If you are too lazy to pickup your own food and need someone to deliver it to you, then yeah it is your job to pay those people. You expect someone to want to bring you food for free?
No, I think he expects their employer to pay them through the fees they collect. If the tip is mandatory, it’s not a tip, it’s a fee and it should be included in the up front costs with payroll taxes etc deducted.
Instead of a bribe, I call it a Bid. I’ll give a tip for good service, somebody waiting around an extra 10 minutes at the restaurant because they’re giving us BOTH the runaround? Absolutely, have an extra bit of cash, you didn’t have to do that for me and I want to compensate that extra effort so they’re more likely to go that extra mile in the future without fear of it hurting potential profits they would have made by dropping me and picking up another order.
Invalids and disabled people use these services too. The problem isn’t they expect it for free, the problem is the people who do the work are not being paid a living wage to do it.
There is a deeper problem that doesn't get discussed enough: namely, that customer may not actually value delivery enough to pay workers a livable wage. Delivery companies are bleeding money left and right, and none of them are meaningfully profitable. They were riding the money tap from low interest rates for a while, but now that that's dried up and people are starting to hit their limit of how much they'll pay in fees for delivery, we're gonna hit a breaking point, especially as governments start to tighten the rules like this.
Either customers will actually pay enough for this to be a financially viable business, or they won't. Pretty much every sign has pointed in the negative so far, and the companies are eventually going to run out of money to throw at this. From a teeny bit of research, it seems like the average delivery worker gets somewhere around 3-4 trips per hour. To hit $20 a hour, which isn't exactly a high wage, each person ordering delivery is going to have to accept adding at least five more bucks or so on top of the cost of their food, and on top of a fee to actually keep the platform itself running, and those engineers aren't exactly cheap, and even more fees to start paying down the company's debt (Uber has about 9 billion dollars of debt right now), and even more fees to pay shareholders.
There's simply quite of lot of cost built into a single delivery trip, and I don't think the average consumer is really willing to pay it just to save a bit of time and effort getting food. But hey, we'll see.
Pizza delivery is generally handled by each individual restaurant with some dedicated employees, so it's a pretty different model than something like Uber Eats. Pizza is also fast, cheap, and simple, so that helps to drive down costs. It's also generally a complete meal for at least two people, if not a whole group, and so the delivery cost gets split across more people.
I get the comparison, but I don't think they're really as analogous as they seem. One is a pizza place hiring a delivery person or two to drive some pizza around; the other is a large tech company settled with debt and inventor obligations paying very expensive engineers to manage incredibly complicated logistics networks and deal with tens of thousands of distinct parties.
This is really kinda my point. Why is pizza delivery so much cheaper? Because it doesn't have to deal with all these extra costs that a massive delivery network like Uber inherently has to manage. I imagine we'll eventually hit some kind of equilibrium where a lot of restaurants that can manage it have their own in-house delivery people, while the large networks will have to dramatically downsize or die.
It’s similar in some ways but overall a very different business model which doesn’t work out nearly as efficiently.
When you’re delivering pizza, you generally just work out of one location. You have a relationship with the business you’re working at which includes an area set aside for deliveries where drivers can both plan the orders into batches of ones that work well together, considering when they’ll come out of the oven, their destinations, and what the other drivers are doing. When it’s busy, drivers can go in, look over all the current orders (ready or not), and take deliveries to their cars without needing to interact with employees at all. In some locations, they might also be considered kitchen staff and can also do things like pick orders or cook items that aren’t yet ready, allowing them to both provide value to the business (further justifying a wage) and get deliveries out the door sooner.
A lot of that isn’t the case for delivery services. The food pickup can be anywhere, so you can’t just go back to the restaurant and wait, and the pickups need to be optimized just like the dropoffs (if the service even allows you to batch deliveries together). You don’t have that relationship with the business; you’re basically just another customer, so no going to the back to see what’s up or helping the employees when they are swamped.
