Prop 22 is a tremendous success for Uber and other companies. The courts and legislature in CA went out on a limb to force Uber and others to do the right thing, and prop 22 erased all their work.
If you don't live in California, you may not know - they added a $1.50 fee to every order, in addition to all the existing service fees and delivery fees, which often add up to 20-30% of the order. (Also by the way, uber and grubhub already artificially raise the prices of items on the menu and keep the difference, and restaurants can't do anything to stop it). They can blame it all on Prop 22 even though they spent millions to pass it.
Now obviously people are paying all these fees, so it appears that drivers are being paid a lot, so no need to tip. But most drivers don't even qualify for the money! We are paying money on orders that probably won't even go to our own driver.
Personally I've decided to stop using these food delivery apps. I can't stop using Uber, but I can pick up my own food. It is depressing that so many delivery drivers didn't understand what they were voting for and did nothing to stop this
I found the paternalism of AB5 to be a little bit problematic. It really assumed that the drivers are too stupid to do their own accounting and figure out if they are making money or not. Pretty sure most drivers wouldn't be driving for $9.21 if a job at the local ice cream parlor could get them almost double on the spot. Yet you still see folks driving 30 hrs per week for years.
“Hi. I find the opinion you're expressing here abhorrent. People can't take care of themselves, learn, grow or adapt. We need government to protect them from the wolves in our society. I will be downvoting you now. Thank you.”
This presumes there are alternate jobs available quickly and easily enough to cover immediate needs.
Secondarily, it indeed assumes that the drivers have the skill to understand depreciation of the vehicle, cost of repairs, etc., or expected costs of healthcare over time, which, bluntly, I’d be surprised if most people on this forum could calculate correctly enough. Alternatively, it’s possible that drivers are knowingly mortgaging the car to cover short term needs - in other words, that the math doesn’t pen out and yet people are still engaging because they’re under duress.
Finally, it assumes absent state intervention that there’s any kind of parity in negotiation between the drivers and the company, or any way for them to affect what is a transparently lopsided power dynamic.
If AB5 was bad, then a good reaction would be to lobby the state legislature to amend it. Prop 22 doesn’t just circumvent AB5: it makes it virtually impossible to improve it via the legislative route.
Here is the specific language:
After the effective date of this chapter, the Legislature may amend this chapter by a statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, seven-eighths of the membership concurring, provided that the statute is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, this chapter.
This means two things:
1) To make a change that is consistent with the purpose of prop 22 (that is to say, that proponents of prop 22 would agree to), an 7/8 congress majority is required. This is highly unusual, and not a coincidence: to achieve such a majority requires getting the California GOP on board. California Republicans are mostly irrelevant at the state level, but they have endorsed prop 22, and this is their reward: a permanent veto over any incremental changes to a crucial section of California labor law.
2) To make a change that is inconsistent with the purpose of prop 22 (for example to reverse it), a new ballot measure must be adopted. Although that is technically not impossible, in practice it may as well be. Uber and Lyft spent $80m on this ballot measure, and could easily double that if required. Their natural opponents, unions, could barely raise $5m the first time around. They simply don’t have pockets deep enough to compete.
Whether you supported or opposed AB5, it should be common sense that California’s democratically elected congress should have authoroty over California law. Prop 22 establishes a new reality where that is no longer the case: for $80m dollars, you can essentially buy yourself a permanent exemption. That is incredibly dangerous.
AB5 was terrible, and if prop 22 didn't pass, it was unlikely to be amended.
Lawmakers should be creating laws in the public interest, it's ridiculous that a brand new law like AB5 lacked so much public support that it could be immediately overturned. It's a pretty clear demonstration of legislative incompetence. They knew it was a bad law but rushed it through anyway.
Before anyone suggests that a tip is required in these instances, I'll preemptively remind you that Grubhub already takes AT LEAST 30% from the provider. A default tip by the consumer of 20% would suggest that their delivery service was worth MORE than the provider's food.
Here is a restaurant showing GrubHub fees (not including tips) constituting more than 60% of of the take.
If drivers need more wages they should get them from Grubhub's already overly generous cut of the pie.
