https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/food-delivery-serv…
Shutting down in late august - the groupon codes were not working today and had a huge run around and tons of phone calls / emails - turns out they are shutting down shop.
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/386478
Heads up for people that bought groupons or other deals.
Good riddance to illegal shitty, low paying employers.
The problem is the people choose to work for them at those shitty rates, no one forced them.
And as more of them close, less competition for low paid workers is even less incentive for companies to raise their standards.
What you need is for every rider and Uber driver is to say no to their crap pay. Stop working for anything less than X. But hey, no one wants to unionise.
What you need is for every rider and Uber driver is to say no to their crap pay. Stop working for anything less than X. But hey, no one wants to unionise.
Even this wouldn't work. You could make an argument that Uber displaced taxi drivers, but for food delivery companies - who did this before they existed? No one. There isn't a market for these services at employee-rate prices. So you kick out companies like Foodora, Uber Eats, Deliveroo, etc. And good paying food delivery jobs won't magically fill the void - you'll just end up with what you had before.
It's not "shitty jobs or better jobs". It's "shitty jobs or no jobs".
"The problem is the people choose to work for them at those shitty rates, no one forced them"
The IPA which is closely aligned to the Liberal Party believe we should do away with minimum wage and allow people to bid their pay rate for a job. They believe it will somehow lead to higher wages and more jobs.
One day your quote will be a reality for future generations if we do not stand up for our employment rights
I heard this argument before, and its usually the Top 1% that makes the case "without these shitty jobs, people in developing countries will starve". As much as I'd hate to think that is just a pessimistic view, I really don't have counter-evidence to the point.
Anyone have any idea how credible these claims are?
I guess one idea is that "the market" will fix the problem, but that's a claim usually told by the Top 1% and not TightArses like us.
@Kangal: It's fairly obviously true, and you don't even need hypotheticals to prove it. The only reason countries like Bangladesh, Vietnam, China etc have taken over manufacturing is because the workers there are paid much lower rates of pay than developed countries. To the point that the labour rate difference makes up for shipping things half-way around the world.
@chumlee: I don't think it'll lead to higher wages. It would definitely lead to more jobs though - if you consider again, that things like Uber wouldn't even exist if all of their contractors were classified as employees.
I think if you wanted to abolish minimum wages, it would have to go hand in hand with much higher rates of unionization so that workers have equivalent bargaining power as employers. I wonder if the IPA would accept that as a trade-off.
The problem with "employment rights" is that they're only rights you get once you have a job. They don't mean the right to have a job, and a lot of the time they can mean less jobs because some jobs just become unviable. If you asked someone whether they want a shitty paying job or to be out of a job completely, I know what 99% of people would say.
You make some good points, but we do need something more concrete than that.
An analogy would be "all atheists should be Christians just-in-case Divinity is true, so they would be saved into Heaven". At face value this is rational, and sound logic to comply. However when you dig deeper and analyse it you come to the fact that it is a fallacy. Since Christianity now has a store of power, and is corrupt able, this point could be used to control masses and create immoral and unethical people out of regular ones.
So while your answer is rational, and sound logic at face value, we need to dive deeper and test if itself is a fallacy that can be used/weaponised by the Top 1%.
The issue I have is that we do not have any examples of country or populous which has gone from a relatively decent living standards down to a "trapped in poverty" standard in the Modern World (post 1850). The few examples where it sort of happened has been a result of War and/or Famine.
PS actually maybe Rhodesia is an example, I might have to read up carefully of the conditions pre-Muggabe politics. Maybe you might know somethings about it.
An analogy would be "all atheists should be Christians just-in-case Divinity is true, so they would be saved into Heaven".
That's a terrible analogy lol, purely for the fact you'd then end up in the "Hell" of about 9,999 other religions.
The issue I have is that we do not have any examples of country or populous which has gone from a relatively decent living standards down to a "trapped in poverty" standard in the Modern World (post 1850).
That's true, but we do have many examples of countries with lax or no employment laws clawing their way out of poverty, like China, India, Vietnam - and even before then, Korea, Japan, etc. It's much easier to protect your position as a developed country than otherwise, but I think we also can see the effects of this - in basically the disappearance of much of the manufacturing industries in developed countries, in recent years.
Rhodesia is far too unique a situation (globally, if not to the African post-colonial context) to really apply more widely. Though it is a map of what's going to happen to South Africa, who just passed a law allowing the government to widen property expropriations. But yeah - those two situations are more closely tied to colonialism and segregation than employment conditions.
Yeah, I know the analogy was apples to oranges but it delivered my point: some things are not what they seem, especially once the nuances are studied properly. And it is dangerous to accept fallacies, especially those that seem like facts.
I guess you're right, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe is a unique situation that might prove no insight to the dilemma.
We don't have examples of the contrary as you may think. Most of the living standards have increased for the poorest of the poor simply because technology has benefited them the most. I mean, even in countries like in South East Asia… modern medicine is available, clean water, nutritious food, and free education. These staples were considered a luxury if you go back in time to the 1700's. Heck, a lower-middle class citizen in a lower-developed nation such as Portugal is arguably living at a higher standard than a King from two centuries ago.
The closest thing I can think of is The Great Depression. It affected developed nations such as USA, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand…not to mention Western Europe. However during this period, there weren't as many modern labour laws as there is today. Most of the labour laws didn't actually get implemented until the 1960's in developed countries, and they still aren't implemented/enforced in certain developing countries today.
…so we merely have hypotheticals to go off.
Say what if The Great Depression was postponed until 1960-ish after we had Modern Labour Laws? Would the regulation act as liquidity to ease the pressure? Would it not? Or would it cause people to hire illegal workers, eventually leading to mass firing and mass unemployment?
It seems easy to pick an answer, but I don't think you could choose the correct one. Before/during the great depression, there were many ideas such as print more money, make gold standard/ownership illegal, charge higher prices to citizens, do nothing etc etc… all which seems like the correct answer, however, they all caused the situation to get worse. Some say it was WWII that essentially caused the end of the great depression…. rather than the opposite "The depression caused the war".
I'm pretty sure the people contracting for them don't feel the same way when they're out of a job completely. The alternative to companies like Uber, Uber Eats, Foodora, etc isn't a better paying job. It's just a plain lack of a job.
If the job is worth it, people will pay award rates.
If it isn’t it won’t get done.
I’ll happily pay you $3 an hour to work, and you might be desperate enough to take it. But we have minimum wages to stop the downward spiral of competition to lower pay, because it would result in people not being paid enough to live on, damaging society.
If I have a business that depends on employing people for peanuts, I don’t have a real business.
I’ll happily pay you $3 an hour to work, and you might be desperate enough to take it.
In that case, I might prefer to take the $3/hr rather than have the government step in and say that I can't have it.
I assume I'd know better than the government how much I needed the $3/hr.
I assume I'd know better than the government how much I needed the $3/hr
That is the thing.
An individual might often make a short term trade off to work for peanuts, even if that choice is damaging to their (and everyone's) long term interests.
Nobody at all hopes to work for low wages, everybody wants to get the most pay possible.
But most of the time (especailly at the low end of the market) the power in the employer<->employee relationship is disproportionately in favour of the employer. Afterall, if I don't work, I may end up homeless or hungry. If my employer doesn't have my labour, they will just have slightly lower profits.
So as a society we set minimum wage rates (in the order of $16/hr) so that we don't have employees working for less than the income needed to survive. We can see in the USA, where wages are low, that even huge employers like Walmart depend on government welfare to feed their staff, because they do not pay enough. (e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-…)
If a business like Foodora can't operate with pay rates above the minimum, they don't have a viable business, even if customers would love to buy their delivery services for the low, low price. It is very short sighted to force the taxpayer to subsidise their failing business, by supplementing their employee's inadequate pay with welfare transfers, rather than simply saying "pay minimum rates" so the business can easily understand if they have a successful enterprise or not.
Of course, it would be grossly unfair to prevent somebody working if there was no alternative - so a robust welfare net is important, supported by taxes levied on those benefiting from higher wages.
That is the thing.