I’ve done pizza delivery in the past. I didn’t mind it. I don’t think I would like delivering for one of these apps, it sounds like a giant pain in the ass.
If I take everything you say as true at face value. Then the business was a shitty idea. The owners of the company who have gambled away the VC money should be the ones on hook for it, not the customers.
It is the employer’s responsibility to ensure their workers get paid. Period.
That's precisely my point. It's ultimately a shitty business idea, and will probably eventually fail.
I don't really understand what you mean by being on the hook for it. Investors will ultimately lose quite a lot of money, workers will lose their jobs, and customers will endure the horror of walking or driving a bit to grab food.
A tip is merely subsidizing a company’s inability to pay its employees appropriately. I really could care less seeing Stanley Tang (door dash founder/ owner) gamble (and lose) hundreds of thousands of dollars on hustler casino live playing poker while simultaneously claiming his company can’t pay a living wage.
Don’t worry the drivers will just refuse to pick up your order. Basically the way it works given the companies show the tip to drivers. Especially door dash. Which create an extremely toxic problem where drivers can decide what they think is worth their time or pick something up and fuck with someone’s food cuz they didn’t get “tipped”
In this specific case, I’d unironically agree, though it’s more the free market than something that would be specific to capitalism. Users put out offers of “pick up this food for me and I will pay you x”, and drivers have the option of taking or leaving any of the offers. If none of them think your order is worth their time, I don’t think forcing any of them to do it anyways is the right thing to do.
Lmao L take. I seriously have to bid on a delivery service? What if I have a cash tip? Which is better cause it don’t technically need to be taxed for them. I am happy to render a tip after service is delivered. But the thought of bidding for something is ridiculous. And it already creates an extremely toxic environment and makes it even more toxic.
In an ideal world perhaps one managed by a federated system sure. But the companies they work for take part of their profit should they not be obligated to then treat these people as employees?
It indirectly comes from shareholders. Money gone to pay fines isn’t distributed by dividends. Theoretically, this hurts shareholders by decreasing the value of a share, since the company is worth less money after paying the fine. However, assessing a fine that shareholders have to pay out of pocket would trample the concept of limited liability and cause financial panic. I remind you that it’s not only rich people that are Amazon shareholders.
I understand the sentiment but this is a pretty uninformed take.
To be honest, though, I am finding it harder to sympathize with people who hold shares in a company. Publicly traded companies are everything wrong with the modern-day economy.
It used to be that you work for a place long enough and they pay out a pension when you retired. Now, your retirement comes from a 401k, the value of which is determined by how successfully whatever company you (or rather, your employer) trusts with your money, and then they choose who to invest in regardless of ethics or client preferences. And of course they have to skim enough off the top to pay for their own operations as well.
The entire system is just grift after grift. It doesn’t even seem worth it anymore after we’ve now hit several major economic slumps within just the past 15 years, coupled with the occasional ponzi scheme sprinkled here and there.
This is why a public pension is the superior option in a sane country. A private pension can be mis-invested or shuttered. A 401k requires financial knowledge or fees individually. A public pension has more safeguards in place and is professionally managed by public servants who cannot use your money to manipulate the market for personal gain. (Their retirement is in a blind trust).
It would certainly wake people up to the reality of American business though. If the shareholders are primary recipient of gain then they should be liable.
Of course we could always go back to before share holder primacy…
Edit: Wow, so many downvotes when I’m just providing some context I read. For what it’s worth I support the strike but the decision should be informed as much as possible. I left Reddit to get away from this toxicity.
“The automakers have said the UAW demands could hike the current mid-$60-per-hour labor cost to more than $150 an hour.”
If it were enough, they wouldn’t be striking. Or do you presume to know their circumstances? Surely you’d never think the 10 minutes you spent looking up sources gives you better insight than the voting body of the union members who are wagering their lives on this, right?
Frankly, since you are probably an empathetic, thinking individual, im confused how you came to the conclusion to share a thought so comparitively shallow.
EDIT: if people take the time to look at his history, he had none before this thread. His aim is to troll, so block him and move on with your lives
General Motors currently operates 4 production facilities in Mexico, as does Ford.
Stellantis has 7.
You’re right, it’ll take some time to shift completely, but this sort of push by the union is the kind of catalyst that can light a fire under execs to get it done.
What’s cheaper, what the union is asking for or the cost of moving production? When those lines cross on the graph, the union is fucked.
So somehow they’ll be able to ramp up production in those plants to match or even come near the output of American plants in addition to what they already make?
Stellantis, which already produces some Ram pickups in Mexico, did not confirm nor deny the potential move, saying in a statement: “Product allocation for our U.S. plants will depend on the outcome of these negotiations as well as a plant’s ability to meet specific performance metrics including improving quality, reducing absenteeism and addressing overall cost.
I agree, that is what the oligarchy will try to do, so sending key manufacturing jobs overseas should be illegal and punished with seizure of assets and ownership of the plants redistributed to the workers.
The automakers combine benefits with wages to make the number seem much larger than it actually is, so the workers sound greedy.
Their current wages are around $20/hr. Calling that “$60/hr with benefits” is beyond misleading , it’s fucking disgusting. You can’t pay rent with benefits, fuck off.
Don’t tone police me honey 🙄 when you side with the bosses you become my enemy. Don’t be surprised when I treat you like one.
The demand is to increase the top hourly rate to $47 per hour - so use that number, not the numbers fed to you by the industry. That’s what wages should be if they had kept up with productivity and inflation over the past several decades.
I’ll tone police you as much as I please if you’re disrepectful, honey. You lump everyone with the enemy if they provide different perspectives? I make a small fraction of what these workers make and I simply have questions. That makes me the enemy? What a close-minded view of the world you have. What if plants close and people make $0/hour? Because people listened to those like you who stifle diversity of thought?
Thanks for that info on $47/hour. That makes $103 in benefits.
Now, how much of that is retirement plans and pensions? Make sure you tell the workers they can’t use that money for rent though, like you suggested.
You can do that, and you will still look like a close-minded individual that suppresses diversity of thought. You are kind of what’s wrong with society right now, actually, and the world would be much better off without you.
Who’s the billionaire? Which of the automaker CEOs? Where did that come from? Also take the CEO pay and split it with all the workers. Not much of a pay bump at all I bet.
You are a bigot, plain and simple. You are strongly prejudiced towards ideas, other opinions, or a person or group of people that simply have questions about this. I work at a diner that serves a lot of these workers and we are worried. The plant closes, we lose a lot of business. I’ll be sure to share your closed-minded views with my colleagues who have the same questions.
Instead of linking some cringe cartoon, look at a dictionary. I’m done engaging with your toxic vitriol. Improve your life or go away.
The billionaires are the ones reaping the profits you damn fool! The shareholders are the true boss of any publicly traded company and they are the enemy. CEOs are just figureheads.
You’re a sniveling coward. You don’t want to make the ruling class mad because you are afraid they’ll take away the jobs, so instead you loyally serve them like a good little class traitor.
Jfc, lol. You’re the coward, sitting on the bandwagon while I stand alone in this forum and ask questions, which in your closed-minded view just makes people an enemy (bigot). What if questions helped workers or even bosses to realize something and led to a breakthrough in negotiations? Not in your sad, simpy world.
Do you even know the composition of shareholders? How many of them are retail or middle-class investors. What proportion? Or did you not look into that? Do you not realize that? Makes sense you’d have a low-IQ though, Mr. BIGOT.
P.S. I know I said I wouldn’t engage with your dark cesspool of a brain anymore but I couldn’t help set you straight. Blocked.
Continuing to post the exact same article, and parrot the same talking point, isn’t exactly painting you in a good light. If you want discussion, try moving forward with it.
Sure, but in order to change the narrative, you need to move forward, saying the same thing over and over will result in the same responses, and get you where you are. I personally disagree with your points, but if you raise them in good faith, then you deserve to be heard. The key is “in good faith”, if you’re unwilling to accept you may be wrong, how can you expect others to?
Discussion is difficult on lemmy, but the only way to make it better is to keep trying.
These laborers are the only reason the company has profits or products, I don’t get your point. They should get their share of the pie no matter what the dollar amount is.
Also, counting the cost of benefits isn’t a fair comparison, you can’t pay rent or buy bread with dental insurance.
Calling someone a name isn’t as hominem just by mere utterance. “your argument is invalid because you’re a dumbass” is as hom. Not “give me sources, dumbass.”
Name-calling is an automatic fail in debates. I stand by my comment that you seem like a person with little intelligence (and a coward sitting on the bandwagon).
Past performance? What about the past concessions UAM made to keep the doors open for the manufacturers during the great recession? Those companies promised to return them but never did?
Sure, they may have made those promises but the bottom line is the botton line. They can’t just summon cash. Sure, cut the CEO pay and pay them more, but the future is a few more years than the pandemic lasted.
The bottom line is this workers made the company record money. Bottom line is the CEOs, executives, and stake holders have themselves 40% raises so why not the workers? And those concessions by the workers were not made during the pandemic. They were made during the 2008 great recession. The auto makers are not going to go broke because the workers demands. That’s just a lie.
“So why not the workers?” Re: a 40% raise. Sure, I agree in principle, and I really wish the CEOs didn’t get that raise. It was selfish and stupid for that to happen. I just don’t know if the financials can handle a 40% raise for everyone. The economy and auto demand might be different next year.
I hate that phrase “hit by a train”. It’s usually because it’s fodder for NIMBYs. It implies the train did something, like it jumped the tracks or something, whereas the train was just traveling the path it always does. A woman drowns, she’s not “asphyxiated by the river”, a man burns himself on a stove, he’s not “Burnt by the stove.” In the train’s case the conscious action was the “putting something in front of it”. Yet somehow it’s the train’s fault? Suicide? It’s the train’s fault. Drunk idiot? It’s the train’s fault.
I mention this because this is yet another case in which transit is getting blamed for a human action, an action that human knew could leave to the death of someone else, but that the human did anyway. It detracts from the fact the blame is with the officer.
Anyway, I know you all don’t care, but it’s another way in which language serves an establishment, in this case two - the car centric, anti-transit establishment that it usually does, and the officer who all but murdered a suspect. It’s another phrase like “Officer involved shooting”, except maybe even that phrase doesn’t place blame on an inanimate object.
I think this also speaks to an issue around suicide. I used to work in behavioral healthcare and “suicide” is a similar issue. There’s a lot of debate around “commit suicide,” since it sort of blames the person and not the illness.
It’s hard to frame these conversations around cause of death in certain situations.
You know, I agree with your point after reading it but sure don't read statements about trains hitting things that way.
A train is a huge and heavy thing that takes forever to slow down, so putting someone in front of a train or being hit by a train is read as the person who created the situation causing the harm, not the train. Almost like a force of nature, trains don't hit things by choice so it is the fault of whoever put the thing in front of it that always take the blame.
Obviously other people must read it the way you pointed out. Just noting that some people see it in a way that cannot possibly blame the train due to the properties of trains.
You know on a conscious level that the train couldn’t have done anything. But on a subconscious level the author is telling you the train, not the “person that caused something to be in the way of the train” was the cause of the accident. Had there been no pesky train just existing, there’d have been no accident regardless of how avoidable the accident was.
That’s my problem with the language. Just as you know an officer-involved-shooting actually involved the officer shooting someone, but the language is so weak that on some level your subconscious assumes it can’t be a big deal if that kind of vague, woolly, wording is appropriate.
