Couriers mystified by the algorithms that control their jobs
theguardian.com191 points by pseudolus 21 hours ago
191 points by pseudolus 21 hours ago
Gig workers are a genuine and serious regression in workers rights and employer vs. employee power balance. These "jobs" should not be allowed to exist, at all.
Tech companies have figured out a way to subvert the protections all other employees are subject to. I see absolutely no reason why they should be allowed to do this.
I really do not understand why governments aren't working hard to make this kind of gig-economy illegal.
This is true. it also hurts the public, as the drivers are dependent on the number of deliveries the succeed making, thus hurrying up and constantly stressed. This hurts not only their health and quality of delivery, but also increases the risk for traffic accidents.
It is in the best of interest of everyone that these people would get a normal salary.
I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with the gig economy model - it's a way of working that suits some workers and clients. But the balance of power needs to be shifted towards the workers (and clients) and away from the platforms.
I think this article is spot on. Platforms obfuscate their algorithms, and use that secrecy to play workers off against each other, and against their clients. Regulation would really help. There ought to be a right to...
1. An official explanation for each decision the algorithm makes. That could then be used as the basis for mandatory arbitration, if a party believes it's unfair.
2. Effective, and timely support from a human being, if that's required.
Together those would force the platforms to make their systems fairer (else be swamped by dealing with arbitration decisions), and easy to navigate (else be swamped by costly support calls).
As long as they get tips, they will continue to speed.
See: pizza delivery people for decades.
In CA at least, Uber effectively bought the protection through an effective ad campaign to pass by popular vote an effectively unrecoverable law to protect themselves.
You tell the truth. That said, every other special interest already had a carve out from the authors of the bill. Uber/Doordash/Lyft just wanted the same special treatment.
I voted against the proposition but I also understood why Californian consumers would vote for it.
Voters have no agency? Kind of a dim view on democratic processes.
Voters are heavily influenced by propaganda. If they weren't, then there wouldn't be advertising.
I recently learned that a courier in Panama can earn around $1,400 a month. Yes, you likely have to work six days a week, but that's well above the average salary in the country.
I'm not sure how the sentiment is in developed countries like the US and the UK. Still, here in Latin America, this presents an opportunity for poorer communities to provide dinner for a family.
In most of the western world the sentiment is that basic worker rights are a necessary element of social stability. And that just because a job "presents an opportunity for poorer communities to provide dinner for a family" it should not be excluded from receiving basic labor protections.
> basic worker rights are a necessary element of social stability
That's the argument for the owners of capital - give them rights so that you can have social stability. The argument for most people is that rights are universal, and it is fair, just, and essential for workers to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc.
>The argument for most people is that rights are universal
No, they are not. Clearly the US and Germany do not have the same rights. They also have changed over time and will change in the future, as the labor market changes.
>and it is fair, just, and essential for workers to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc.
But these are not the rights a worker in Germany has. Worker rights in Germany derive from the belief that the employer has a duty to care for his employees, which also does include limiting the freedom of their workers, if necessary. E.g. you are forced to pay health insurance as an employee.
Additionally social stability is good for everyone, especially the workers.
I’m not arguing that it’s an unnecessary element. Rather, I don’t agree with the original statement that the government should shut down the services.
How did you learn that? Did someone tell you or is there something we can read? I appreciate you mentioning it, I just want to know more about it. Thanks.
I’m investing in EM startups. Talked to the founder of the leading food delivery company there.
Will try to visit the country in March and share some notes in public web
Because it provides an extremely convenient service that has made life better for most people? People seem to forgot that this class of job used to not exist in our lifetimes. Was it better to be a low-skill worker on the job market in 2010 when these apps didn't exist?
If there are specific labor violations you think are taking place, the appropriate remedy is regulation, not banning.
>Was it better to be a low-skill worker on the job market in 2010 when these apps didn't exist?
If you had a job certainly. Basically any job is superior, as you actually do have some rights.
>If there are specific labor violations you think are taking place, the appropriate remedy is regulation, not banning.
The whole concept is a violation of labor laws. Every aspect is bad.
I don't know enough about it, but a general statement like "every aspect is bad" isn't helpful if I wanted to learn more. Do you have some specific issues?
Look at the protections employees have that independent contractors don't. There's also very little transparency over pay and how you get assigned jobs.
