Shipt's Pay Algorithm Squeezed Gig Workers. They Fought Back (ieee.org) 35
Workers at delivery company Shipt "found that their paychecks had become...unpredictable," according to an article in IEEE Spectrum. "They were doing the same work they'd always done, yet their paychecks were often less than they expected. And they didn't know why...."
The article notes that "Companies whose business models rely on gig workers have an interest in keeping their algorithms opaque." But "The workers showed that it's possible to fight back against the opaque authority of algorithms, creating transparency despite a corporation's wishes." On Facebook and Reddit, workers compared notes. Previously, they'd known what to expect from their pay because Shipt had a formula: It gave workers a base pay of $5 per delivery plus 7.5 percent of the total amount of the customer's order through the app. That formula allowed workers to look at order amounts and choose jobs that were worth their time. But Shipt had changed the payment rules without alerting workers. When the company finally issued a press release about the change, it revealed only that the new pay algorithm paid workers based on "effort," which included factors like the order amount, the estimated amount of time required for shopping, and the mileage driven. The company claimed this new approach was fairer to workers and that it better matched the pay to the labor required for an order. Many workers, however, just saw their paychecks dwindling. And since Shipt didn't release detailed information about the algorithm, it was essentially a black box that the workers couldn't see inside.
The workers could have quietly accepted their fate, or sought employment elsewhere. Instead, they banded together, gathering data and forming partnerships with researchers and organizations to help them make sense of their pay data. I'm a data scientist; I was drawn into the campaign in the summer of 2020, and I proceeded to build an SMS-based tool — the Shopper Transparency Calculator [written in Python, using optical character recognition and Twilio, and running on a home server] — to collect and analyze the data. With the help of that tool, the organized workers and their supporters essentially audited the algorithm and found that it had given 40 percent of workers substantial pay cuts...
This "information asymmetry" helps companies better control their workforces — they set the terms without divulging details, and workers' only choice is whether or not to accept those terms... There's no technical reason why these algorithms need to be black boxes; the real reason is to maintain the power structure... In a fairer world where workers have basic data rights and regulations require companies to disclose information about the AI systems they use in the workplace, this transparency would be available to workers by default.
The tool's creator was attracted to the idea of helping a community "control and leverage their own data," and ultimately received more than 5,600 screenshots from over 200 workers. 40% were earning at least 10% less — and about 33% were earning less than their state's minimum wage. Interestingly, "Sharing data about their work was technically against the company's terms of service; astoundingly, workers — including gig workers who are classified as 'independent contractors' — often don't have rights to their own data...
"[O]ur experiment served as an example for other gig workers who want to use data to organize, and it raised awareness about the downsides of algorithmic management. What's needed is wholesale changes to platforms' business models... The battles that gig workers are fighting are the leading front in the larger war for workplace rights, which will affect all of us. The time to define the terms of our relationship with algorithms is right now."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader mspohr for sharing the article.
The article notes that "Companies whose business models rely on gig workers have an interest in keeping their algorithms opaque." But "The workers showed that it's possible to fight back against the opaque authority of algorithms, creating transparency despite a corporation's wishes." On Facebook and Reddit, workers compared notes. Previously, they'd known what to expect from their pay because Shipt had a formula: It gave workers a base pay of $5 per delivery plus 7.5 percent of the total amount of the customer's order through the app. That formula allowed workers to look at order amounts and choose jobs that were worth their time. But Shipt had changed the payment rules without alerting workers. When the company finally issued a press release about the change, it revealed only that the new pay algorithm paid workers based on "effort," which included factors like the order amount, the estimated amount of time required for shopping, and the mileage driven. The company claimed this new approach was fairer to workers and that it better matched the pay to the labor required for an order. Many workers, however, just saw their paychecks dwindling. And since Shipt didn't release detailed information about the algorithm, it was essentially a black box that the workers couldn't see inside.