And as I mentioned, it appears to be an intentional word choice. People don’t talk about rivers (non-sentient object) asphyxiating people, they talk about people drowning in rivers. A threshing machine (non-sentient) doesn’t thresh a minion (!), the minion falls into a threshing machine. But a train (non-sentient) hits people, rather than vice-versa. To be fair you occasionally see this language with cars, but cars are driven by people, it’s usually the case the car driver is actually the decision maker that caused a death.
"Flooding kill X people" is a regular headline though, as the default is to be based on the person/thing that is acting. So flooding kills people, but people who fall into the river while boating put themselves into the situation and therefore drowned.
Things like trains that are controlled by people fall into the thing you are talking about, where there is a possibility that either person's actions could have led to the outcome. In that case they tend to default the action based on avoiding blame in headlines. An "officer involved shooting" tries to avoid blaming either person, but as you note tends to be read as excusing the officer by default which is more of a blame the victim thing. It also avoids the possibility that the officer was present but never shot their weapon as a CYA default.
For trains though, it is treated like someone who stepped in front if a car in a way that couldn't be avoided. They were struck by the car even though the impact was not caused by the car or the driver. That is because the car is the larger object that impacted a smaller object.
So I am agreeing with you that the language can imply something, but explaining that it is not always malicious intent that results in the wording we see every day. In fact, I would prefer if shootings involving police were worded as "police shot X" instead of officer involved shooting, and that vehicles/people were described as not getting out of the way of trains. But that just isn't how attempts at neutral language work.
An officer-adjacent multisystem traffic event and subsequent cessation of suspect vitality.
Soft, passive language where the events are technically communicated but the impact of them is lessened to the point of outright denial and absolutely no one is in any way responsible for their actions.
I see your point. It’s the same sort of thing for various violence around the world. Headlines like “3 die in West Bank Violence” should actually be “Israeli Soldiers Kill 3 Palestinians.”
I mean, the correct phrase here is “murdered by a cop” but you can see where the people that pay cops to murder us might object to that phrasing. They like soft language where of course everyone wishes that things had gone differently but it’s also no one’s fault and nothing is going to change.
This is just the way our natural grammatical structure works.
We’re not having a discussion about grammar, we’re having a discussion about how phrases can be misleading even if technically correct, and how those phrases can end up serving inhuman agendas.
While “Hit by car” the driver is usually at fault. Note news articles will generally go out of their way to avoid “hit by car” on the rare occasion someone jumps in front of one.
Hit by a pitch? Not sure what this means.
Hit by stray bullet is modified to describe an unusual set of circumstances so inappropriate here. That’s the equivalent of “Man hit by derailed train”. We’re not talking about that kind of situation. The nearest equivalent of “Man hit by train” where the direct cause of death is an aimed bullet is “Man shot”, or "Man shot by ", it’s never “Man hit by bullet”
Struck by new knowledge doesn’t really apply here too.
The underlying message of “Hit by train” is that transit was at fault (the train “hit”). Rather than the drunk driver. Rather than the reckless idiot who decided to go around the barrier. Rather than the suicidal cyclist who stepped in front of it. Rather than, in this case, the cop that parked on the tracks and locked a prisoner inside the car.
Words are about communication. And all phrases have subtexts and good writing recognizes those subtexts and avoids misleading ones and uses accurate ones that convey as much information as possible.
"Train hits " is an intentional choice by journalists to focus the blame on transit rather than the person whose actions lead to death. Whether it’s technically correct ignores the fact that there are better phrases that could be used that also focus the blame on the person who caused the situation. "Colorado officer who trapped prisoner in path of train sentenced to " doesn’t have the misleading nuances that the headline does. It’s more accurate and more informative as a result.
We’re not having a discussion about grammar, we’re having a discussion about how phrases can be misleading even if technically correct, and how those phrases can end up serving inhuman agendas.