I have a personal experience that might be relevant. I used to work for Instacart. One day I was leaving a store with groceries and discovered my car's windshield had been smashed. There was shattered glass all over the inside of my car so I reported that I had vehicle problems through the app amd handed off the order to another driver. I was an independent contractor and didn't get compensated for the damage for my car but I also got flagged for failing to complete a delivery and I stopped getting work. I never tried to get compensated for the windshield but I tried to get the incomplete order removed from my record. I finally got driver support on the phone and the guy just yelled at me for being ungrateful that I could still work for Instacart at all. I'm lucky that I no longer need to work gig apps but my heart goes out to people that have to use those to support themselves.
> I really do not understand why governments aren't working hard to make this kind of gig-economy illegal.
It makes money and the current governing/legal doctrine says the government should give a lot of leeway to that. Biden has been touted as the most pro-labor president since about LBJ, but a lot of this is just letting the NLRB mediate every individual starbucks that unionized.
> I really do not understand why governments aren't working hard to make this kind of gig-economy illegal.
Because there's a large number of people who take the writings of Ayan Rand and the policies of Ronald Regan as the best way to run government.
Workers' rights are being eroded because we've slowly dismantled and privatized as much of the government as possible.
Workers' rights are incompatible with small government and or libertarian ideals. Much like other rights such as civil rights. Or rights to clean water, air, and food.
Big government isn't perfect, but for its flaws there are benefits having a large organization with a bigger stick to beat in line robber barons whose entire goal is to undermine rights as much as possible to leach maximum profit from society.
The best thing for the people is hard, actual systematic competition where the ruling class lifes in constant fear.
>Because there's a large number of people who take the writings of Ayan Rand and the policies of Ronald Regan as the best way to run government.
Are these people currently running e.g. the UK?
Well first off, yes for a very long time the party in charge of the UK was the Tories from 2010 all the way up to 2024.
But further, the current prime minister of the UK got there by and large by abandoning Labour party positions in favor of explicitly supporting nothing. Starmer literally used Margret Thatcher, the UK equivalent of Regan, as an example of an excellent prime minister. Starmer is very much the UK equivalent of Bill Clinton, a conservative leader of the historically "progressive" party.
Starmer has been in power all of 7 months now.
It seems very weird that they somehow do have labor laws over there, though. They even forced Uber to make their drivers have worker protections, quite strange to be honest. Maybe Thatcherite neo-liberals sometimes mistake the oppress everyone check box, with the worker rights check box. Who knows...
They also still have the NHS even though torys hate it.
Labor laws and social programs are very hard to eliminate once created because they are very popular. The US has weaker labor laws and social programs than the UK and they've been eroded since the 80s by nearly every Congress and administration. Yet we still have social security and Medicare not because Republicans love those programs, but because the remain hugely popular.
You'll note that the torys and conservatives haven't enacted or pushed for their own social programs. They've simply failed to fully eliminate what's already there.
The social programs conservatives in the US have been effective at eliminating and neutering mostly happened because of racist narratives. "Welfare queen" was very much a pejorative used to paint a picture of "urban" women living off of government assistance. That allowed for huge cuts to previous programs because they hurt the right people.
Not sure if Uber Eats falls under gig work (think so) but I'm glad to have it, I can just turn it on and go. Granted in my case it's not my only job. I usually get $20/hr I know I'm destroying my own car in the process, get in a car crash I'm on my own. But again it's extra money on demand.
I thought you were covered by Uber's car insurance when you were on their clock?
I would not think/expect that. There is even a commercial insurance you're supposed to have vs. regular
Gig workers are a perfect example of how inhumanly ruthless our capitalistic overlords are.
>These "jobs" should not be allowed to exist, at all.
Piece work is nothing new in the economic landscape of history. I'm not saying I absolutely defend it or think it shouldn't be subject to some sorts of protective rules for workers, but you saying it shouldn't exist at all begs the question of what exactly these many, many workers should do instead to make extra, necessary money instead.
If you're of a mind to answer, don't mention something from some neat ideal you have in your mind, describe something practical and accessible in the real world of the present, right now, that could replace their gig wages under existing market dynamics.
It's easy to dislike something and say it should be made to go away, but it helps to know how that will affect those who depend on it, and also to ask what they think of its disappearance in their practical lives.
