So.... they aren’t going to stop steeling tips, just limit how much they steal? And they are claiming that it was an algorithmic glitch that cause them to steal a drivers tip that one time... yet they aren’t going to stop it all together just limit it.
They need to come out and say “all tips goes to the driver” or they are going to dies in distrust. No-one wants to buy from or work for a company that downright steals tips from its employees.
But they do say “all tips goes to the driver”, and the worst part is that they _aren't lying_. Some MFA was reading that statement thinking "how can we claw that one back", and came up with the clever idea of guaranteeing a minimum rate. In other words, they can now say "all tips go to the driver" and "drivers are always at least paid X amount" and not be lying. They just don't disclose that they only pay the driver _if the tips don't cover the minimum_. It's a very clever way of taking two positive statements that sound good to consumers and employees and finding a money hole between them.
It's too late for me, I don't tolerate this sort of bullshit. I had pizza delivered once and paid/tipped online (I have ten years in restaurants behind me, on the rare occasion I eat out I tip really well) and the delivery guy gave me a funny look when he dropped off my order. I took a look at the receipt attached to the order and the price I paid was higher plus the tip was not on the slip, I sent him a text with my order confirmation to let him know what I paid he texted me back that this wasn't the first time they screwed him on tips and that hes going to find another job. Every few months I post a yelp review with this experience so it remains on the first page for the restaurant.
Someone who has worked in a service job can answer this better but I'm not sure that is true. My understanding is that restaurants routinely pay less than minimum wage and then up your wage to minimum if your tips don't come up to at least minimum wage. I'm not sure how this is any deferent. Though doing it without the person being paid even knowing is abhorrent.
Restaurants (and some other places) are allowed to pay less than minimum wage by law (thought they are required to covert the gap if the tips aren't enough to bring the user up to minimum wage; I've never seen it happen). If you're not part of the group allowed to do this, you don't get to.
How on earth was this an "algorithm glitch" or anything close to "black box"? It's how they calculated pay, by setting a minimum hourly rate and subtracting any tips from that before paying out themselves.
This reporter is far too trusting.
> Instacart still hasn’t explained exactly what went wrong in calculating Arrigo’s 80-cent fee. But it shows the risks inherent in relying entirely on the “black box” of algorithms that, regardless how clever they are, can sometimes produce baffling results.
Actually you should have tested your code, because this does a no-op equality test against 3 (==), rather than your intention to set driver_pay to 3 (=)
I think they mean black box to the person paying and the one being paid not to Instacart.
Though this is kind of frustrating. Because 99%+ Instacart themselves knew what the formula is. I give a 1% change they legitimately did the math wrong and somehow got it through QA and code review into production and a 99% chance they are being intentionally deceptive by calling it an "algorithm glitch".
The original article https://www.workingwa.org/instacart-eighty-cents has a screenshot from an email with Instacart explicitly describing how it works and confirming that the calculation was correct.
Amazing how this glitch also impacts DoorDash, GrubHub, ... and the glitch is to cap how much they will use to offset their costs not actually honor the intent of the tip.
Tips are so incredibly stupid, unnneccessary, confusing, and a waste of everyone’s time and energy.
Just imagine... paying the price that’s advertised. How practical and convenient that would be!
The obvious solution is a law banning the soliciting of tips, and let’s require prices to include sales tax while we’re at it. Call it the “pay what’s advertised” or “fair pricing” law.
33 comments
[ 7.3 ms ] story [ 29.0 ms ] threadThey need to come out and say “all tips goes to the driver” or they are going to dies in distrust. No-one wants to buy from or work for a company that downright steals tips from its employees.
US Labor law doesn’t allow tip theft, and changing pay rate dependent on tip value is clearly tip theft.
In effect it is retroactively reversing the pay rate. This is theft.
This reporter is far too trusting.
> Instacart still hasn’t explained exactly what went wrong in calculating Arrigo’s 80-cent fee. But it shows the risks inherent in relying entirely on the “black box” of algorithms that, regardless how clever they are, can sometimes produce baffling results.
[Edit:] LOL as seen below. That's probably how they coded it.
My IDE would have caught it, and pointed it out as a null statement.
Though this is kind of frustrating. Because 99%+ Instacart themselves knew what the formula is. I give a 1% change they legitimately did the math wrong and somehow got it through QA and code review into production and a 99% chance they are being intentionally deceptive by calling it an "algorithm glitch".
And the quality has gone way down, they'll buyers would suggest a better deal, now they pick the worst if it makes their shopping faster
Amazing how this glitch also impacts DoorDash, GrubHub, ... and the glitch is to cap how much they will use to offset their costs not actually honor the intent of the tip.
Just imagine... paying the price that’s advertised. How practical and convenient that would be!
The obvious solution is a law banning the soliciting of tips, and let’s require prices to include sales tax while we’re at it. Call it the “pay what’s advertised” or “fair pricing” law.
[0] https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/