We’re having a discussion about the way a person wrote a headline, and I explained that, rather than believe an elaborate conspiracy theory, you could acknowledge that this is just the way English grammatical structures work.
The alternative to “hit by a train” is going to be multiple sentences long to convey the same information. Your conspiracy theory about it being a deflection falls apart because the entire article is about how the officer is legally and ethically at fault, accepts that, and that the family understands that.
“Trapped prisoner in path of train” oddly enough, is slanted language with misleading nuances.
They don’t even want to conserve anything good. Their whole “family values” trope is just an engine for violent abusive men to have a green light to be violent and abusive to their families without repercussion.
Every single thing they want to “conserve” are all the things holding humanity back.
Yep. Just like how the U.S. military is spending a huge amount of money investing on doing what they can to protect themselves from climate change. It’s not because they’re woke liberals, it’s because they see the writing on the wall.
15-20% of the economic growth of the last 60 years was driven by being sightly less shitty to women and black people
But what’s even the point in having money if I can still get cancelled for calling my wife the n-word in a restaurant full of obviously-criminal Mexicans?
Republicans aren’t even the conservative party any more, they’re regressives. The current conservatives are the establishment Democrats, like Joe “nothing will fundamentally change” Biden. (And yes, before someone jumps on it saying he was talking to rich people, I know. If anything, that’s worse.)
You really think they give a shit? About something like this? They just pay someone $200 to clean the yacht. Sink it and they just buy a new one. This isn’t anything.
Sad thing is, Amazons profit margins on their shopping shit is razor thin. It’s AWS that is making bank, and that’s like half of the servers on the internet.
Ok how many unions or political organizations are you directly involved in? If the answer isn’t something above bare minimum then I’m still firmly on team fuck superyachts.
Any new order that was established needs to limit the violence as much as possible. Because revolutionary violence as often as not eats the children of revolution.
I respect older people, but at this age you really have no business being in high levels of government. Go retire and enjoy your life. If you want to, be an advisor to more junior members of congress. This wraithing is absurd.
Its a shame more people, especially younger people in the US, aren’t more into things like primaries and other voting besides presidential elections. Makes me wonder who would break through future elections and who they would appoint as a result.
because the system is designed to check against this! we cannot realistically outvote the cartoonishly dumb and convoluted primary system or the electoral college. after bernie got fucked over twice, how can anyone even have hope anymore? no one more progressive that pete fucking buttigeg is getting anywhere
I live in a red state and during that election Bernie came to our state capitol and the crowd to see him was literally three city blocks deep from the stage. I had not seen anything like that in my life, ever.
If, however, people were moved to vote more between presidential elections, might that system not potentially begin to falter? Maybe it’s naive, but if one really believes they’ve rigged the system in their favor, don’t you think part of that rigging is built around downplaying the votes outside of those for president?
On top of that, religions like Christianity give terrible people an excuse to do immoral things, as much as Christians would like to believe the opposite. They can just pray for forgiveness, even for heinous unforgivable acts like murder and rape, and they seriously believe that they will spend eternity in heaven.
Heaven must be full of child molesters and serial killers who said some magic words, at least according to their own beliefs.
Notice the crowd that wanted all the confederate statues around is completely silent about an actual history course being attacked by special interest groups. It’s almost like the only common goal is racism.
Never, ever take their arguments as if they’re made in good faith. It’s never about history, or religious freedom, or ensuring fair elections, or “reverse racism,” or states’ rights. It’s never about parental rights, or keeping children safe, or freedom of speech.
It is always just about being able to do what they want, much of which is making sure other people can’t do what they want. It’s about enshrining racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and xenophobia in law.
There are no honest arguments coming from the conservatives at this point. The age of disagreeing over tax policy is over. Bill Buckley and George Will and their actual conservatives are gone. It’s Trumpism now.
I’d argue that Disney+ was already enshittification, as Disney used to have their content on Netflix but they decided they had to lose a bunch of money to force people into another subscription. This is enshittification squared.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.