The workers could have quietly accepted their fate, or sought employment elsewhere. Instead, they banded together, gathering data and forming partnerships with researchers and organizations to help them make sense of their pay data. I'm a data scientist; I was drawn into the campaign in the summer of 2020, and I proceeded to build an SMS-based tool — the Shopper Transparency Calculator [written in Python, using optical character recognition and Twilio, and running on a home server] — to collect and analyze the data. With the help of that tool, the organized workers and their supporters essentially audited the algorithm and found that it had given 40 percent of workers substantial pay cuts...
This "information asymmetry" helps companies better control their workforces — they set the terms without divulging details, and workers' only choice is whether or not to accept those terms... There's no technical reason why these algorithms need to be black boxes; the real reason is to maintain the power structure... In a fairer world where workers have basic data rights and regulations require companies to disclose information about the AI systems they use in the workplace, this transparency would be available to workers by default.
The tool's creator was attracted to the idea of helping a community "control and leverage their own data," and ultimately received more than 5,600 screenshots from over 200 workers. 40% were earning at least 10% less — and about 33% were earning less than their state's minimum wage. Interestingly, "Sharing data about their work was technically against the company's terms of service; astoundingly, workers — including gig workers who are classified as 'independent contractors' — often don't have rights to their own data...
"[O]ur experiment served as an example for other gig workers who want to use data to organize, and it raised awareness about the downsides of algorithmic management. What's needed is wholesale changes to platforms' business models... The battles that gig workers are fighting are the leading front in the larger war for workplace rights, which will affect all of us. The time to define the terms of our relationship with algorithms is right now."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader mspohr for sharing the article.
Good for them! However... (Score:3)
This seems like a weird article to place in the IEEE Spectrum.
Game theory in action. (Score:4, Interesting)
The price of an order only matters for insurance purposes, that toothbrush takes the same labor to pick up and deliver as that gold plated necklace.
Re:Game theory in action. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently some employees figured out how to game the opaque pay algorithm so they adjusted it (again opaque).
Employees shouldn't have to guess how they are paid or how they can get paid more... just work harder is not the answer. Work smarter.
This is a good argument for unions who would have some power to pierce this opaque pay algorithm.
Join a union already (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the things that's extremely frustrating is wondering if my employer is just going to decide one day to lay me off. You have absolutely no indication unless your employer is just hurting financially.
As a single individual functioning in a capitalist system you do not have enough information to make rational decisions of the sort of libertarians tell me I should be making.
A buddy of mine for example what's told by his management that they would be hiring a extra worker instead of replacing his immediate manager and from what he was told he would have to work a bunch of unpaid overtime if you apply for the manager position anyway. Then it turned out that the unpaid overtime was a lie management told to make it look like they were working harder and they still hired the manager. Now he's stuck with a lazy manager instead of an extra line worker and has to work even harder.
Meanwhile I'm wondering if I should jump ship from my current job for a different job in the hopes of getting more pay and stability but I have no idea if that's the right decision and no way of knowing because nobody will tell me straight whether layoffs are going to come because they don't want me to jump ship before they're ready to fire me... Or not they could be not firing anyone I don't know and nobody will tell me.
This is why you need unions. You always have information asymmetry in capitalism. You never have all the information you need to be a rational actor.
workers need more rights not fake 1099er (Score:2)
workers need more rights not fake 1099er that don't really have the control that real 1099's have.
Re: (Score:1)
If employees don't want to work for them then they will need to raise the base pay, simple employment 101. The problem of course with that is some people will be desperate enough to work for the under-payed job. In that case just wor
Re:Join a union already (Score:5, Informative)
Unions are also about job security, because without them companies will sometimes lay off people just before their pensions vest etc. Also, unions pushback against poor management decisions regarding full-time employment versus part-time contracts etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm Canadian, we (and the rest of the world?) don't have the weird aversion to unions that the U.S. has.
Re: (Score:2)
It is because most corporations and red states still like they slavery. It taste so good and is so hard to give up.
Unions let the workers and the companies be on equal footing. Who wants their slaves on equal footing. It is much better to tell them you can leave my ownership but don't worry the next company will own you all the same.
And the red state slaves keep voting to keep it that way.
