People are baiting Instacart workers with huge tips then slashing them to zero:
Instacart workers are being wooed by orders with large tips only to find them dropped to zero after a delivery has been made, according to a new report by CNN. Instacart lets users set their own custom tip with each shopping request, but it also allows them to change it for up to three days after an order is completed to adjust for experience. Workers, however, claim that some users have been abusing this feature, baiting them with big tips to get their shopping requests completed sooner amid the pandemic rush — only to find the tip slashed afterward without much feedback.
One Instacart worker said their tip was dropped from $55 to $0 despite finding everything the customer needed. Another worker claimed their tip changed to $0 since they could not find toilet paper in stock, to which the customer described in the feedback report as "unethical."
[...] Instacart says shoppers who experience tip-baiting can report instances in-app, though some workers say this relies too much on their end and that the company should make a 10 percent-minimum tip mandatory for all orders during the pandemic.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by canopic jug on Sunday April 12 2020, @02:15PM (20 children)
So, in other words, Instacart is failing to pay its employees. At the same time low income earners are so desperate that they take jobs at Instacart knowing that there is a chance that they might not break even. They had a small strike the other week, but the current situation gives them leverage if they execute a serious walk out. Those aren't jobs, they're servitude.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Sunday April 12 2020, @02:57PM (15 children)
Funny how one can determine bad labor policy on the basis of a few bad apples. There were other orders. False tippers aren't the only ones who order.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @03:57PM (14 children)
Yes, but at the same time, it looks like this has happened more than once. In fact, it looks like this has happened enough times that it has attracted wider attention than that one jerk who stiffed the delivery people on the tip. On the street we call that a trend.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 12 2020, @04:42PM (13 children)
Lawyers are testing the waters and starting up a media campaign. Strikers are doing much the same. Both parties have strong reasons to play up any flaws in Instacart's system. And CNN has a strong incentive to give those grievances airtime due to its unholy hunger for eyeballs.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 12 2020, @04:47PM (12 children)
At question here is the representation of "tip" vs the fine print which entitles the "tipper" to rescind their proposed tip up to 3 days after the fact.
In this particular instance, I say let the worker beware: they are on the front line of a "customer is always right" reimbursement scheme. The number entered into that box is not a promise to pay, it's not anything really, according to the full terms and conditions laid out.
Maybe some worker education is in order, which this news story should largely serve to do.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 12 2020, @05:32PM (11 children)
Which isn't much of a question. So what if a business has fine print?
Similarly, what's newsworthy about the "tipping"? Here, the "tipper" can also increase their "tip" up to 3 days after the fact.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @06:39PM (5 children)
How often do they do that though? There's no reason to give customers so much time to change their minds. It should be obvious the same day whether or not the driver has done a good job. This is just something that they allow because it's good for the company, even though it scews over the drivers. Any changes next day or later, should go through instacart and unless there's real justification, the driver should get the money.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 12 2020, @07:15PM (4 children)
Three days isn't long at all. And the problem isn't the duration, it's people using the tip mechanic deceptively to incentivize fast delivery and then taking away the tip. They could do the same, if it were 15 minutes after delivery.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2020, @12:49AM (3 children)
Sure, it is, the tip is just for the delivery, not the underlying goods. If you're too dense to know how much the day of, then perhaps this isn't you. With 3 days to reduce the tip it makes it that much harder for drivers to fight or address the quality issue.
Starbucks gives customers like 4 hours to add or change tips when ordering via the app. Seems reasonable.
Then again, you're more interested in kicking people while they're down, so fuck you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 13 2020, @01:34AM (2 children)
Again, one doesn't magically know of all the problems that could result from a delivery at the time of delivery, particularly if nobody is home at the time of delivery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2020, @02:39PM (1 child)
Yes, you do. These are delivery drivers. Check the expiration date and that everything looks OK and that's that. If that's not good enough, get off your lazy ass and do your own shopping.
These people are taking on significant risk in order to allow others to stay at home. A bit of fucking appreciation and respect is asking so very little. Especially, since so many of the people getting these deliveries are the same people benefiting from a rigged economy that leads the rest of us to have to take on additional risk in order to keep you people from starving.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 13 2020, @02:41PM
And if you're not home when the delivery happens?
