Hacker News Reader

Comment by geoelectric | Hacker News Reader

I quit tipping on DD as soon as I found this out about a month ago because it'd almost always be less than $4.50, so wouldn't affect the dasher's bottom line anyway. If I start again it'll be cash, but I don't typically carry that in small bills.

But I'm pissed. I've been a heavy DD customer for years and I'm an excellent tipper. Apparently I've been offsetting DD's costs for quite awhile now thinking "100% goes to Dasher." Bad enough that I have to tip in advance of the service--Uber Eats does this right--but they've been stealing those tips the whole time on top of their "service charge" and "delivery fee". I'd love to see them burn.

It doesn't take a class action--last I saw comparative stats they were only doing well in the Bay Area, San Jose specifically, and were rock bottom of the market share elsewhere. We probably just need one educated market to trash this strategy.

View on HN

I'm in the exact same boat as you. I've been a huge customer of DD's for years and only recently found this out after being confronted by Dashers who thought I'd lowballed them. I tweeted at DoorDash multiple times, and while I usually get some response from them this time it was radio silence. I'm livid.

I did, however, hear from a Dasher who was more than happy to clue me in on the policy[0]. From now on, I no longer tip inside the app and let the Dasher know I'll be tipping them in cash at the door. It's a pain for me, but I feel better knowing 100% of my tip actually went to them like it was supposed to.

[0]: https://twitter.com/iampbt/status/1089767531412213763

Isn't this typically the job of an Attorney General?

You quit tipping, but you haven't stopped using the service?

They quit tipping through the service, and, if I'm reading correctly, instead zero the tip at checkout, and tip in cash on arrival.

I think he means he can't be that outraged if he's still using them.

He's outraged by this specific issue and found a workaround. You can be upset by a specific company policy yet still find it better than the alternatives

One reaction to discovering that a company you do business with has been exploiting you or its workers is to come up with a strategy for exploiting the company back (within the bounds of the law), ideally without hurting the individual employees.

Your point is valid, really, and it's something I'm struggling with ethically. The problem is the other services in San Jose are by and large much worse in every other way (unless you really want pizza) and I do rely on deliveries for my current schedule. At what point is the right answer to sacrifice your own needs in order to boycott?

So right now I'm making DD pay as much as possible for each delivery to me, which is the point where I at least retain a bit of self-respect. My hope is this gets "corrected" before I have to quit the service, but if that becomes the only real choice it's what I'll do.

As far as the tipping, I do need to get an envelope of small bills going to meet my own standards there, but at least I haven't hurt the Dashers worse. The moment the 20% tip would be enough to raise their payout (DD guarantees a minimum of $1 from their own pockets, so that's $4.51+) I've tipped it regardless of the offset. They're victims in this.

But regardless of any perceived hypocrisy you may have on my part, DD is a bad actor here. Gig economy has always had the strong potential to exploit the "contractors," but this actualizes that potential in a big way. Even the sub-min-wage base+tips model for service employees isn't this egregious.

Just curious : why tipping in cash when they are numerous apps to send and receive money between "friends" (ala PayPal) ?

(By the way, how long before we can tip people on WhatsApp?)

So tip them in person, like the pizza guy

In other news, 100% of lottery taxes go to the school system. Strange that we don't see the same outrage for the same shady tricks practiced elsewhere.

Regardless of your feelings on this specific issue, it’s fair to say we can have two problems at once, and one doesn’t diminish the other.

I don’t think the government should be in the lottery business.

The argument in favor of this generally goes: if there wasn't a government lottery, there would be privately-run lotteries, and attempts to ban lotteries would just push them into the hands of organized crime. At least a government-run lottery will publish honest odds and pay out to winners, which private/criminal lotteries would less reliably do, and that minimizes the harm done by the lottery.

You can apply basically this argument to similar things which the government doesn't do and people typically don't support (like running casinos or selling drugs), though.

They do sell drugs in Canada now, and it seems to be going quite well, actually. Maybe there's a case to be made after all, although, personally, I prefer the Portuguese model of decriminalizing everything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com