An individual might often make a short term trade off to work for peanuts, even if that choice is damaging to their (and everyone's) long term interests.
Maybe, but in a liberal democracy, I tend to think that's every individual's own prerogative. I'd hate to live in a society where my every action or decision has to be reviewed by the government as to whether "it's good for me or not".
Nobody at all hopes to work for low wages, everybody wants to get the most pay possible.
Of course. And between $3/hr and $0/hr, that $3/hr is the higher pay.
But most of the time (especailly at the low end of the market) the power in the employer<->employee relationship is disproportionately in favour of the employer.
Agreed practically this is true, which is why I'd support (even demand) universal unionization as a trade-off for abolishing the minimum wage. But these people were contractors - not employees.
Afterall, if I don't work, I may end up homeless or hungry. If my employer doesn't have my labour, they will just have slightly lower profits.
This is a fairly common, but utterly wrong myth. Most employers are small businesses or sole-traders. They generally don't have many employees, the majority go out of business, and yes, they can go hungry too. Just because they're an employer doesn't mean they have some magical source of money.
So as a society we set minimum wage rates (in the order of $16/hr) so that we don't have employees working for less than the income needed to survive.
That's…. logically impossible. Again, not having a job will be "less than the income needed to survive". If we have welfare so that even not having a job is viable, then having a job for $N>0 is also going to be viable.
We can see in the USA, where wages are low, that even huge employers like Walmart depend on government welfare to feed their staff, because they do not pay enough.
This is also a misconception and just a sleight-of-framing. Why is it noted as "Welfare system subsidizing Walmart", as opposed to "Walmart subsidizing the US welfare system"?
Without Walmart, those employees would be drawing much more money from the welfare system, no? It's no different than a work-for-the-dole system, except the employees are being more productive and gaining much more useful experience if nothing else. Most accurately it might be compared to a paid internship or apprenticeship, which are also often subsidized by the government.
It is very short sighted to force the taxpayer to subsidise their failing business, by supplementing their employee's inadequate pay with welfare transfers
Again, without those jobs, taxpayers would be paying those people now without jobs much more in terms of welfare. So:
Foodora loses workers (employees or contractors),
customers lose a service,
those workers lose a sense of independence and work experience,
taxpayers end up paying more in welfare.
Who wins? Unions who get a PR victory and a government that can pretend it's doing something?
Of course, it would be grossly unfair to prevent somebody working if there was no alternative - so a robust welfare net is important, supported by taxes levied on those benefiting from higher wages.
So in the end, instead of Foodora paying them $3/hr, you'd rather taxpayers pay more in welfare?
@HighAndDry: we're already paying for the welfare. If foodora met minimum wages, then they're not on centrelink, robbing, etc.
The other companies will charge more where there's demand etc albeit less.
The problem for foodora is that food delivery is very competitive. Raising costs will mean less restaurants and customers. Ultimately less ROI for their capital intensive operations?
we're already paying for the welfare. If foodora met minimum wages, then they're not on centrelink, robbing, etc.
Yes, but it's not a set number no matter what. People making money from Foodora, no matter how little, will draw less welfare. People making nothing because Foodora's now exited the business and the entire business model is unviable, will draw more from welfare.
The problem for foodora is that food delivery is very competitive. Raising costs will mean less restaurants and customers. Ultimately less ROI for their capital intensive operations?
It's not just competition, but the viability of the entire business model. People are willing to pay an extra, say $5 for food delivery. People aren't willing to pay an extra $10 or more for $15-$20 of food, and if all delivery drivers/riders were employees, that may well be how much the minimum charge would have to be.
What if the business model is the problem, and that you do not have a business with $3/hr wages.
However, you can hire someone for $15/hr or the minimum. The difference could be that delivery is done in batches rather than individual slots.
So that if you wanted to order food online, firstly it would have to be paid online. Next you wouldn't be able to order then-and-there. You would see a schedule, just like you see for a bus/train and select one.
Now a delivery driver would be driving a little more distance, working a little bit longer time used on that drive…but they would be dropping off 5-10 orders at once.
