Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

When they offer to pay you X for the job, but then pay you < X.

Or if they get you to pay them money upfront (ie. for uniforms) on the basis of 'workers earn $Y per day', but then change the rules so some workers don't earn Y per day and don't offer a refund of the upfront payment to unhappy workers.






Looks like shipt/target successfully converted gig work back from a percentage of revenue (percentage of cart value) to a task based rate. Workers lose when they can't capture value proportional to the revenue generation they support, only in proportion to their hours of labor.

> Workers lose when they can't capture value proportional to the revenue generation they support, only in proportion to their hours of labor.

Time-based contracts are pretty normal. I imagine most people on the planet are on them. There are exceptions - e.g. sales commissions - but to say that workers lose on the thing that most people do requires at least some elaboration.


If workers are low-skilled, easily replaceable and practically fungible then realistically speaking why would their employer pay them based on value-added?

What if the revenue generation is negative? It's not worth it to profit share in every business, because some of them are unprofitable.

It depends on the proportions.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: