Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received a large tip

Re:Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received... by Dylan16807 on Tuesday January 29, 2019 @08:18PM (#19031684)

They don't actually withhold the tip. The sentence you quoted is being sloppy. If the tip was $50, the worker would get the full $50.

The problem is that they use the tip as an excuse to pay basically nothing. It's not acting like a real tip.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received... by jeremyjh on Tuesday January 29, 2019 @11:00PM (#19032528)

This is a distinction without a difference. There is no practical difference between paying less "because tip" and not paying the tip. The legal system is not staffed by robots, either. I don't see how they can defend a class action regardless of what words they've written on a TOS.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Instacart paying 80 cents an hour because worker received... by Dylan16807 on Wednesday January 30, 2019 @12:45AM (#19032984)

> There is no practical difference between paying less "because tip" and not paying the tip.

There is, because the pay can't go negative.

> The legal system is not staffed by robots, either. I don't see how they can defend a class action regardless of what words they've written on a TOS.

It depends on what the lawsuit is for. Normally we have things like "minimum wage" but those don't apply if you manage to convince everyone it's a contractor situation. If they can be classified as employees then there's all sorts of lovely anti-tip-taking law. But that's a big if. And I don't think contractors have tip laws? It's not generally illegal to say one thing about how your company allocates money coming in and then do another.

[ Parent | on HN ]