In this case would it matter if they were contractors or not?
There is a way of calculating the pay for a job. It is predictable. Publish the algorithm. Want to change it? Great. Update the documentation and then publish that. The workers should be able to calculate exactly what they are owed. They can decide to leave or stay.
Only in America are people deflecting by bringing up the employment status of people when the issue is a lack of transparency designed to allow wage theft.
You’re arguing that it’s sometimes legitimate to hide payment information. So I can hire someone for a job, and only I know what the job is worth. The worker just has to try it out and see if their valuation of the job is the same as my valuation?
The fact that some, maybe most, are making more money is irrelevant. The organisation can change the value of a particular job at any time and simply say “the algorithm made me do it”.
But the worker knows exactly what the job is worth at the point of acceptance. Did you actually read the article? The issue is that the offered amount is decided algorithmically through an opaque process not that the worker doesn't know how much they will get paid for it.
A specific user can decide whether or not to take a specific delivery with full information. Following your analogy, it'd be like using some opaque algorithm to set the offer amount when hiring for a job, which is pretty much what happens today.
I don't think the reasons you are listing are valid at all.
1. If they can game it, they should. If that's a problem, then Shipt should fix their algorithm.
2. It's fine to data wrangle your way to an automated model for e.g. your company's growth projection or for predicting where you can best expand to find more customers. It's not okay to use it to unilaterally change pay agreements with your workers or "contractors".
3. The right of an individual to know what they're getting paid for their work outweighs any company's nebulous claim of its algorithm being a trade secret or something vague like that. Can you imagine businnesses actually operating like this? "You can't know what we'll pay you for this job, its ~~seeeecret~~. Just trust us."
It's amazing that anyone would even try to say that.
From now on I'm going to pay my rent according to a secret algorithm of my own devising and my landlord will just have to hope I'm generous this month. I can't have him gaming the lease agreement by only providing the things it says!
Why is this the case? It's well known that ML models are almost always gameable if you know the weights. What right do you have to their algo?
Why not? The contractors know before directly accepting a contract it's value, they can choose to not accept it if they think they're being underpaid?
Except this is how things work at basically all companies? Compensation decisions are secret and only known at offer time, I don't think I've worked for a single company where the specific executive decision reasoning for an offer is given.
Not one of those reasons constitutes a valid excuse. Holy cow.
"Surely in a hotly competitive market" there is no need to hypothesise about what "surely" would happen according to some wishful thinking. We know from countless past observation exactly what happens in any market of low skill low investment labor, wages go straight to the level of the most desperate willing to be slaves and make nothing at all, because there always are enough of those for everyone else to take advantage of, and having no money they have no power to demand better. They can't afford lawyers and ad campaigns and lobbyists and politicians, and they can't afford to strike, and that same wonderful magic market means there is no one better to work for, all employers are essentially the same. Unions and strikes do exist, some places where they are allowed to, and it's always a big news story and a miracle when they actually accomplish even 10% of what they needed to once in a blue moon.
This is straight up an unfair characterization. It's not "slaves making nothing at all", its fair value for their labor as decided by supply and demand. The issue you're highlighting shouldn't be solved by trying to legislate the market to oblivion which always introduces side effects. Just hand everyone a UBI payment a month and be done with it.
I didn't go far enough. Wages don't go right to the poverty line, they go right past it.
Because there are not only always people willing to work for net-nothing, there are actually enough people willing to work for net negative, because they manage to survive in various ways ranging from charity to theft. Mooching off someone else to live without rent or having to buy food, under the table jobs, minor crime, obviously health insurance is completely out of the question. As long as those exist, the market says that this work is worth this cost. The market doesn't know or care how that happens.
Unfair is a funny word to try to apply to the power-wielding benefit-collecting side of this dynamic.