If someone appreciates a prompt delivery or other aspect of the provided service then by all means, provide a tip but that should be the carrot, not the status quo. If it is "expected" then Grubhub should just lump it onto their already outrageous fee structure.
Lack of proper pay for service workers in America that has resulted in our out of control tipping culture has always made me a little sick.
This is nice in theory and wildly out of touch with reality. Should Grubhub pay drivers more? Yes. Yes they should. But we live in a world where Grubhub does not pay enough to drivers. That means as a consumer of the service, you should be aware of that and tip. You're outright saying that we should punish workers because Grubhub is shitty.
I encourage you to go do something about the system, but until then, advocating for hurting delivery workers because you don't like the system is a bad approach.
Tipping is ethically required in some instances such as when a lower wage is permitted and paid to in-house servers. That is fine, but tipping culture is out of control in the USA. When a tip becomes required it is no longer a tip and we should stop pretending it is. Grubhub has the ability to change this situation right now, over night. Simply add a new 20% delivery charge onto their fees.
We are not pretending it's a tip, we're acknowledging the reality that these workers are exploited and attempting to ensure they can make a living. This can be at the same time as we try to pressure companies to do right by their employees, or government to force them to.
Capitalism is an emergent phenomenon. It is not “instituted” or enforced by any party or organization, though its practice may be supported or suppressed by them. It is the naturalᵃ consequence of private exchange.
So long as two, consenting parties—who are never symmetrically informed—engage in nonbroadcast (“private”) transactions, you have capitalism.
Capitalism needs a puissant state to enforce property rights, at the very minimum. Without private property, you don't have capitalism. However, small scale barter is not the problem. Capitalism at scale is the problem, and that can certainly be torn down ("suppressed," in your terms).
As for private exchange, let's just not have private property, shall we?
You don’t need a state to enforce property rights. Humans do that all their own. Humans defend—and invade—land they wish to occupy.
If such notions as private property emerge, I reckon it’s because the benefits of the idea are greater than the blood costs of defense.
It’s wishful thinking descendants of families who died over, negotiated, settled and established a history in a particular terrain—no matter how unfairly acquired—will relinquish it without force.
What makes the family homestead valuable are the costs incurred to keep it.
> a "private exchange" of your life for your stuff?
What stops you from attempting that now? Consequences. You're assuming you would not also be putting your life at risk attempting to do so? (I'm not talking about state enforcement or punishment. We are all free to protect ourselves.)
As for your "deep hole", note I said the homestead is valuable because of the costs incurred to _keep_ it.
What employers can I ethically support without damaging exploited workers? Do I need to only patronize worker co-ops, partnerships without non-partner employees, and sole proprietorships?
By not tipping, the poster is doing something about the system. If you make less money as a driver because people are not tipping, you're going to either go to another service or stop delivering altogether. That's a slow change, and some drivers will be adversely affected by it, but just because a solution isn't instant and affects parties not directly at blame doesn't mean it's not a solution.
It’s not a solution because a critical mass of consumers aren’t going to boycott tipping in the absence of a massive and effective collective action.
Organize this movement, give workers fair warning before acting, and then act – and then you can say you were being honest and principled.
Stiff an individual worker as a grumpy, self-righteous individual consumer, and all you are doing is exploiting a tacit agreement and risking someone’s ability to pay their bills. Someone who doesn’t have that many options for employment, otherwise they wouldn’t be working in such a risky arrangement to begin with.
Dude by setting the default to $0 they are definitely punishing workers, so the question is whether or not to reward Grubhub with drivers if they are going to be so greedy.
I'm sure the cashier at the gas station is underpaid as well. Is it my responsibility to tip them to ensure they have a livable wage? What about your grocery bagger? Do they get a tip? Why are some jobs given this consideration, but others aren't?
The cat is out of the bag. Without public policy declaring no more tipping, any business that moves away from it to higher sticker prices will be immediately punished by the market.
What Grubhub is doing here is a calculated, likely-temporary cash grab that they know for a fact will come at the expense of the drivers. By the time enough outrage builds that they have to change the UX again, they’ll be that much closer to balancing their own books.
That is absolutely not true. I've eaten at and will continue to return to several restaurants that pay their workers (all of them, not just the servers) a fair wage, where tipping is not at all encouraged. I imagine my server might not turn it down if slipped them a $5 anyway, but the business model of these places is made to run without tips.
