What the Apps That Bring Food to Your Door Mean for Delivery Workers
nybooks.com
nybooks.com
What was once an entirely untracked and mostly underground exploitation of illegal immigrants is now an app which tracks every minute worked, every task completed, which workers can turn on and off at their own whim. Somehow the fact that workers have to provide a social security number is spun as a negative.
Any app that can create features which make the service better will result in higher wages and tips per delivery, and riders/drivers can shift from app to app (sometimes within a single day) to follow these trends.
Talk to the actual couriers and they don’t want to be employees, because this very frequently is not a full time job. For the people it is a full time job, conversely, they are the ones least likely to be hired if shoe-horned into employment status.
Last week I had dinner delivered by a young woman driving while her son did homework in the passenger seat. This was apparently someone who needed to make some extra cash for a few hours each evening, and the cost of child care would obviously significantly reduce (if not eliminate) any income. The flexibility of being able to jump in the car and earn crucial dollars without the massive overhead of an employment contract is very valuable, and helping a lot of people.
I think we need to keep perspective that food delivery is just about the least skilled (lowest training required) job you can find in the US, and these apps are upending a traditionally extremely exploitative market with software that can never steal the driver’s wages, or racially discriminate against the driver, or be verbally abusive, etc. while at the same time providing potential work for millions of people at the click of a button.
I have: they don't like the current arrangement. When they're tipped via apps, they don't even get to keep them.
Doesn't sound like they're independent contractors when they can't set their own rates and collect from their clients without the delivery app companies skimming their tips.
> they don’t want to be employees, because this very frequently is not a full time job.
This is a false dichotomy. Many people work multiple jobs on a flexible schedule where they are considered employees at each of their employers.
They also hate the tax burden that is quarterly filing and paying the self-employment tax.
I thought the only one still doing this was DoorDash, and they reversed it after the recent backlash?
[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tipping-policies-delivery-ser...
https://ny.eater.com/2016/4/14/11433288/seamless-delivery-dr...
In NYC at least my comment is still true. When Seamless does not employ the driver, you do not know where your tip is going.
I would personally argue that this is worse in many ways than if we could point to high unemployment and people marching in the streets as reasons we need to change the status quo in more meaningful ways.
The is a prime example where the world has changed for the better through software. The job is now above board, tracked, and accounted in ways that make it better paying, more reliable and even safer work.
The competitiveness of the marketplace will only ensure these jobs become even better paying and safer over time.
Exceedingly low job switching costs is a massive contributor to the competitive forces which lead to these advances, which in fact serve to protect low skilled workers from otherwise abusive employers.
Every delivery app platform lives in absolute fear of all their contractors switching to the competition because they found a way to more efficiently schedule, queue, route, deliver, fulfill their customers and therefore can pay the couriers a higher rate or ensure them more profitable routes or a larger tip share.
The goal of government is apparently to give the poor as little as possible to help themselves and keep them from rioting, and therefore any policy that doesn't risk (too much) rioting from that is "good policy"?
Come on.
"Lack of good jobs" has always been true, but has also been improving over time.
"Lack of good jobs" has demonstrably not always been true unless by "always" you mean "in the last 20 years". And I've not seen any evidence whatsoever that the availability of good jobs is actually improving. The opposite, in fact. Traditional good jobs are increasingly being replaced by contract positions across the board not because employees actually want them, but rather because they're cheaper overall to employers.
Sounds lovely in theory but I'm struggling to think of a real world example where this happens in low-wage jobs.
> food delivery is just about the least skilled (lowest training required) job you can find in the US
If done by car it requires a drivers' license, putting it several steps above zero-training
> providing potential work for millions of people at the click of a button
Um... you realise that this work already exists, right? The apps aren't actually creating work. At best they're coordinating logistics.
Most of these workers, in Italy at least, use bikes
Outside of a few major cities with comprehensive public transit, having a driver's license is practically a necessity for survival in the United States. Driving is not a skill that elevates anyone beyond the most basic level of employability.
Newer versions try to plan out a sequence of deliveries, and even concurrent deliveries where you do two pickups and then two deliveries, e.g. two pickups at the same restaurant and then two drops nearby. In urban environments it’s not uncommon to have orders bundled that go from the same restaurant and deliver to different units / offices at the same address.
Intelligently batching orders so that they are delivered both faster and cheaper (saving time by using a courier that’s already at the restaurant, balancing that against needing both orders ready before they can leave)
Every efficiency improvement means more tips for the driver and lower cost for the platform. It’s basically the singular focus of these companies to improve their queuing, matchmaking, pricing and routing algorithms to decrease delivery time and increase driver tips (flip sides of the same coin).
You may have seen basically the same kind of improvement within Uber, where your driver will have a pickup already matched in their queue before they even drop you off. Ideally the app even brings the new pickup to exactly the same curbside location as the drop off. This makes more money for the driver and for Uber - incentives are perfectly aligned, and probably even saves the pickup customer time because they are getting picked up faster with less fumbling around in between customers. Triple win.
Zero training / low skilled doesn’t mean there are no basic requirements (e.g. literacy, but also it may be physically demanding work). It means you don’t need a high school degree and you can start doing the job essentially on Day 1.