How many here were told when Obama was in office that since the new corporate taxes kicked in they either had to lower y
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pro-union, and pissed that during the multiple decades of my old career as a computer professional (now I'm "retired" and a writer) had regulations written to prevent me from forming or joining a union.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most classic pensions were already in an investment strategy, they are a less risky gamble-like but they are still a risk. Some noteworthy ones have failed if you bother to search.
If you
Re: (Score:2)
Caveat: Unions are about job security in a country where laws favour overwhelmingly not protecting a power disparity between corporations and their employees. We don't need unions where I live, if a company tired to lay me off just before my pensions vest they would get royally assfucked in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Join a union already (Score:5, Interesting)
Unions are definitely supposed to be involved in pay negotiations and should be able to prevent this secret pay manipulation by Shipt.
Freedom to move to another better paying job is a libertarian/capitalist dream. Most people don't have that option and then they can encounter this shit by Shipt where they can't even know what they will be paid.
Re: (Score:2)
What sane union would represent gig workers? Your entire membership would turn over in under five years as people move on to actual employment.
These are contract jobs,.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile I'm wondering if I should jump ship from my current job for a different job in the hopes of getting more pay and stability but I have no idea if that's the right decision and no way of knowing because nobody will tell me straight whether layoffs are going to come because they don't want me to jump ship before they're ready to fire me... Or not they could be not firing anyone I don't know and nobody will tell me.
Put yourself in your manager's shoes. Maybe he doesn't know whether layoffs are coming either, or maybe they are working on ways to avoid them and don't want people to jump ship ruining things for everyone else. There could be any number of explanations that are not "Greedy fucken' capitalists, amirite?!"
Pick and choose. (Score:3)
That formula allowed workers to look at order amounts and choose jobs that were worth their time.
Gig workers want to be classified as employees., but employees don't get to pick and choose what jobs they accept, that's what contractors do.
Re: (Score:3)
Every gig worker I know would much rather be a full-time salaried employee with benefits and a pension; they are not gig workers by choice.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to ask a question along similar lines. What if someone doesn't want to be a contractor? They might value steady work, or have other reasons it doesn't work for them. Should contracting be the main arrangement open to people?
Re:Pick and choose. (Score:4, Informative)
Every gig worker I've known is different from every other gig worker I've known. Some of them have full time jobs and supplement income with weekend work or work on days when they can't get hours on their main jobs. Others tried gig work 24/7 (more or less). The ones that used it as supplemental income generally saw much better results, at times making $200+ in a four hour stint on Doordash or similar. The "full time" gig workers didn't have the ability to turn down bad tips or be selective about work hours. They are the ones who struggled.
Being a full time employee of one of these gig companies would be awful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the company kept more profits for themselves and shafted the workers. They are paying approximately minimum wage, but have found a way to pay UNDER that with this system. The company are the bad guys here, not the barely-paid employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Americans fight for their rights (Score:1)
The right to be exploited
The right to remain ignorant
The right to remain dead
Curses! (Score:4, Funny)
We'll get you, minions! (shakes fist)
No one crosses The Mighty MBA! If it weren't for those darned kids.
Get an actual job (Score:1, Insightful)
Working for a company like Shipt should never be your primary job. Get a full time job and supplement income with a gig if you need the extra cash. That way you can turn down the bad gigs and make a lot more money for your time.
If Shipt goes out of business, no skin off your nose, you have a main job anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
You remember Saturday morning kid's shows in the '70s. There was always a character with a brilliant idea like "All we need is an egg beater, a jar of peanut butter, and a dozen Indian Elephants!". That's what you sound like when you say "just get a real job" to people doing gig work because they didn't have a real job.
Re: (Score:3)
Even a job in fast food would be preferable to one of these gigs as a full-time experience. The labor market is tight enough that you can get employment just as easily as you can download an app and start doing deliveries on the cheap.
Plus most of these gig jobs wear out cars fast, and cars are VERY expensive right now. So is gasoline.
Easy way to solve this (Score:1)