I wish there were more information available there. I've looked for trying to buy from restaurants that have fair wages, but there's not a lot of info. The best I've come across is the very sparsely populated ROC United app (sparse at least in my region).
Some of my favorite restaurants have a "tipping not allowed" policy, and servers draw a hard line. I like this policy a lot, and don't mind paying extra.
Unfortunately, the way many restaurants choose to manifest this is via a "mandatory 18% service charge" that is not reflected in the prices themselves. I hate this. I wish restaurants would just publish a menu that has the "all-in" price, with the "service charge" and taxes included. Maybe the market will reject this, but I suspect that this fear is not fully founded.
It’s weird that tipping has been expanding as we know that it’s bad for consumers and employees. Employers are the ones that benefit—they pay their employees much less expecting consumers to find it in their hearts to pay some unspecified extra money for a service.
As a Brit this is pretty standard. Some of our delivery apps (Like Just Eat, one of the biggest ones) don't even have the ability to tip but it's always opt-in if it is (Uber Eats have a tipping option). Personally hate it as I feel guilty for not tipping and Uber Eats guilt trips you into tipping using COVID as a catalyst. Of course I usually 'give in' and tip.
We need legislation here where businesses cannot have all these hidden fees anymore. Right now the food deliveries like DoorDash take a cut from the restaurants, add a delivery fee, a service fee, a small order fee, a city fee (if the city caps their maximum commission), a tax and then try to guilt the customers into tipping the drivers 20%.
This nonsense needs to stop. All prices should include all the fees so customers can comparison shop.
Worst of all at some grocery stores I've come across POS devices that ask for a tip. It's annoying. These need to be outlawed.
I'm all for drivers and restaurant workers making more money but mandatory "tip" and various hidden fees is not the way to go.
38 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 105 ms ] threadIf you don't live in California, you may not know - they added a $1.50 fee to every order, in addition to all the existing service fees and delivery fees, which often add up to 20-30% of the order. (Also by the way, uber and grubhub already artificially raise the prices of items on the menu and keep the difference, and restaurants can't do anything to stop it). They can blame it all on Prop 22 even though they spent millions to pass it.
Now obviously people are paying all these fees, so it appears that drivers are being paid a lot, so no need to tip. But most drivers don't even qualify for the money! We are paying money on orders that probably won't even go to our own driver.
Personally I've decided to stop using these food delivery apps. I can't stop using Uber, but I can pick up my own food. It is depressing that so many delivery drivers didn't understand what they were voting for and did nothing to stop this
I found the paternalism of AB5 to be a little bit problematic. It really assumed that the drivers are too stupid to do their own accounting and figure out if they are making money or not. Pretty sure most drivers wouldn't be driving for $9.21 if a job at the local ice cream parlor could get them almost double on the spot. Yet you still see folks driving 30 hrs per week for years.
Secondarily, it indeed assumes that the drivers have the skill to understand depreciation of the vehicle, cost of repairs, etc., or expected costs of healthcare over time, which, bluntly, I’d be surprised if most people on this forum could calculate correctly enough. Alternatively, it’s possible that drivers are knowingly mortgaging the car to cover short term needs - in other words, that the math doesn’t pen out and yet people are still engaging because they’re under duress.
Finally, it assumes absent state intervention that there’s any kind of parity in negotiation between the drivers and the company, or any way for them to affect what is a transparently lopsided power dynamic.
Here is the specific language:
After the effective date of this chapter, the Legislature may amend this chapter by a statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, seven-eighths of the membership concurring, provided that the statute is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, this chapter.
This means two things:
1) To make a change that is consistent with the purpose of prop 22 (that is to say, that proponents of prop 22 would agree to), an 7/8 congress majority is required. This is highly unusual, and not a coincidence: to achieve such a majority requires getting the California GOP on board. California Republicans are mostly irrelevant at the state level, but they have endorsed prop 22, and this is their reward: a permanent veto over any incremental changes to a crucial section of California labor law.