(Score: 1, Troll) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 12 2020, @06:46PM (3 children)
Lawyers trying to undermine the meaning of agreements, pandering to workers who can't be bothered to read past the first three letters of an enticement.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday April 12 2020, @08:55PM
Jews Jewing Jews. This is why I always tip fat even when broke, because I was in their shoes and I know their job sucks, having to deal with assholes and getting stiffed. I even tipped fat a Jew Lyft driver who didn't need the money even though he spent the whole ride trying to cram establishment Democratic candidates up my ass and pretended not to know who Tulsi gabbard was.
(Score: 4, Touché) by stretch611 on Sunday April 12 2020, @09:20PM (1 child)
To turn the tables on this...
Lawyers that are helping people that are so desperate for work and income, that they sign the agreement before they know just how much more they pay in taxes for being self employed.
I am not a fan of lawyers... but I am even less of a fan of people who sit on their asses getting rich off of the people that work their asses and off barely get by.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 13 2020, @02:47PM
Taxes aren't Instacart's responsibility. Such court cases should be thrown out with loser pays.
Who's sitting on their ass here? Instacart employees are working too.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday April 13 2020, @06:32PM
Sometimes the employers take the tips too. That's what one of the shitty anti-worker things Trump did, make it easier for employers to steal tips.
In this case, I vote with my wallet and refuse to use Instacart because I hear they treat the workers crappy. Same with Uber, I've never ever ordered one.
Always, Always, I tip in *cash*. In fact, for food delivery services, I actually leave 0% tip but write into the driver instructions that a 20% cash tip is waiting for them. If Instacart demanded a 10% tip, I would demand to know if Instacart retains *any* of that tip of themselves, or if 100% of tip goes to the employee. Since I probably wouldn't get a satisfactory answer, I can't see myself shopping with them.
The best thing to do with the gig economy, is not to participate in it *at all*. It's just abuse and servitude, not well paying jobs that allow anyone to get ahead in life, or work towards a retirement that doesn't involve them slaving away till 75.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @03:52PM
"Those aren't jobs, they're servitude."
Incredible. Every time I think the neighbors just can't sink any lower, they prove me wrong.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Sunday April 12 2020, @04:50PM (2 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @05:11PM (1 child)
Who would pay for the groceries at checkout? I'm guessing that many of these Instacart workers would have trouble fronting an order for $200 worth of food. And I'm not about to give my credit card out. The courier would also have the potential problem of getting stiffed by the customer and left with all that food they didn't want.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Sunday April 12 2020, @11:52PM
Excellent point.
We need a collection of reputable escrow apps that include voluntary geo location reporting to another phone or computer for a set limited timespan.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by crafoo on Sunday April 12 2020, @02:16PM (23 children)
How about we pay them what the market demands for the service and leave tipping completely out of it? Let customers bid on service price per order. Let the worker accept/reject orders based on service price. Do not allow modification of bids after a price agreement is made. Hold the money in escrow until delivery is made and accepted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @02:34PM (1 child)
They should be able to sue them in small claims court. If it agreed on before the service is rendered it is a fee, not a tip. A tip is something extra you give afterwards, for service above what was expected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @03:24PM
They probably could, but by the same token, the customers were promised that ability when they made their agreement for the delivery. So, I'd be curious as to how that would work out. On top of which, it would likely be a net negative even if you do win as you'd have to go to court, and those courts are closed right now.
(Score: 3, Funny) by EvilSS on Sunday April 12 2020, @03:13PM (7 children)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 12 2020, @03:48PM (6 children)
Tech is not a complete solution for the human factors, including greed of the corporation. The corp will hire workers for as little as they can get away with, always.
