New York Acting Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Moyne rejected a bid by Uber, DoorDash and Grubhub to block a bill requiring a minimum wage for app-based delivery workers.

A first-of-its kind law requiring a minimum wage for app-based delivery workers will take effect after a judge rejected the companies’ bid to block it.

Uber, DoorDash and Grubhub won’t be able to get out of paying minimum wage to their New York City delivery workers after all, following a judge’s decision to reject their bid to skirt the city’s new law. The upcoming law, which is still pending due to the companies’ ongoing lawsuit, aims to secure better wage protections for app-based workers. Once the suit settles, third-party delivery providers will have to pay delivery workers a minimum wage of roughly $18 per hour before tips, and keep up with the yearly increases, Reuters reports.

The amount, which will increase April 1 of every year, is slightly higher than the city’s standard minimum wage, taking into account the additional expenses gig workers face. At the moment, food delivery workers make an estimated $7-$11 per hour on average.

  • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
    3·
    1 year ago

    I’d argue a meritocracy is impossible. how does one determine the best person at writing marketing copy, or mowing lawns, or cleaning gutters? You end up creating a race to the bottom of speed, price and lack of safety or security. Only the most ruthless, manipulative, careless end up winning.

    Profit is excess — so it’s not a natural byproduct. No one ever lowers prices, but you can, no one ever splits out excess wealth to workers but you can. It’s not impossible.

    I’d ask you does captialism create a better product? We’re here on Lemmy, so its especially pertinent to ask whether reddit was better as a free product for the benefit of everyone, or is it better as a for-profit model with ads, gold, awards, data vending, paid tiers etc?

    Same for privatization of railroads, water, power. When is an example of (long term) improvement of private ownership?

    Same for Healthcare, why is it better to have more expensive service, less access, more barriers but a better paid middleman?

    • betz24@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      The current way we determine those things are clickthroughs for marketing copy, ratings or repeat clients for landscapers and gutter cleaners. I’ve definitely hired someone before and said, damn they did a good job, I’d have paid more for that.

      I’d disagree profit is excess. At most companies, if a product or job is profitable, the extra money is used for R&D, taking risk on new things and giving bonuses to people who really stood out. Profit is required for products in services so then you can reinvest and provide more value to users.

      I think that capitalism generally does create the best product. In the US we are leaders in technology, research, aerospace and infrastructure. I’m not saying we are #1 in everything, but the process does work and time and time again companies and countries use products developed from the US.

      The most talented people in their fields come here because they have the ability to earn money for their talents. While it’s not a perfect meritocracy, generally the best in their field stand out.

      Regarding healthcare, railroads or other private services. The best thing is that they are private, and if something comes to disrupt the status quo you are free to take your dollars elsewhere. Same thing with lemmy; while I’d argue reddit (at the moment) has a lot more engaging and varied content because of it’s user base, I chose to stick with lemmy because I like it’s value propositions.

      Privatisation isn’t terrible, look at what SpaceX has done, completely turned the space industry sideways. For healthcare you have new companies like Oscar, which have given people immediate access to telemedicine. In Japan, the Japan Railways (JR) is a massive private railway organization that provides bullet trains and local trains across the country: it can be done.