>60 percent of workers were making about the same or slightly more under the new scheme. But we felt that it was important to shine a light on those 40 percent of workers
Absolutely pathetic investigative journalism on display. This is a hit piece thinly veiled under the guise of being pro worker that fails to support the main point of algorithmic management of gig workers is worse for everyone but the corporation employing it.
If anything, they proved that shipt's algo did exactly what it was designed and reported to do, make payments more fair.
Really surprising coming from an org like IEEE. One expected the data to show a significantly detrimental effect, but it looks like it was slightly positive overall, at least based on the data they're displaying.
> If anything, they proved that shipt's algo did exactly what it was designed and reported to do, make payments more fair.
They didn't prove that. It's entirely possible the algo was skimming something off the top. It's entirely possible the algo was disproportionately rewarding some people to the detriment of others. A lot of it depends on what one thinks is "fair"... and without transparency, we can't even judge whether it is or not... which itself could be argued is unfair.
Absolutely pathetic investigative journalism on display. This is a hit piece thinly veiled under the guise of being pro worker that fails to support the main point of algorithmic management of gig workers is worse for everyone but the corporation employing it.
If anything, they proved that shipt's algo did exactly what it was designed and reported to do, make payments more fair.