>but you saying it shouldn't exist at all begs the question of what exactly these many, many workers should do instead to make extra, necessary money instead.
The exact same thing they are doing now, except as employees.
I do not think this is some utopian vision. Worker rights are a very real thing in other low skill jobs.
Once you actually read the article .. you see a similar kind of thing to complaints about Youtube or bank demonetization. People are accused of fraud, and have their access withdrawn - but nobody will explain what they allegedly did, because that would leak information about the fraud detection.
It's a kind of automated low trust economy. The drivers don't trust the apps, and the app doesn't trust the drivers, so the thing has to be held together by surveillance and micromanagement.
I am currently in a nightmare scenario at a new job. I just finished building their website, and it got flagged as a phishing website by Google Safebrowsing because Google seems to think that our analytics subdomain which is a self-hosted instance of Umami Analytics is a phishing attempt.
I requested a review once, they removed the flag. It came back a couple of days ago. I then had to move Umami to its own domain because I couldn't risk this ever happening again (visitors to our root domain were also getting the huge red warning, and our business was coming off as a scam).
Then they flagged the new domain as well. They've removed it again at my request, but I am just counting down the days until it happens again.
There is no way for me to get through to a human to talk about why this is happening.
They've clearly implemented prejustice, but not correctly. Find that class action lawyer and go fishing!
Have legal send Google a C&D and shoot an email to the FTC about anticompetitive behavior. That's how you get a human involved.
Even if this works, it represents a failure in the system that needs to be fixed.
(I assume you're just trying to help the parent solve their problem so I'm not trying to be dismissive of your comment)
I am not sure this aphorism is helping in any way though? of course system needs to be fixed, there are about 829 things google/bigtech-wise that needs to be fixed but of course they won't be fixed. the only course of action in vast majority of cases like this is legal action
California’s labor board could state that anyone impacted by algorithmic decisions has the right to review the algorithm used, and that all algorithms used must be deterministic and diagrammable. If clearly stated, “flip a coin” or “choose one at random” is fine, but “trained AI network” is not.
This would shine light on algorithms used at Uber, DoorDash, Amazon, Microsoft, Workday (based in Oakland). Anyone with a worker in California whose work is subject to algorithmic intervention would have the right to request the source code to all algorithms impacting their gig, temporary, or permanent employment.
I cannot imagine a more frightening regulatory path for California tech. They would spend a billion dollars trying to stop it.
> all algorithms used must be deterministic
There are also many optimization algorithms that require random processes. This can even include things like finding the area under a curve because it may be faster to use Monte Carlo Integration. You might not even be able to do it otherwise.
> and diagrammable
I understand the intent of your words and even agree with it. I think openness and transparency are critical. But because I care and agree I want to make sure we recognize how difficult that the wording is. Because it is often easy to implement a solution that creates a bigger problem than the thing we sought to solve.
Personally, I'd love to see that things become "Software Available." I mean if it was a requirement for everyone, then it is much easier to "prove" when code is cloned. Of course, this is easier said than done since there's many "many ways to skin a cat" but in essence, this is not too dissimilar from physical manufacturing. It's really hard to keep secrets in hardware. Plus, there's benefits like you can fix your fucking tractor when it breaks down. Or fix a car even if it is half a century old. I do expect if this would become reality that it'd need a lot more nuance and my own critique applies, but I just wanted to put it out there (in part, to get that critique).
Obviously a diagram of an ANN is ‘possible’ and just as obviously it’s not in compliance relative to an algorithm with a runbook as most governments recognize and use. I’m not writing a forum comment with the law or rule as I would craft it to ensure that a judge can reasonably find against such examples. HN is not a useful place to workshop legalese :)
No law or rule will be able to, in ‘legal’ code terms, fully exclude attempts to slip through loopholes in the proposed restriction. That doesn’t at all invalidate the threat of it; that’s just the cost of doing business with any legal code — which, itself, cannot be interpreted fully deterministically at all.
You’re welcome to propose better wording, of course; and: I also recommend writing a letter to an elected representative or state board if you do! I think they would jump at the chance to even the odds without being seen as disadvantaging their sponsors.
Fair enough. Though I suspect that it will be quite difficult to find the right words, even with substantial legalese. But I did want to make the note of caution. Especially as this even permeates into the public language, which in turn ends up being what politicians use because they just care about signaling instead of solving the actual problems...