Wouldn't you say this would make the individual feel even better a sense of worth. And the money that enters his pocket would be 5-20 times more. It would feel fair.
The negative impact is that this would create say 1,000 jobs instead of 5,000 jobs. Those 4,000 people willing to work for $3/hr would essentially be still on the dole. Yet using your own words, I'm not taking their jobs away as this wasn't a job available at all, and they were on the dole to begin with so I'm not taking more of the governments money away.
The practical fact is that I would actually be saving money, since the paperwork and taxable calculations alone for 5,000 "dole-workers" would cost a lot more tax, than simply giving 4,000 people the dole. I mean just look at Centrelink, what a mess.
The negative impact is that this would create say 1,000 jobs instead of 5,000 jobs. Those 4,000 people willing to work for $3/hr would essentially be still on the dole. Yet using your own words, I'm not taking their jobs away as this wasn't a job available at all, and they were on the dole to begin with so I'm not taking more of the governments money away.
You are effectively barring those 4,000 people from working for $3/hr even though they want to. So the government is effectively interfering in the freedom of people to have a job, as well as paying more taxpayers funds to them for the trouble. It doesn't matter if you're "taking it away", the practical difference is:
The practical fact is that I would actually be saving money, since the paperwork and taxable calculations alone for 5,000 "dole-workers" would cost a lot more tax, than simply giving 4,000 people the dole.
Possibly, but what happened to that "better a sense of worth" you mentioned?
And all of this is assuming that a service like this:
Next you wouldn't be able to order then-and-there. You would see a schedule, just like you see for a bus/train and select one.
Will have as much business as the current model. Which… is optimistic. Small purchases, especially small food purchases, are very much convenience based and depend on that instant gratification.
So you'll likely cause an even greater decrease in jobs. All for what?
@HighAndDry:
But you're conflating the issue.
On one hand you are saying "we're already paying for the welfare" on the other hand you are saying "you are taking their jobs away". Can't have it both ways. Either these people are on the dole, and later subsidising their lifestyle with low-paying jobs. Or these people were on a low-paying job lifestyle and are entering the dole.
Not sure what you're on about the "better sense" part. As it is well understood and documented, that people who actually work harder and get paid better wages have higher self-esteem than those that do not.
It may be "optimistic", but don't knock it till you try it. I mean, they said the same thing about Foodora/Deliveroo/UberEats as being a business that would fail. Heck, the Dominos business seems to be doing great and they rely heavily on the delivery market. If a competitor approached them and told them the end cost to the customer would be near identical, however, Dominos would be free from the task of delivery and the responsibility/insurance of that point…. they would be hard-pressed to consider the business side of things.
This move would cause LESS decrease in jobs than a total ban… but it would create the SAME or even MORE work, whilst being MORE beneficial to workers. Its basically a "smarter" business model, or maybe merely a viable one, where one can easily make the case that the current model (which you're defending) is not a viable business.
On one hand you are saying "we're already paying for the welfare" on the other hand you are saying "you are taking their jobs away".
This seems obvious to me, I don't get what you're not getting. If you take away job opportunities, we end up paying more welfare for those people who now can't get a job.
Honestly if this somehow goes over your head I don't have high hopes for this discussion.
But you conceded earlier that these people were already on welfare. Now you're saying they were employed.
Can't have your cake and eat it too…. thought it was obvious.
Besides you never made any rational case for the "business viability" aspect. You seem to be arguing quantity over quality mantra, whereas I'm thinking a balance between the two.
But you conceded earlier that these people were already on welfare. Now you're saying they were employed.
You realise welfare isn't a binary of "on welfare" and "off welfare" right? If you have some income, you receive less welfare.
Here are the options: A person can:
They get the same amount of money. But with a job in (1), they receive less welfare from taxpayers.
Seriously, I'm done here.
That's fine, if you like to flip/flop and dodge the crux of the matter that's your prerogative.
You seem to be confusing the welfare system of the USA to Centrelink in Australia.
Here, we are much more generous but we are also a lot less lenient on the matter. So you are correct that it isn't a binary… however, the limit is very small at $262 per week whilst our minimum wage is $719, that in practice it is a binary option.