2) To make a change that is inconsistent with the purpose of prop 22 (for example to reverse it), a new ballot measure must be adopted. Although that is technically not impossible, in practice it may as well be. Uber and Lyft spent $80m on this ballot measure, and could easily double that if required. Their natural opponents, unions, could barely raise $5m the first time around. They simply don’t have pockets deep enough to compete.
Whether you supported or opposed AB5, it should be common sense that California’s democratically elected congress should have authoroty over California law. Prop 22 establishes a new reality where that is no longer the case: for $80m dollars, you can essentially buy yourself a permanent exemption. That is incredibly dangerous.
Lawmakers should be creating laws in the public interest, it's ridiculous that a brand new law like AB5 lacked so much public support that it could be immediately overturned. It's a pretty clear demonstration of legislative incompetence. They knew it was a bad law but rushed it through anyway.
Before anyone suggests that a tip is required in these instances, I'll preemptively remind you that Grubhub already takes AT LEAST 30% from the provider. A default tip by the consumer of 20% would suggest that their delivery service was worth MORE than the provider's food.
Here is a restaurant showing GrubHub fees (not including tips) constituting more than 60% of of the take.
https://www.eater.com/2020/5/1/21243966/giuseppe-badalamenti...
If drivers need more wages they should get them from Grubhub's already overly generous cut of the pie.
If someone appreciates a prompt delivery or other aspect of the provided service then by all means, provide a tip but that should be the carrot, not the status quo. If it is "expected" then Grubhub should just lump it onto their already outrageous fee structure.
Lack of proper pay for service workers in America that has resulted in our out of control tipping culture has always made me a little sick.
I encourage you to go do something about the system, but until then, advocating for hurting delivery workers because you don't like the system is a bad approach.
So, we're acknowledging... capitalism? Getting rid of tipping isn't the answer. Getting rid of capitalism is.
Unless by "get rid" you mean "completely eradicate", which is not feasible under any system.
So long as two, consenting parties—who are never symmetrically informed—engage in nonbroadcast (“private”) transactions, you have capitalism.
__________
ᵃ By “natural” I only mean determined.
As for private exchange, let's just not have private property, shall we?
If such notions as private property emerge, I reckon it’s because the benefits of the idea are greater than the blood costs of defense.
It’s wishful thinking descendants of families who died over, negotiated, settled and established a history in a particular terrain—no matter how unfairly acquired—will relinquish it without force.
What makes the family homestead valuable are the costs incurred to keep it.
I dig a deep hole somewhere. I incurred significant costs to do so. Is that hole now valuable?
What stops you from attempting that now? Consequences. You're assuming you would not also be putting your life at risk attempting to do so? (I'm not talking about state enforcement or punishment. We are all free to protect ourselves.)
As for your "deep hole", note I said the homestead is valuable because of the costs incurred to _keep_ it.
Organize this movement, give workers fair warning before acting, and then act – and then you can say you were being honest and principled.
Stiff an individual worker as a grumpy, self-righteous individual consumer, and all you are doing is exploiting a tacit agreement and risking someone’s ability to pay their bills. Someone who doesn’t have that many options for employment, otherwise they wouldn’t be working in such a risky arrangement to begin with.
What Grubhub is doing here is a calculated, likely-temporary cash grab that they know for a fact will come at the expense of the drivers. By the time enough outrage builds that they have to change the UX again, they’ll be that much closer to balancing their own books.
https://rocunited.org/
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/roc-national-diners-guide/id57...
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.rocunited....
Unfortunately, the way many restaurants choose to manifest this is via a "mandatory 18% service charge" that is not reflected in the prices themselves. I hate this. I wish restaurants would just publish a menu that has the "all-in" price, with the "service charge" and taxes included. Maybe the market will reject this, but I suspect that this fear is not fully founded.
(It's takeout only.)
Their banh mi sandwiches are yummy, and the price you see is the price you pay.
https://www.eater.com/21398973/restaurant-no-tipping-movemen...
Customers tipping drivers in cash would seem to be a way to ensure they get an intended tip directly.
This nonsense needs to stop. All prices should include all the fees so customers can comparison shop.
Worst of all at some grocery stores I've come across POS devices that ask for a tip. It's annoying. These need to be outlawed.
I'm all for drivers and restaurant workers making more money but mandatory "tip" and various hidden fees is not the way to go.