>The gig economy companies have a long public history of skirting labour laws.
>So when they say "DoorDash has claimed that the new fees they’re charging are a necessary result of raising pay for workers" (according to this page anyway) they invite this type of analysis.
The two paragraphs don't follow each other. Are you saying mcdonalds gets a free pass on price increases (on which they at least partially blame on rising wages), because they have employees rather than contractors? Why should be this the case? As the consumer, shouldn't I be equally angry if mcdonalds is jacking up prices to pump their profits under the guise of "higher labor costs"? Sure, there's plenty of reasons to hate on companies using gig labor, but hating on them for price increases specifically seems closer to bitch eating cracker syndrome[1] than any sort of rational analysis.
> Are you saying mcdonalds gets a free pass on price increases (on which they at least partially blame on rising wages), because they have employees rather than contractors?
McDonalds follows labour laws (whether you think they are fair is immaterial) so they are not in the news with quotes like
"As we have repeatedly make clear in recent months, the ill-conceived, extreme minimum pay rate for food delivery workers in New York City will have significant consequences for everyone who uses our platform"
or
"“Merchants may experience significant declines in order volume as well as negative impacts to service,” the aggregator said in its announcement."
whenever they are forced to follow a new labour law.
> As the consumer, shouldn't I be equally angry if mcdonalds is jacking up prices to pump their profits under the guise of "higher labor costs"?
This post is about worker wages remaining the same (according to their analysis) while DoorDash is out in public claiming the price increase is because of labour laws.
> Sure, there's plenty of reasons to hate on companies using gig labor, but hating on them for price increases specifically seems closer to bitch eating cracker syndrome[1] than any sort of rational analysis.
They are being "hated" on (in this instance) because they are out in the media saying "we had to raise prices because the labour laws are making us pay more" and this post is saying "you do not seem to be raising the wages, so despite what you say there must be another reason".
Not to put words in their mouth, but I read that as basically "when DoorDash says they need to raise prices to pay their workers, I don't believe a word of it."
They have a history of breaking laws, being hostile to labor, and doing whatever they can to maximize profits at everyone else's expense. Why would they balk at lying about the reasons for increasing prices?
>So when they say "DoorDash has claimed that the new fees they’re charging are a necessary result of raising pay for workers" (according to this page anyway) they invite this type of analysis.
The two paragraphs don't follow each other. Are you saying mcdonalds gets a free pass on price increases (on which they at least partially blame on rising wages), because they have employees rather than contractors? Why should be this the case? As the consumer, shouldn't I be equally angry if mcdonalds is jacking up prices to pump their profits under the guise of "higher labor costs"? Sure, there's plenty of reasons to hate on companies using gig labor, but hating on them for price increases specifically seems closer to bitch eating cracker syndrome[1] than any sort of rational analysis.
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bitch_eating_crackers