30 years ago, I walked on as part-time stock help at my local grocery - I told them that minimum wage wouldn't cut it, but I could start tomorrow. They started me at $6/hr when minimum was $3.35. They also had to do a quick re-evaluation of all their other part-time stock wages, guys that had been working there 2 years and longer who were still in the mid to low 4s per hour. The labor was probably worth upwards of $20/hr to the store (they paid full-time stock $15/hr + benefits for the same work), but as long as they could get away with chiseling the workers down near minimum, they did.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday April 12 2020, @04:05PM (1 child)
Corporations are like people. And the people corporations are most "like", are the free-range sociopaths and psychopaths.
...and Coincidentally [forbes.com]... (cough)
--
Months of development work saves hours of up-front design.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2020, @09:51AM
that forbes link seems to be describing progressives
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @04:19PM (2 children)
"Tech is not a complete solution for the human factors, including greed of the corporation."
While true, it looks like it isn't just the greed of the corporation that is an issue. It's also just as much about the greed of the customers. That needs to be addressed too.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 12 2020, @04:43PM (1 child)
Turnabout is fair play? Don't like being caught in the crossfire? I suggest a strike. If there's an infinite supply of idiots to take your position, maybe you're being unreasonable and/or need to find another line of work. If there's a legitimate issue and nobody steps up to take the raw deal you've pointed out - something will get fixed, or the business will rightly shrivel and die.
Where I come from "tip" is optional money to be offered in exchange for excellent service. In restaurants, they have perverted this to be a "standard" 15, now 20+% expected unless something is grossly sub-par. It really should go away, people should get what they need to live in exchange for showing up and doing an acceptable job, and get extra "tip" money when they have truly provided excellent service to someone who A) has some extra money to offer, and B) feels like giving it at the time. Scenes of pissed off waiters/waitresses haranguing customers who have "stiffed them" (often slightly less than 15% gratuity) are a ridiculous show of entitlement.
My suggestion in the specific instance of instacart's system is that the delivery people regard the "proposed tip" for exactly what it is: not a promise, not anything really since contractually it can be changed up to 3 days after delivery - it's a meaningless number that only fools chase with expectation of delivery - much like the top end of the "commission income range" in sales job applications, even more meaningless that that in reality.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @10:10PM
Maybe if the tip gets cancelled, InstaCart gets to send someone round to take back the groceries.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2020, @01:03AM
Not to mention, that grocery shopping isn't something that can be automated at this time. Portions of it can be, like most items in the dry goods section, but in some areas like meat, seafood and produce in particular require some degree of knowledge to identify products that are of appropriate quality.
It really depends on the chain you're working with, having knowledgeable employees that the customers trust to make recommendations is incredibly valuable. Personally, I just got a job at the local grocery store in part because the experience shopping there was so good. They've been hiring people by the dozens trying to keep the stores clean to the higher than normal standard necessary and keep the shelves stocked as more people than usual are needing their food through a grocery rather than restaurants.
So, far, I'm being treated well and have a job that is incredibly important. But, if I'm ever unhappy, at least I've learned a ton about how to grocery shop for various meats and produce items. Not to mention that right now, this is one of the few sectors where I can just focus on being great at my job with little risk of being downsized.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @03:32PM (5 children)
Who came up with the idea of giving a tip in advance of a service? The whole point is an extra reward after the service is rendered. Yes, in USA tipping at restaurants has become expected, along with low base wages, but it is still given after the meal is over.
I say Instacart is responsible for this whole fiasco by allowing the tip to be added at the time the order is placed. Instead the app should hit the customer for a tip immediately after the order is delivered. And appreciative customers should also consider tipping in cash, avoiding Instacart and going direct to the worker.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @04:13PM
" And appreciative customers should also consider tipping in cash, avoiding Instacart and going direct to the worker."
Indeed. These days I usually try to tip in cash. There are too many employers who think nothing of reaching into their workers pockets to even steal the tip money.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Sunday April 12 2020, @06:23PM (1 child)
This was my take on the situation too. Why is this even a thing? I would love to see a transcript of the meeting where this "feature" was introduced and discussed. How did they not see this situation and if they did, what was said?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @06:40PM
One possibility for how this became "a thing".
Pay attention to a lot of online ordering pages for restaurants that offer pickup after an online order. There is often a "tip: _____" box on the form to allow the customer to add in a tip during the order process. The difference, of course, is that the restaurant online ordering page does not allow the customer to modify the tip amount after purchase.
