Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Up Shipt's creek   (thehill.com) divider line
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

1063 clicks; posted to Business » on 16 Oct 2020 at 12:30 AM (8 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



6 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-10-16 12:45:26 AM  
I'm glad to see strikes being reported. They have been popping up all over since this all started. Well even last year too. A labor movement looks to be growing again.  Good.
 
2020-10-16 4:24:31 AM  
So while transparency is good, tfa says the change in pay model was a net increase averaged across workers. Since the model ostensibly changes things from "oh, you did a small, high priced item so you get a lot of money for little work" to "that item isn't much work, why should it pay more than bigger, heavier items of lower value" this seems a good change overall.
 
2020-10-16 7:49:16 AM  

Smackledorfer: So while transparency is good, tfa says the change in pay model was a net increase averaged across workers. Since the model ostensibly changes things from "oh, you did a small, high priced item so you get a lot of money for little work" to "that item isn't much work, why should it pay more than bigger, heavier items of lower value" this seems a good change overall.


That may be what "tfa" says..however 2 points.. when was the last time a company pays workers more for no reason? And if workers are getting more pay then why are they upset?
I know math is hard,
but this don't add up.
 
2020-10-16 8:15:50 AM  
F em. I had a 20 something kid drive by my house in a subdivision going at least 60. When I motioned to have him slow down, he returned with a middle finger. He was a shipt employee who delivered to a buddy of mine's house. Pretty sure they did nothing after I called and explained the situation.
 
2020-10-16 11:47:29 AM  

Mcavity: That may be what "tfa" says..however 2 points.. when was the last time a company pays workers more for no reason? And if workers are getting more pay then why are they upset?


Per tfa the pay is now more closely tracking effort.  So no more windfall from small high value items or orders that are quick and uncomplicated.  Now if you want to get paid more you have to work harder and take on more complicated orders.  Workers don't want to work harder in order to get paid.

I know math is hard, but this don't add up.

Speaking of which the math shows that 40% are earning about 11% less while 60% are earning slightly more.
 
2020-10-16 12:41:16 PM  

Mcavity: Smackledorfer: So while transparency is good, tfa says the change in pay model was a net increase averaged across workers. Since the model ostensibly changes things from "oh, you did a small, high priced item so you get a lot of money for little work" to "that item isn't much work, why should it pay more than bigger, heavier items of lower value" this seems a good change overall.

That may be what "tfa" says..however 2 points.. when was the last time a company pays workers more for no reason? And if workers are getting more pay then why are they upset?
I know math is hard,
but this don't add up.


Tfa was not referencing some claim by shipt, but rather an MIT study.

They said the pay per person went up. They also said 40% were earning less.

If you cannot imagine how that is possible or how that math works, I can give you an example:

A set of 10 workers do a job, their pay for a task is as follows: 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 5, 5, 5, 5, and 5.

Someone looks at it and says, "huh, that's not fair to the 5 follow folks for the work they do" they tweak things and find the new pay numbers can be 11 bucks for everyone.  Average pay goes up, half the workers get paid less than before. The half taking a cut go protest that they get less so someone else gets a fair share.

Obviously there are a rather large number of data sets and shifts that are less extreme and can still match the conclusions of the MIT study.

Telling MIT their math doesn't add up is generally going to be a mistake :)
 
Displayed 6 of 6 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



X
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.