I'm a little confused even after reading the article. What drivers does this refer to? Package delivery drivers? How does one go about tipping said drivers outside of handing them physical money? It's nothing I've ever seen on Amazon.
Packages and groceries. I've never seen one, because it's more common in more densely populated areas. Basically, they're cutting costs by avoiding UPS and FedEx when they can, using a quasi-Uber model
It does seem fairer than DoorDash and Uber, since there's a guaranteed minimum hourly rate, though you're still on the hook for self-employmenmt tax and vehicular depreciation.
I think my deliveries are made by Amazon directly in most cases, and I've never seen an option to tip. Only time I've seen it is for Amazon Fresh orders.
The article comments that the FTC doesn't have the authority to issue fines in cases like these; all they can do is require the workers to be paid back what they owe, with no punitive measures at all.
Yeah, a clear indication that we need to punish even first time offenders a lot more than just pay what you should have. As it stands a business has no reason not to cheat the first time.
I had been assuming that the FTC chose to give small fines. I found it interesting this article clarified they aren't allowed punitive damages in this sort of circumstance.
> In a joint statement on Tuesday, FTC Acting Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, and Commissioner Noah Phillips, a Republican, called on Congress to give the FTC the power to create gig-economy rules that more clearly explain what type of behavior is unlawful. The pair also are requesting that Congress give the FTC power to issue large civil penalties to first-time offending businesses as a further deterrent to engaging in schemes like Amazon’s, which FTC commissioners called “outrageous.” Amazon will only open itself to such a civil penalty if it violates the terms of this settlement.
> Slaughter said giving the FTC power to issue penalties for first-time offenses would create a powerful “one-two punch,” along with the agency’s existing ability to recoup lost wages for workers.
In other words, the current rules means that you should try to screw your workers maximally but surreptitiously, because the only penalty for being caught is having to give the money back like it's no big deal.
Or in different (better?) words. Theft from employees is not illegal and carries no consequences. Employee theft from employers as compensation for having their property stolen, while being more justified on any moral basis, is illegal and can send the employee to jail.
It's theft. A person did it. Another approved it. All of them are guilty of it and should not be able to hide behind liability limitation for investors to commit crime. Membership of a criminal syndicate should not be any kind of legal defence "I gave the proceeds to the boss."
Criminal prosecution of individuals like any other criminal prosecution for theft.
That's the game theoretic analysis from an amoral standpoint. You'll forgive me if I don't think ignoring morality captures it better because you do have to embrace being a thief to take the optimal solution of a rational agent. There are many people who won't do that. Ignoring them doesn't seem quite fair to me.
reminder that managers and engineers promoted, developed, and shipped these changes at all of the companies listed in the article, knowing exactly how this change was going to affect people working in these roles. pathetic.
This absolutely. There is so much software that implements malicious and unethical business practices: cheating employees, deceiving customers, violating privacy, etc..
Certainly designing and developing such systems violates the codes of ethics of professional societies such as the ACM and IEEE.
Every time I encounter such a piece of software or read a story like this HN post, I think "who on earth would think that writing software like this is even remotely OK?"
It's disappointing that there seem to be so many ethical lapses in our profession.
It’s only pathetic if you assume everybody in those organisations and roles share your political views but they didn’t have the balls to act on them. Whilst it’s possible that they don’t care or they disagree with you.
Must be a slow day on HN today. Usually when its discovered that a company is stealing tips to subsidize base pay, there are at least half a dozen commenters defending the practice by pointing out that wait staff in restaurants are paid the same way in most states.
i drive flex. Amazon made the changes pretty clear back in 2016 and I wasn't happy with the changes but I understood them. it did decrease our pay by like $3 per block but what can you do? nothing.
23 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 64.6 ms ] threadThe earnings details are in the FAQ: https://flex.amazon.com/faq
It does seem fairer than DoorDash and Uber, since there's a guaranteed minimum hourly rate, though you're still on the hook for self-employmenmt tax and vehicular depreciation.
I thought theft was a crime... shouldn't the DOJ be prosecuting something here?
I think that shouldn't be the case but the fact that these people don't go to jail proves it in my mind.
Sarcasm aside, we really need to up fines. These are pathetic.
> In a joint statement on Tuesday, FTC Acting Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, and Commissioner Noah Phillips, a Republican, called on Congress to give the FTC the power to create gig-economy rules that more clearly explain what type of behavior is unlawful. The pair also are requesting that Congress give the FTC power to issue large civil penalties to first-time offending businesses as a further deterrent to engaging in schemes like Amazon’s, which FTC commissioners called “outrageous.” Amazon will only open itself to such a civil penalty if it violates the terms of this settlement.
> Slaughter said giving the FTC power to issue penalties for first-time offenses would create a powerful “one-two punch,” along with the agency’s existing ability to recoup lost wages for workers.
It's theft. A person did it. Another approved it. All of them are guilty of it and should not be able to hide behind liability limitation for investors to commit crime. Membership of a criminal syndicate should not be any kind of legal defence "I gave the proceeds to the boss."
Criminal prosecution of individuals like any other criminal prosecution for theft.
Screw them: Get stuff -> Net Positive
Screw them, get caught: Return stuff -> Net 0
Don't Screw them: Gain nothing -> Net 0
Given these rules, a rational agent would pick to screw them over 100% of the time.
Certainly designing and developing such systems violates the codes of ethics of professional societies such as the ACM and IEEE.
Every time I encounter such a piece of software or read a story like this HN post, I think "who on earth would think that writing software like this is even remotely OK?"
It's disappointing that there seem to be so many ethical lapses in our profession.
Definitely gonna claim on this. ty OP.