So one possibility for how this is "a thing" is that the design was modeled after restaurant online ordering pages, where the purchase, and any tip, are all "booked" up-front. The flaw with instacart's design is allowing the tip amount to be modified up to three days after service is rendered.
So how did the "modify tip up to three days later" become a thing? Well, one possibility is that the UI design above was built, and then some VP of Marketing dept. X gets a grand idea of "why don't we allow the customer to add tips after delivery as well, then for really great service the customer can show their appreciation?" (VP's of marketing dept. X never seem to ever have the intelligence to see potential miss-use of their great ideas.
And so, the requirement that went to the dev's was: "allow customer to modify tip up to three days after service is rendered", and the dev's built that without asking questions (I've seen enough of this style development, the dev's never ask questions or point out miss-use holes, they just "build" what the customer asks, no matter how stupid the ask might be).
Result, we started out with an "up front" tip that could not be changed, some VP had a bright idea of "allow customer to show appreciation later" (without also specifying "show appreciation" to mean "increase tip only") and the dev's built "show appreciation" as "customer can modify tip up to three days later" without any constraints to limit "modify" to only the portion involving "increasing" the tip.
Well, that's one possible senario. Is it how it happened? That I don't know. It is one possible way this became a thing. Can you think of other possible ways it might have become a thing?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday April 13 2020, @10:24AM (1 child)
I don't have an issue with the ability to offer a tip (that is, an above-minimum payment for service) beforehand, but in that case it should be considered part of the contract, and the customer should only be able to raise it afterwards, not to lower it. If you consider the possibility to later decide paying less, don't offer the tip up front.
The suggested requirement of 10% tip makes no sense. If it is required, then it is part of the standard fee, and not a tip.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday April 13 2020, @02:15PM
I would embrace and extend your remarks by renaming your "standard fee" to the "expedite fee", or for customers in the smaller number of syllable demographics, maybe they could call it the "speed fee"
I'm not seeing a problem with two separate fees, one to get them to show up quickly on time at the top of the priority list negotiated before they show up, and a second fee rewarding them for work well done.
Tradesmen do something like this with "truck fees" and so forth.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 12 2020, @03:44PM (6 children)
Have you actually used instacart, or similar? I agree there should be a base pay level that covers the delivery person's mileage and a reasonable time for shopping and travel, however, on the deliveree's side of the experience we have gotten everything from groceries delivered more carefully selected and in better condition than we do for our own shopping (this, being a 1/10 rare experience) all the way down to missing items not noted as missing, substitutions not approved as substitutions (our local near monopoly grocery is particularly good at this "cramming" - giving you 2 of the $6.99 1lb cheese bags instead of the 1 $8.99 2lb cheese bag you ordered), and on rare occasions lovely experiences like somebody else's broken egg goo all over our stuff. Orders can arrive on time, days late, sometimes days earlier than promised - in the agreed upon time window or far outside.
So, I feel tipping is an appropriate component of the whole at-home delivery experience, but, yes, it should not be required for the workers to get tips just to meet their expenses.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Monday April 13 2020, @12:06AM (1 child)
I take your point, and it's why I was suggesting a mechanism to deny acceptance of deliveries that are not correct and timely.
But what about cheaters/lairs? That's an easy problem to solve for very expensive orders (not grocery items), but more difficult for smaller orders where the cost of arbitration for the escrow funds doesn't make it worth it. In these markets, I think publicly posted reputations for both buyers and sellers should solve most of this.
We could also try forfeiture of delivery fees. Hell, what does Eve Online do? It would probably be better than a "tip" that can be modified to 0 up to 3 days later. That "tip" is really just a bid for delivery fees, if we are honest about it. That's how it's being used.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday April 13 2020, @02:42AM
The position of being home with an empty pantry and a quoted 10-20% COVID infected rate out in the city leaves little choice but to accept what shows up and like it.
