Comment by soheil | Hacker News Reader

Comment by soheil | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't understand the outrage, I like Amazon Fresh even more, next to the tipping box it specifically says in big letters tipping is neither required nor expected and defaults to zero. If the current laws regarding minimum wage are inadequate why not try to pass new laws instead of trying to read between the lines on why Instacart moved an input box and put it somewhere else?

Why keep things murky? If it is against the law we have a justice system, I will not all of a sudden be reminded of greedy bankers on Wall Street being the reason that box was moved to a different screen. Do people benefit when things are less crystal clear? Why do we want them to stay that? Why should the tradition of tipping should still be alive in this country? What are we trying to prove? Who is benefiting? Do we enjoy this sadistic power imbalance every time we get a meal at a restaurant? Is it because it gives us control over livelihood of someone else? How is it any different that the Romans throwing Christians to the lions for their enjoyment? Let's create a society that we think is fair and just instead of trying to take things in our own hands. Engaging in social debate to win over your fellow citizens to see eye to eye with you on things like increasing the minimum wage would be a benefit not only to those at the bottom but also to the society as a whole if that's what you think is the right thing to do.

So Amazon Fresh has an optional tip. Instacart is adding a default 10% fee that goes into their pockets - it is not a tip. And they do not pass the 10% fee on to the employees in wages - it stays as part of their bottom line. Higher-ups realized just how much the tips are worth, are now stealing them by default behind a purposely confusing interface that their customers cannot understand, and pocketing the difference while affecting their employees' income.

This is 100% nefarious. There is no reason to have both an optional service fee and a separate optional tip. It's one or the other; combining both options makes absolutely no sense.

I understand it's not the most conventional way of doing it, but why it's someone "higher up" and that's a bad thing? Instacart is not Mother Teresa, its sole purpose is to make profit and I want it to do that as much as it possibly can. I want this service to exist so I don't have to feel like a chimp in a grocery store with a basket going from aisle to aisle in fact why do I even need to justify why I want it to exist? I am willing to give them my money for the services they provide, period.

Again if someone thinks what they're doing is illegal or should be illegal one day then either take them to court or change the laws!

> I want this service to exist so I don't have to feel like a chimp in a grocery store with a basket going from aisle to aisle in fact why do I even need to justify why I want it to exist?

You're asking why you need to justify paying someone else to "feel like a chimp" so that you don't have to?

They may not feel like a chimp and also I like to be the kind of chimp best referred to as a code monkey, thank you! And what makes you think grocery stores with all their deceitful marketing will exist as we know them today? If everyone is a worker for Instacart shopping on behalf of someone else the stores will have to adapt and there won't be any point of distracting those workers with random product placements forcing them to move aisle to aisle since they're only allowed to buy whatever they're asked to buy and nothing more. It seems very shortsighted to think pain can only be transferred and not eliminated altogether with technology if that's what you're implying.

Grocery stores will be redesigned to accommodate personal shoppers just like cities were redesigned around the Segway. If the Segway or personal shoppers were free you might have an argument.

I think Amazon fulfillment centers maybe a better example.

Because it is deceptive to label something a 'service fee' which most people would assume to be charges for services rendered by the feet on the ground.

In other words, it is, by way of social conventions, implied that the money goes to the 'chimp in a grocery store' doing work on your behalf. There is nothing wrong with them adding fees all day every day as long as it is made clear to the customer that said fees are not actually benefiting the actual service provider and consumers opt-in to this transaction. The shady part here is where consumers THINK the services fees goes to the service provider when actually it goes to the broker.

Do you believe it is possible for something to be wrong yet legal?

The problem with bringing up the minimum wage is because it doesn't apply here. Quoting chron.com[1]:

"The Fair Labor Standards Act does not apply the minimum wage payment requirement to independent contractors. However, merely classifying a person as a contractor instead of an employee does not automatically keep the worker from being considered an employee entitled to minimum wage."

Searching around led me to [2], which talks about Form 1099-MISC, which is used for independent contractors. On the other hand, I found [3], which makes me think that some can choose to become part-time employees, but I don't know what the status of that is.

It's also worth noting that, for full-time employees, vehicle-miles traveled are often reimbursed for car usage as part of the employee's work. I don't know if that's being done here, and that would be a major expense. It would also be an expense that your normal full-time employee would not have to pay, as they wouldn't use their car as often.

[1]: http://work.chron.com/minimum-wage-apply-contractors-1758.ht... [2]: https://payable.com/taxes/understanding-your-instacart-1099 [3]: https://www.wired.com/2015/06/instacart-shoppers-can-now-cho...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com