You can go-off on a tangent and find niche cases all you want, it doesn't change the fact of the matter though: jobs with almost no pay might not be a good thing for society or perhaps our society, the issue is far more complex (long-term implications) than you try to make it out to be.
…with the addition of Grill'd, 7/11, dominos…
You are all profiting off illegal labor and should have the directors jailed as no other way they will stop
This isn't a similar situation. Grill'd, 7/11, Dominos - those were clearly employees. Here though, is an attempt by the government or other groups to (mis)classify contractors as employees. Effectively:
"You're an employee, and I'm going to pay you $X" where $X is below the minimum wage - illegal.
"I'm going to contract your services for $X" is perfectly legal.
RIP Josh
I'm sad that I never got to try Foodora. There must have always been a minimum spend.
…not when it came to wages
Damn i have a ton of referral credit. Gonna sell my account
Yeah me too. Well 3 x $10 vouchers. Looks like takeaways for the next few weeks!
What about the poor schmuck you sell it to, when they can't use the credit? Oh right, username checks out. ;)
If it's an informed choice taking into account the risk and with an appropriate discount for that risk? Eh.
Debt collectors buy debt owing from people who'd never pay all the time, they also buy it for cents on the dollar.
I'm gonna tell them that They would need to redeem soon. Not gonna rip them off :)
The whole thing was in jest just to take advantage of 'username checks out' ;)
Can we still use the groupon voucher?
Edit: Just received an email from groupon advising me to redeem the voucher ASAP. So the voucher is still valid.
Could I claim a refund if the voucher could not be used despite a later expiry date?
I tried numerous times to try to redeem my Groupon Voucher with Foodora, and whilst the Voucher goes through no issue on the Foodora site, when I get to the payment screen it keeps telling me that the payment failed.
I have spoken to the Foodora support staff who are complete idiots and don't understand the problem, even though I have sent them screenshots.
Anyone else having this issue?
"Foodora is pulling out of Australia because it owes $28.3 million in debt — not to mention its two lawsuits and unpaid taxes.
Nearly all of it, however, was for "associated loans" (totalling $28 million), which it needs to repay to its German parent company Delivery Hero.
The food delivery company is unlikely to pay all its Australian liabilities, including the wages of delivery riders.
It was also revealed, at the first creditors' meeting on Thursday, that Foodora owes more than $558,000 in payroll tax to Revenue NSW.
The Australian Taxation Office is also chasing Foodora for unpaid superannuation, penalties and interest — but has not finished calculating how much it is owed yet.
Foodora went into administration two weeks ago — despite earlier claims it was "solvent" — amid accusations that it systematically exploits and underpays its delivery riders."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-29/foodora-unable-pay-aus…
The OP appears to be an accurate report. What would you like us to discuss?
Good, these companies are cancer.
Not so good that their employees got screwed.
amid accusations that it systematically exploits and underpays its delivery riders."
I hate this kind of language. I mean, what are they, kids? They were adults entering into a contract. That they are now not being paid is pretty tragic, but up to that point they were paid what they agreed to be paid, for services they agreed to provide.
Well the ATO classified their delivery drivers as employees, not contractors. Unlike independent contractors, employees are legally entitled to workplace protections against unfair dismissal and entitlements including superannuation and legal minimum rates of pay under the Fair Work Act.
There's your exploitation.
Sure. How many other things do you agree with the ATO on? Last I checked the ATO isn't a court and doesn't have any authority - you can come back after there's a court case where their classification is vindicated.
Unlike independent contractors, employees are legally entitled to workplace protections against unfair dismissal and entitlements including superannuation and legal minimum rates of pay under the Fair Work Act.
Did you know plagiarism is bad too? The news article you stole that from also has this little tid-bit which you conveniently left out:
University of Adelaide Professor of Law Andrew Stewart said the ATO's view was significant but could be challenged in an administrative tribunal or court.
Thanks for the heads up.
As an aside:
Ha. Good work - now watch as every Foodora delivery rider loses their jobs. Thanks Josh.