When I considered starting up an insta-cart like service back around 1998, the whole lynch-pin of the business was developing some kind of reputation for both drivers and customers, first timers were wild-cards who you desperately needed to recruit (on both sides) but who you knew nothing about. The preferred method of induction was to only send experienced drivers to new customers, and only send new drivers to experienced customers... that's probably impossible in the current situation.
The present problem is a difference in expectation of what that number means. To the legalistic/gamers of the crowd it's nothing - a number controlled by the customer to be whatever they want until 72 hours past delivery at which point they can decide... if the service had any decency toward their drivers they'd either flag it as such, or hide it from the drivers altogether. If they wanted to make it a binding bid for delivery... well, that's a service I as a customer would walk away from anytime the bid was up over about $2 - I'll put on the N95+gloves and get my own milk, thank you.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Monday April 13 2020, @06:17AM (3 children)
I'm on a different continent, but our (store-operated) grocery delivery programmes cap the price of substitutions at that of the original item you ordered - it's their loss if they have to substitute a more expensive item. Plus you have the ability to decline any substitutions you don't like, on delivery.
(There is also the option for them to say "sorry, it's out of stock", which I'm sure they'd do if the price difference is too vast.)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday April 13 2020, @01:14PM (2 children)
Yeah, so... our local near monopoly grocer generally prices one option (out of their selection of dozens) somewhere near competitive prices with the pitiful remaining competition (said competition is operating out of a primary distribution hub 3000 miles away while the local monopoly's central warehouse is 200 miles away.) The other ten to thirty options they offer are all generally at prices 25-60% higher, unless you want something labeled organic or gluten-free, which I understand costs more, but the competition upcharges may be in the range of 20-30% while the near-monopoly seems to think it's worth 200-400% markup. My favorite example being the gluten free frozen pizzas, starting at $12.99 at the monopoly where they also offer regular pizzas at $4.99 buy-one-get-one-free, and, yet, the competition has gluten free frozen pizzas starting at $3.99?
I'll take any excuse of a trigger to rant about what a shithole that grocer has turned into over the 5 decades I've been shopping there, they squeezed the competition out of the market by eliminating silly rebate games (they used to give "green stamps" that you could redeem at a line of single purpose stores for durable goods like toaster ovens, oscillating fans, etc.), providing better selection at better prices in cleaner stores. Now that the competition is gasping on the ropes, they're back at the BOGO games, contemplating a "discount membership club" annual fee to get lower prices, bargain bins of crap they need to unload in your face as you walk in and down the main aisles, and prices to the sky - just a tick lower than Whole Foods and Fresh Market, most of the time except when they're not.
The particular trigger was: well, we only order the cheap options from there, so under your store's policies we just wouldn't be eligible for any substitutions ;-)
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Monday April 13 2020, @02:57PM (1 child)
Thanks for the added detail, but I think you may have misunderstood my explanation of the policy that most (all?) of our supermarkets follow:
If they need to substitute in an more expensive item (or multiple items) to fulfil your order, they typically do so, but will not charge more than the item you originally ordered.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday April 13 2020, @03:27PM
Ha, your country obviously lacks the capitalist value of: nothing comes for free.
There was a time, perhaps 10 years ago, when the local monopoly was in the process of squeezing out the competition that they would have done something like that. Now they're back to the "core values of society" where you "get what you pay for..."
Just to continue the rant... a couple of years ago, when I still shopped there on a regular basis, they offered just one bag of chips for less than $3. It was 12oz and had a picture of a Mexican on it (since the local populace is prejudiced and many simply wouldn't buy groceries "intended for Mexican families.") - well, that finally ended as they upped the price from $2 to $2.69, then a month later made the bag 16oz and raised the price again to $3.09. On one of my last trips into the store, they had the "Mexican Chips" "on sale" for $2 (you know, the regular price from the previous month). So, I threw two bags in the cart and checked out, only to see the price ring up as $2.69, even though there were signs all over for "Special Low Price! $2". So, to get them to make good on their error, you go stand at the "customer service" counter, wait while the homeless in front of you purchase their tobacco products and lottery tickets, and finally get to talk with the smiling manager who goes through seventeen gyrations at the register to hand you a store credit card for the difference, and if they're in a good mood they'll even kick in an extra buck or two to "thank you for pointing out the error". Now, it's not always their error - I ended up accidentally purchasing two half gallon tubs of sugar-substituted ice cream once, didn't notice the subtle difference in the packaging until I was loading it into the car, walked right back in and processed an exchange or refund, my choice, which they cheerfully did, as they put the ice-cream that I had walked out to the parking lot and back into "returns" because they can't resell refrigerated product that has left the store. Nice, but all in all the customer is usually not even making minimum wage for the time invested in processing the exchange.