Lastly, it’s important to note that the convenience of these apps has ushered in an explosion of growth in the food delivery market. It’s a huge win for restaurants and couriers alike. Maybe not so much for grocery stores and waistlines? Not just new types of food being delivered which normally would not be available for delivery, but growth in the overall delivery volume within well established traditional food delivery verticals like pizza and chinese.
If the restaurant I was delivering for wasn't busy? I made bad less money (the people I worked for were pretty solid; you made tipped hourly + tips or non-tipped hourly during the shift, which ever was greater). If it was too busy I would be run ragged and my tips would go down as it took longer to complete orders.
To make more and more consistent money, some friends and I would 'game the system' to a degree and each be working 1-2 restaurants in the same business district at the same time. We would trade orders back and forth based on where we were going to make trips more efficient and split the payout pretty much evenly (if someone had a hard delivery or something, they might be given a bit extra).
If the restaurants knew we were doing this they would probably have fired us.
My shifts were fixed; ie I had the sunday evening and tuesday evening shifts every week. I was at the whim of overall demand; slow nights means less money. Most importantly; I could be fired.
Is it getting it to have enough people at once that it isn't "Nobody uses it because it is empty?" Since apparently even with high fees relative to the product and poorly paid workers it still loses a lot of money.
A lot of those two-way market companies appear to have "waiting for drones to reduce the effective labor cost" as their implicit business model.
But in Germany there is one big player in the long distance bus market and they operate their busses with self-employed contractors too. At least such companies would have to rely on humans for delivery in the forseeable future.
Some companies in the delivery space even got bought out by bigger players in the last 12 months here. One only offered a website/app for purchases and no own delivery people, the restaurants had to own their stuff, but somehow this didn't work out. Maybe a cooperative between all the restaurants could have saved this.
Maybe way in the future once automated delivery is much more mature (and cheaper), could a co-op be possible. But we're talking decades later. And also talking about a completely different world by then.
I have the feeling, many the co-ops are formed "because" regular company wouldn't survive.
Certainly a decentralized federation of co-ops would work just as well as many small regional companies, or even franchises.
we have partners in around 50 cities in US, CA, COL, MEX, AU and NZ.
hmu support@twinjet.co if you want to discuss.
I would have guessed that a co-op of many delivery workers would be a way to gather enough money to create such a SaaS.
As far as gathering enough funds to create their own saas, they could but mine is cheaper! The real money is in that 30% slice of the sales of the food. The couriers aren't the marketers or the customer service staff, both are necessary to get the sale.
No reason a VC couldn't invest in a co-op. Or if they feel they aren't getting the unicorn returns they want, then instead of a co-op it could be organized as an employee owned and operated entity.
I think that is the future, and the disruption SV needs at this point...stop the madness of centralizing the wealth among founders and investors, and distribute it to the workers.
They’re not investing their own money, they have investors (things like pension funds) that they have to answer to. And honestly, the majority of VC funds don’t do very well, even taking the large stakes they do. It’s a hits driven business, and if you don’t get those one or two breakout successes, you probably don’t make back your fund.
Why would you think the investors would get any less returns if the entity (say uber) was driver owned?
They wouldn't everything remains the same, except instead of a concentration of ownership in a small group of founders, that same percentage of ownership would be distributed among a larger group of workers.
So the real question is why are investors so adverse to employee owned enterprises and invest in small groups of founders.
This seemed to imply that the investors would take less of a stake.
Are they adverse to funding employee owned enterprises? I've never looked into it.
Maybe they think that companies with dictatorial management are more effective at competing?
For the record, having been a founder, I agree that equity tends to be overly concentrated with the founders.
Because it is by definition not a co-op as soon as it takes VC money. A co-op is a business where every worker owns an equal share.
For example, I am certain YC accepts non-profits which have gone on to attain VC investment... and non-profits don't have any ownership.
It was interesting to learn about the NYC delivery scene and how fresh immigrants who don't even know english have a long history of being bike couriers.
But in my top 10 American city I've never had a Postmates or UberEats driver that wasn't Americanized and speaking good English. Not that it matters at all, food is food and a job is a job, but the article basically describes nothing at all similar to food apps and delivery workers in the rest of the country.
Question: do you find value in defining words to be the opposite of their common usage?
Because my post demonstrates clear awareness of the situation and only describes it in a meta sense.
;)
- workers are at risk of accidents but they have no insurance, if you get in accident you will probably lose your job and that is all
- workers are tricked using "gamification" to work extra hours or accept bad deliveries
- workers have to suffer for other people faults , like some restaurant delays would cause the worker to get penalized
- when the weather is bad and the risks of accidents is larger you have more deliveries to do, so the worker will receive a few more cents for a delivery but maybe he doubles his accident risks.
IMO that article shows some facts that I did not know about and shows that without regulation to prevent it you will get exploited to injury or death.
The article does not seem to promote the perfect solution but mentioned the new law in California and the fact that some giant companies prepared a big found to lobby against this laws.
In my non "top 10 American city" Palo Alto the food delivery people are a mix, with a small proportion being people who speak fluent English with a local accent. Sometimes on bikes, sometimes in cars. Similar to what the article describes.
Not really, and that's not what I said.
I clearly said that the title on Hacker News was misleading because Hacker News isn't the same as NY mag, so their limited title made sense for their limited distribution, but when applied here, became misleading.
> What the Apps That Bring Food to Your Door Mean for Delivery Workers (nybooks.com)
But in any case, the idea that a headline ought to include all the context is a hopeless one.