You're Shipt outta luck: App sued for treating delivery workers as contractors Shipt, a delivery service owned by Target, has been sued by the Attorney General of Washington DC for allegedly unlawfully misclassifying employees as independent contractors to avoid paying for worker benefits. The civil lawsuit [PDF], filed in a Washington DC Superior Court, alleges Shipt deliberately mislabels workers, …
Something isn't quite right in this description:
Users go into the Shipt app, place an order for stuff they'd like to be picked up – such as groceries from a store – and pay for it.
A Shipt shopper logs in too, sees the available order in the app, agrees to take it on, goes to the store, gets the required items, pays for it using a Shipt visa card, and then delivers it to the user. Shipt and the shopper take a cut of the cost.
That reads to me as though both the person who wants the stuff and the delivery worker are both paying for the goods. So, questions:
- How is the delivery guy getting paid?
- What did I miss?
Yes, that. Which means the person picking it up and paying with the Shipt Visa card isn't a "shopper" because they personally are not buying it. Their "employer" is. It all sound like a carefully crafted way to try and hoodwink the legal system.
Personally, I think the idea of the "gig economy" isn't all bad when it's a on small scale and people get to choose, eg "hey, I've got a couple of hours spare today, I could earn a bit of extra cash running some deliveries", or "Hey, I'm driving to Manchester tomorrow, I wonder if anyone wants to chip in the with costs for a "free" ride?". You know, like local fast food and car share schemes have done for years. But add "big business" into the mix and the greed of the C-suite instantly rears it's ugly head.
I very much doubt, Shipt or Uber would be interested in me "contracting" for them a couple of hours per week if and when I felt like it even though that is exactly the claimed business model.
The customer buys an item from Shipt for 10 dollars, that sells in the store for 8 dollars.
The employee, I mean shopper, goes to the store and buys the item for 8 dollars.
The empl...shopper delivers the item. Shipt collects 1.90 in profit, the emplo... there I go again, the SHOPPER gets 10 cents from which he deducts the costs associated with delivering the item.
Except the "artist" does something once that is duplicated by computer with no effort by said performer/composer, whereas the shipt droid has to do physical work for every poorly paid transaction. The "artisr" is more like the venture capitalist and does fcuk all most of the time, but expects huge rewards. When they do a gig, they resemble the shipt droid to a greater extent, although still expect weeks/months/years of droid equivalent income for a few hours worked.
I have to say there must be people out there who use these services but why?
I can understand for the elderly / disabled / housebound there is a good reason but then most of the supermarkets these days will deliver if you ask them.
Obviously they must be too time poor to go shopping or do things for themselves. Mind you one of my neighbours gets deliveries 2 or 3 times a day….
Ps who else read the company name got to the end and thought the p was silent …..
You earn $$$$ as a full-stack-web-Javascipt-rockstar-Ninja
You need to buy frozen pizza
You can take an hour off in the middle of the day to search around your out-of-town business park for a supermarket / take your e-scotter and head out from Shoreditch in search of an Asda
Or you pick supermarket delivery and they will deliver to your home, sometime between 12-8pm on Thursday, so you take time off to be at home - and the delivery doesn't turn up.
"You can take an hour off in the middle of the day to search around your out-of-town business park for a supermarket / take your e-scotter and head out from Shoreditch in search of an Asda"
Must a be a jobbing coder working somewhere different everyday of they don't have a clue where the nearest shops or takeaways are. I go into our nearest office (200 miles away) a couple of times per year at most, sometimes not for an entire years, but I can find at least two snack vans on the estate and drive to any of a number of supermarkets, fast food places etc within a 5-10 minutes of the office. It's not actually hard being an intelligent human being for most of us and most of get an hour or so for a lunch break so getting out and about and away from work is a good thing, allowing you to come back after some fresh air, maybe some exercise having forgot all about work for bit, ready to start again, fresh.
TL;DR - You came up with a really crap excuse to justify shitty delivery employee "jobs.
"You never know when you'll get tampered with goods"
Is that common? What's the risk factor? 1 in 10? 1 in 100? 1 in a billion? How many deliveries per day around the world and how many known "tamperings"? Or is it common in certain areas? Low income, high crime areas maybe?
I see the annual "Halloween candy laced with drugs" stories are back on the agenda of the gutter press. Filled with dire warning of what's possible, maybe, might happen if every parent in the land isn't totally vigilant. It's not an impossible risk of course, but since most people buying drug laced sweets are probably paying a premium for them, have an addiction and are unlikely to use them as Halloween treats. An addict is generally trying to score more drugs, not give them away fro free. Be careful crossing the road. It's probably more of a risk than getting drug laced sweeties on Halloween.
No welfare in the US?
Basically, it's a crapshoot on where you live, and how good you are jumping through hoops.
Welfare programs are initiatives set up by the government to support poor, developmentally challenged, and disadvantaged groups. Compared to other developed countries, the U.S. provides a relatively small social safety net and has fewer welfare programs available, and with greater restrictions.
the above is from this article:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/welfare.asp
And why doesn’t the whole buisness model collapse?
It generally does but only once the way through the courts has been exhausted.
"Disruption" has been the mantra of Silicon Valley VCs for the last twenty years and is generally based upon pursuing unregulated markets as long as possible but making sure you cash out just in time.
Depends on who's name is on the card and thus the billing liability for the transactions made using the card.
But if it is a company card and has a persons name on it, this would suggest employment.
HMRC would want to investigate, as they might regard the company-issued card as a means to avoid VAT...