So... to loop back somewhere near to where this diverged... the competition based 3000 miles away can manage to sell 32 oz bags of similar corn chips for $2.99, so I'm not sure why it was so impossible for our local chain to keep a $2 12 oz bag on the shelf, other than the fact that NOTHING in that store goes for less than $3 anymore, and it's rapidly heading for $5. Too bad that Amazon's Whole Foods is part of the inflationary process, rather than genuine competition. Oh, and we've got WalMart foods here, too, but somehow the "low price guarantee" store manages to not have even competitive prices on food.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 12 2020, @02:27PM (10 children)
Just go back to the home where you made the delivery, and confiscate the goods to equal your stolen tip. What a bunch of douchebags. Wealthy douchebags, at that. Poor folk aren't paying people to do their shopping.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 5, Informative) by canopic jug on Sunday April 12 2020, @02:45PM (1 child)
Actually some of them are doing something similar, but proactively. Rather than risk getting stuck with the sub-human wage alone, without a tip, they are just going ahead and stealing the groceries [usatoday.com]. So the cynic in me says that stories like the one at the top of the page are more about distracting from the ills of Instacart in an attempt to shift blame and criticism onto the customers rather than onto Instacart where it deserves to be.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 12 2020, @10:35PM
Back in the '90s we "think tanked" what the internet enabled that could become a disruptive new low-to-zero capital to start business. What we came up with was basically instacart. The whole key to the business is vetting the drivers, ensuring they don't taint the brand.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @03:19PM (3 children)
People who engage in that should just be barred from the program for a period of a few weeks. But, really, instacart shouldn't be allowing people to change their tips after the fact without contacting support. I know that would add cost, but get over it. Front line workers deserve as many protections as possible against this sort of thing.
It's already a risky line of work to be in during a pandemic. Some of these people have already had it and are somewhat immune, but others are doing it purely because they won't be able to make rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @04:04PM (1 child)
"People who engage in that should just be barred from the program for a period of a few
weeksmonths."FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @06:44PM
I'm not sure how long it would take to discourage the behavior. I don't want anybody starving, but there needs to be some sort of punishment for abusing the system.
Really, they should be required to contact Instacart if they want to lower it by more than a set amount and they need to have a real reason as to why they want to do it. That should discourage enough people from abusing the system that it should keep this to a minimum.
Also, if you're lowering the amount to a significant degree, there should be feedback given so that service can improve.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @04:33PM
>> I know that would add cost, but get over it.
Capitalism... I don't think you understand it.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 12 2020, @03:51PM (3 children)
During the current crisis, lots of places around here are providing instacart and similar services "for free" to keep goods moving through their stores.
As for poor people using delivery services, paying instacart to deliver your groceries is a hell of a lot cheaper than owning, insuring, and maintaining your own car.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 12 2020, @04:41PM (2 children)
I think that is debatable. Depending on the infrastructure and transportation choices available in your area, yeah, I can see that may be true. But, grocery shopping is only a small part of our travel. In fact, neither the wife or I make a special trip for shopping very often. Most of our shopping is done on the way home from work, or it's a stop along the way on some other errand. A visit to a sister in Texas always involves a stop to shop on the way home. A doctor visit usually involves a stop to shop.
