[tossandthrow]

You are looking for this in the article

> It wasn’t a clear case of wage theft, because 60 percent of workers were making about the same or slightly more under the new scheme.

Your statement that "some 30+% are getting at least 10% more" assumes that there is no wage theft - which is not cut in stone.

[or_am_i]

To clarify, I was basing the "some 30%" on the wage change distribution histogram that comes somewhat further down in the article from the statement you quote.

[chgs]

Aren’t gig workers contractors? Is it wage theft if I negotiate a lower price with my local timber yard?

[p_l]

Mostly gray area because gig corps don't like actually treating the workers as contractors, they just like the lowered costs.

Sometimes that goes afoul when it's ruled that they put requirements that are only valid for employees on contractors.

[qeternity]

> Mostly gray area because gig corps don't like actually treating the workers as contractors, they just like the lowered costs.

I don't follow this? Is this predicated on the fact that gig corps can choose not to work with contractors that don't meet their criteria? If so, how is this different from only using lumber yards that consistently meet your expectations?

[bryanrasmussen]

>I don't follow this?

The implication of the parent poster seems to be that there are legal requirements regarding contractors and legal requirements regarding employees but gig corps would prefer to treat their workers as one or the other class depending on which is to their benefit - which would be against the law because of the aforementioned concept "legal requirements".

[p_l]

Exactly this - there are differences in what you can require from someone on employment contract and external contracting company (whether that company is single person or not) and effectively making one category into another without actually reclassifying (like employing as employee) is considered fraud in most places.

[robertlagrant]

Can you give an example?

[LunaSea]

Everybody knows they aren't contractors.

[2muchcoffeeman]

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.

[mrgoldenbrown]

Gig workers fall into a grey area between contractor and employee, depending on the particular jurisdiction and particular job. There are many ongoing legal battles trying to update outdated legal frameworks that don't quite account for modern realities. It is not as simple as you buying lumber.

[alwa]

Maybe not cut in stone, but if the data are derived from the workers’ payout receipts, it would seem likely that this was the amount that was paid out by Shipt. Or do you mean that third parties might be skimming something off after the company pays out?

[NovemberWhiskey]

I mean, it wasn't "a clear case of wage theft" as these weren't wage workers; and in any case it's not like they weren't told ahead of time how much the order would pay.

[mrgoldenbrown]

Do you know that for a fact they were told the total amount including tips, as well as all the details of the job, like items needed and delivery locations ahead of time? Gig apps often withhold info until after a worker accepts, to reduce workers ability to focus on desirable orders. In some jurisdictions Uber drivers don't see the final destination until after they accept a ride.