"allegedly unlawfully misclassifying employees as independent contractors to avoid paying for worker benefits"
All they have to do in Blighty is to declare the contract "within IR35" and the problem's solved. You're an employee "for tax purposes" but not an employee "for employment purposes", so you're taxed on gross revenue and don't get any significant allowable expenses, but they don't have to provide any employment benefits or job security. And that's apparently perfectly legal.
The irony is that it's firms like this that get away with it, because you can guarantee that the guy delivering for Shipt is also delivering for Amazon or whoever - zero job security, zero guarantees. So these poor fuckers with nothing but a bicycle are classed as independent sub-contractors running their own business.
Whereas a three-month stint firefighting a failing IT project at a desk before moving onto the next? No sir, you are a disguised employee, with all (well, some) of the rights and responsibilities that go with it.
Anyone remember Whoops, Apocolypse? The plan there to reduce unemployment was to push 5000 employed people off a cliff every month, creating 5000 new jobs. These days, just give them a bicycle and some crumbs of work, then just reclassify as self-employed.
"These days, just give them a bicycle and some crumbs of work, then just reclassify as self-employed."
So, Norman Tebbit wasn't a cruel bastard, he was just ahead of the times?
Yes, I know it's a mis-quote :-)
According to Wikipedia
In the aftermath of the 1981 riots in Handsworth and Brixton, Tebbit responded to a suggestion by the Young Conservative National chairman, Iain Picton that rioting was the natural reaction to unemployment:
I grew up in the '30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot. He got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking till he found it.
As a result, Tebbit is often misquoted as having directly told the unemployed to "get on your bike", and he was popularly referred to as "Onyerbike" for some considerable time afterwards.[26]
The US Gov continues to abuse any independent system of labour wage negotiation. Since the beginning of time, the right to negotiate labour by an individual needing service and one providing it has existed. From the 14-year-old kid that mows lawns, to delivery services and ride services. A minimum wage removes the ability of one to sell their labour at a lower price than minimum wage. Reading the post here, you see the usual socialists talking about livable wages. That's pure rubbish. Livability has nothing to do with wages or wage contracts. A star basketball player can negotiate wages at $100 million a year. How does "livability" have anything to do with the negotiation? That's just Marxist slobber. A free trader has a right to set their own terms.
The App is merely a platform for buyers to contract buying and delivering services. These are not employees, they don't have standard hours, and don't have to even provide services if they don't wish. There are no control terms here that could be construed as an employee. Independent contractors operate without controls and use their own tools and equipment.
I see very little difference between a UNION pressing employers with the mantra "Less work, more pay" and the Present Administration, attacking any contract opportunity by trying to convert it into an employee-employer scheme. Perhaps Biden's regime should focus on Children's Allowances. Why should an allowance not be viewed as parents employing their own children? Shouldn't parents be paying minimum wage? Shouldn't children UNIONIZE?
This Woke ECONOMIC view must end. The Socialists decry free negotiation of labour below minimum wage and employee status and think Athletes get paid too much when the free negotiation of labour results in a clearly successful negotiation.
You probably missed this in the article:
"Through misclassification, ... Shipt evades its obligations to pay what it owes to District [of Columbia] programs, including paid family leave and workers' compensation." ie. it is the local government saying Shipt are avoiding paying their contribution to society.
Object? I assume you are okay for there to be no police, no bin collection etc. etc. and a good chance of being mugged everytime you step outside of your fortress home...
I was good with what you were thinking till you brought politics into it. Please don't fall into the "divide us" trap. As I see it, we all are independent contractors. We each have to decide if we want to work or not and we are adults, it is up to you to take care of yourself and if you choose and are able, others. I am an individual and responsible for my life choices. I do get a bit torqued when other try to force me to do what they want.
Here is how I see employment:
Someone ask me to do something for them. We negotiate compensation and I get it done.
They tell other that they liked what I did for them and more ask me to do the same for them.
At some point, I can't do it all by myself and ask someone for help. This crosses a threshold. Now I am an employer.
I have just become an unpaid tax collector (among other things). If I make a mistake I will be fined for doing this requirement by the government, and can lose my home. The government does this to hide from the "employee" the true cost of employment and making it look like they are a turd and ripping them off. Until you have been on that side of the fence and find out what you pay an employee is about half of what it cost, all employers are turds.
So that is the threshold where the person looking for assistance tries to be shielded from overhead and lability. It is in the best interest of the government to force you into being an employer because it is easer to collect taxes force lability on 1 person than a 1000. (and hide from you what they are taking).
I am saying this in the context of a small business that cares about their friends and employees, not the cheating bastards that try to doge taxes and screw their employees to get rich. I simply choose not to work for them and when I did, it was only a short time while I learned a new marketable skill and told them to stuff it.
I've worked as an employee and as an independent contractor at different stages of my life, doing what best meets my circumstances. What the Washington AG calls an "unlawful scheme" I call a sometimes ideal opportunity to make some money on my own terms without messing with a micromanaging employer. Thanks for nothing AG for making it harder for people to make a living, particularly those who historically find it harder to be hired for traditional employment.
Did you read the article about app-based micro-management of "contractors" and intense performance targets monitored and tracked by the same app?
AFAICT, the AG is not against contracting per se. The AG is against companies treating people like employees for work purposes and claiming they are contractors for financial and benefits purposes to reduce costs and increase profits for themselves with a net negative effect on the "contractors" earning power.
A real macro economic problem with the gig economy is that it makes an uneven economic playing field companies doing work that requires training and working in place. Those companies - e.g., manufacturers, have to hire with all the extra costs of social security and workplace liability. That's one reason why gig companies can attract so much more investment money, while companies the require building plant can attract almost none. It's a really a race to the bottom.
There are other reasons - e.g. these gig companies spin up revenue instantly but rarely seem to be profitable, yet gather billions in investment. Investors are stupid.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