If people who are not at least modestly wealthy can afford to pay someone else to do most or all of their shopping, it would seem a foreign land to me, if I moved there.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 12 2020, @04:51PM
For the last 30 days, we have only used our cars for pleasure trips (unless you count that run to the liquor store as "essential business.") We've had all groceries delivered, work and school have been done remotely. We have a grocery store about a 1 mile hike away, but the prospect of a one mile hike followed by schlepping a backpack full of groceries 20+ minutes in the sun/rain just doesn't seem like a good trade for $8.95 to me - particularly with all the milk and juice we consume.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday April 13 2020, @02:04PM
My understanding of the situation is its for "unbanked" people. If you have a legal judgment hanging over your head and garnishments and all that, you can't go legit and just buy a car. On the other hand you can pay cash for labor.
There's a big societal push to get people away from capitalism and owning things and just rent things and labor. That's how to get the 1% richer and keep the rest poorer.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by HiThere on Sunday April 12 2020, @03:54PM (2 children)
I've gotten deliveries, and the order was accepted by the store 5 days ago. They are the ones that decided it couldn't be done more quickly. And when it was time for the order to be delivered, lots of things weren't available that were available when I placed the order.
I don't feel the driver is the correct target for my anger, but I *am* angry. Some people lack discrimination, and will just allow their anger to chose the target that is accessible. And that's what I think is being reported on.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 12 2020, @05:06PM
Our delivery orders to Aldi seem to be pushed back to Thursday (when the truck arrives) when we have too many things that they are out of stock at the time... it's pretty frustrating since they promise it at one time, then figure out some things are missing, push it back a day, then figure out there's too much missing to make it worth driving it out, and push it back to Thursday... then we've put in orders that were scheduled for 3 days in the future and had them show up in under 2 hours.
Right now, there's probably a 300%+ uptick in delivery work, so you've got lots of chaos. Hopefully they figure out how to do it better / more efficiently / cheaper as a result of all this, not holding our breath - we had ~$5 at-home delivery from our local grocery back in 2003, they ran that pilot for about a year then just shut it down cold.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @06:48PM
Depending on the chain, there are different policies in place. Some will offer substitutions of size, brand or flavor in order to try and fill the order as best we can. Some won't offer it at all unless it's 100% what you ordered. In the case of meat and produce, the picker may not be allowed to fill the order if the quality isn't deemed to be acceptable, even if individual shoppers would happily buy it.
In terms of the delay, I think that's due to a misunderstanding. There are really 2 main factors here with delivery, there's the products being available and there's having somebody to physically bag the products and deliver them. If any of those last two items are out of whack, you'll see them delaying any attempt at delivering them. In many cases, they are fulfilling the items from the store shelves that other customers are free to take items from themselves.
As time goes on, this will get better as people will have a better idea as to what's going on, but the infrastructure for this has been deploying at breakneck speed with some grocers going from a few locations to all of them over the course of a few weeks.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @03:57PM (7 children)
Is the goal of the typical American to evolve into a 400 pound legless pile of flesh that gets fed Big Macs and Slurpees while sitting in front to TV watching "Dancing with The Stars"? Why the fuck would you pay someone $55 to pick up your groceries? Go to the store yourself and burn off some calories.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @04:09PM (1 child)
It couldn't POSSIBLY have ANYTHING to do with the current SITUATION.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Monday April 13 2020, @06:20AM
But it could have something to do with your dodgy Caps Lock key.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Subsentient on Sunday April 12 2020, @04:11PM (1 child)
We really need a "willfully ignorant asshole" moderation tag.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Sunday April 12 2020, @05:47PM
Sometimes ignorance is learned. Not willful. The result of studying at the feet of masters. Often, unknowingly.
Why is it so difficult to break a heroine addiction?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @04:44PM
Some of us are handicapped and have difficulty walking all over those huge stores. Yes, they usually have those mobilized carts available, but I'll retain what tattered scraps remain of my dignity, thanks. I use the curb-side pickup, personally, but one of my neighbors uses delivery. He's in a wheelchair, but can put most of the groceries away, so he does that to take some of the load off his wife, who's still working.
Oh, we're both overweight, so you can still mock and deride us for that. The weight gain came after the medical difficulties, but realizing that might require thoughtfulness and compassion from you, and everyone knows better than to hope for any of that.
