Some drivers at DoorDash and Grubhub supported the New York City pay bump, but others say it will actually mean less pay and freedom.

  • vacuumpizzasA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    From reading only the article and none of its cited sources: the change requires a $.50/minute increase while the driver is in the middle of a gig, or $17.96 (which is the rounded $18 in the headline). Assuming the driver is literally doing a job every minute (i.e. no gaps in-between deliveries), then that’s a $30 for an entire hour. So the cost-effective alternative is to have the employee on an hourly wage and just pay them $18/hr for x hours that they’re scheduled for. The quotes in the article explained how the switching from a per-job model to a “do as many jobs in the hours we schedule you for” means they’ll lose the benefit of flexible work schedules.

    That said, I think the economy will speak for itself. Given the number of times I see companies complain in the media about “nobody wants to work”, they’ll need to pony up the money in order to maintain their share in the market.

    • squidman64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      That doesn’t make sense at all…it’s an $18/hr minimum, not maximum. They can still pay them more than that if they do more deliveries.

      • vacuumpizzasA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        With the per-delivery model, the drivers have the option to pick and choose which jobs to accept.

        Being speculative, I believe the scare tactic being used is: the driver can be assigned very unattractive deliveries without the power to refuse. As someone that does not do deliveries for any of these companies and periodically viewed posts from /r/doordash, I can only guess that this will hurt a smaller percentage of drivers that formulate a metagame to maximize their delivery income.