the game. His “company” doesn’t care that he skipped work to go to a game. They just keep dispatching work to the people who show up.
The “employment” model is absolutely terrible for the menial laborer, especially for non-union workers. It gives business entirely too much control over the lives of its workers. It’s completely disgusting that we allow major corporations to use this model.
The primary compensation method for most menial labor should be piecework, not hourly. A business needs to set a piecework rate high enough that new, inexperienced workers are willing to perform. Experienced, efficient, and proficient menial laborers who can optimize their production and produce several times the rate of a new worker should be paid several times higher.
Hourly wages should be reserved for skilled jobs, or where the worker is spending a substantial part of their time waiting for processes to finish rather than proceeding at their own pace.
Employer-sponsored healthcare and other essential programs are not “benefits”. They are entanglements designed to make it harder for the employee to say “no” to the employer’s demands. They aren’t benefits; they are extortions.