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Sunday April 12 2020, @05:42PM
As an American, I resent that. I most emphatically DO NOT watch Dancing with the Stars.
Why is it so difficult to break a heroine addiction?
(Score: 2) by Username on Monday April 13 2020, @12:46AM
It's for a the rich.
The only time affluent people will do peasantry work is when they have bad publicity. Then everything is staged and managed, from the car they drive to walmart, the clothes they wear, to the cameras used by onlookers to document it.
Usually they don't interact directly with vendors or services like Instacart, that's the helps job. They're sandboxed.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Subsentient on Sunday April 12 2020, @04:02PM
Yes, tipping is bad, but clearly these customers are deliberately ripping off Instacart workers. That's absolutely disgusting. And it's apparently not an isolated incident. Wow. Like I've always said, humanity always finds innovative new ways to make you sick.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Sunday April 12 2020, @05:01PM
How does the compensation work for instacart shoppers? Are they paid a base amount? How much? Are they paid tips only?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Sunday April 12 2020, @05:46PM (1 child)
We use a couple different grocery delivery services.
We tip them well. I feel sorry for them having to expose themselves to risk so that we get groceries delivered to our front porch.
It is a valuable service, especially in the days we now live in. Flattening the curve.
Why is it so difficult to break a heroine addiction?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @07:23PM
Same here. I've done two different restaurant deliveries now.
Normally I do pickup so I can save most of the tip amount. But with delivery, and the current situation, I tipped the amount I'd normally have tipped for eat-in service, just because.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Fnord666 on Sunday April 12 2020, @06:34PM
I wonder if this qualifies as fraud or some similar violation of the criminal statutes?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2020, @06:57PM
The problem here is the "tip" line is attempting to serve two contrasting purposes. First purpose, get my shopping trip to be the one someone picks, ahead of others. Second purpose, rewarding the shopper for a job well done above and beyond expectations.
The fix, here, seems obvious and trivially easy.
The instacart page/app needs a bit of a redesign. Step 1:
Up front, there is an explicit "shopping/delivery" minimum fee sufficient to reimburse the shopper for their time, fuel, and risk to perform someone else's shopping. The customer, when purchasing a shopping excursion, can optionally increase this shopping/delivery fee above the minimum, but may not reduce it below the minimum.
This fee, charged up front, is not adjustable by the customer later. Once the customer purchases a delivery, this fee will be charged to the customer and given to the worker.
But, when purchasing the shopping trip, there is no "tip" line, and no way for a customer to add a tip. If the customer wants to bait a shopper with a huge payday to get them to shop, they do so by increasing the "shopping/delivery" fee, and will always be charged the amount they enter.
Step 2:
At time of purchasing a shopping trip, there is no tip line anywhere, and no way for a customer to specify a tip. So if the customer wishes to push their order to the head of the line, they have to use the non-refundable "shopping/delivery fee" increase, and will always pay that amount out, even if the work done is awful.
The 'tip' line itself only appears after the order has been delivered, and in this way can function as a true 'tip', a reward for a job done above and beyond.
And, if instacart wishes to avoid double credit card charges, they can just hold off charging the customer's card until after the customer inserts a "tip", then do a charge for the entire total. They can do like gas stations if they like, place a "hold" on the card to be sure that they can charge later, but this way they would avoid double paying the fixed credit card costs.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday April 13 2020, @02:09PM
The problem with making everyone a commodity independent contractor laborer with individual app mediated bosses, is the flip side of the problem is most people are shitty bosses.
On one hand, half the laborers are below median performers. We have technology and societal stuff and expectations to work around that.
On the other hand, half the bosses are below median bosses and if you make everyone an independent contractor there will be lots of shitty bosses. We have no technology or societal stuff to work around that. In the old legacy company days you'd have the financial markets apply discipline and use monopolistic forces to keep the number of bosses small to make it more easy to regulate them.
Its a pretty big problem with the "gig" economy. How to deal with most people being below average bosses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2020, @08:57PM
Tips are never about this time. However, I always get excellent service at the places I go to all the time. They remember me. The douche bag who leaves 2 cents or nothing. They remember that too.