At the Uber for home cleaning, workers pay a price for convenience(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
At the Uber for home cleaning, workers pay a price for convenience
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/10/at-the-uber-for-home-cleaning-workers-pay-a-price-for-convenience/
95 comments
Yeah I noticed that one as well. Fedex's requirements were absurdly detailed, eg drivers had to keep their keys on the pinky finger of the non-writing hand while outside the truck. The court figuratively rolled its eyes at the claim that the drivers were not employees, and I thought the exact same thing when I saw Homejoy's disclaimer.
Sure, you can put a bold disclaimer like this in your terms of service, in big capital letters so your customers can't say they missed it. But in the event of a legal dispute, courts will consider how you act as well as what you boldly assert. To quote the Homejoy regional manager interview for the article: “Finding qualified talent, individuals who have experience working in this industry, bringing them in to interview and onboarding them — all that takes more time than it takes for a client to go online and book [...]” and it is these services, presumably, for which HomeJoy takes a cut of what the client pays.
And therein lies Homejoy's future legal problem, in my amateur (non lawyer) opinion. It's not the fact of brokering home cleaning services or even making some money out of it - if they were to charge cleaning providers a fixed fee such a monthly listing charge or even a fixed per-job administrative charge for taking care of the billing, then this claim would be easily sustainable. But Homejoy is taking a fairly substantial chunk of change for their expertise; if we take the example of Mr. Walker, who can make $2000 in a good month and has excellent ratings, over a year he might pull in $20,000. It seems like Homejoy would make $7,500 - $10,000 suing the figures in the article, although Homejoy says it's 20% (http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_23983355/homejoy-ceo-...).
Now there's certainly a skill in recruiting and qualifying potential independent contractors - we'll leave aside the question of whether this is something an employer does - but since they don't engage in any sort of training or professional development for their cleaning people, that recruitment and qualification process is fixed cost, whose market value can be assessed - and which I suspect tops out at $1-2000, even including expensive outside services like criminal background checks and so on. Then there are the ongoing expenses of carrying insurance, amortized costs of arbitration providers, payment process, and backend operations...perhaps another $2000 a year, since I'm assuming Homejoy uses the very best products and services the market has to offer.
Even after these generous evaluations of costs incurred per independent contractor, Homejoy seems to be taking a large brokerage fee. By contrast, when I look at the rate structures of online securities brokers (who are by definition matching buyers and sellers, as well as offering a rather more complex software platform to trading clients), they just have some minimal account liquidity requirements and fixed fees of about $10/trade. Homejoy's clients and cleaners might reasonably ask just what it is they're paying such a large amount of cash to Homejoy for over time, because while it's a growing business and they presumably intend to endlessly expand the range, reach, and quality of their services, that's not likely to translate into expanding income for the people who do the cleaning, as there's an upper limit on the amount of money people are willing to spend on residential cleaning services.
Eventually, though, he’d rather be in the position of the bright young staff on laptops whom he had met when he was taking his cleaning test, one of the last times he’d see anyone from Homejoy in person. “I sidled up to them and said, ‘How do I get to where you are?’”
Oh, Mr Walker, what a silly question! Just go to business and/or computer school, after you've paid for the cost of your transit, communications, cleaning supplies, and both the employer and employee share of social security on your self-employment income. You can start by familiarizing yourself with IRS procedures for determining whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor: http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employ... Alternatively, you could work as a customer service representative, where you'll only make $13/hour but you will get awesome benefits, from free food to paid holidays to a pension scheme: https://www.homejoy.com/job-listings?gh_jid=15535#openings-b...
Sure, you can put a bold disclaimer like this in your terms of service, in big capital letters so your customers can't say they missed it. But in the event of a legal dispute, courts will consider how you act as well as what you boldly assert. To quote the Homejoy regional manager interview for the article: “Finding qualified talent, individuals who have experience working in this industry, bringing them in to interview and onboarding them — all that takes more time than it takes for a client to go online and book [...]” and it is these services, presumably, for which HomeJoy takes a cut of what the client pays.
And therein lies Homejoy's future legal problem, in my amateur (non lawyer) opinion. It's not the fact of brokering home cleaning services or even making some money out of it - if they were to charge cleaning providers a fixed fee such a monthly listing charge or even a fixed per-job administrative charge for taking care of the billing, then this claim would be easily sustainable. But Homejoy is taking a fairly substantial chunk of change for their expertise; if we take the example of Mr. Walker, who can make $2000 in a good month and has excellent ratings, over a year he might pull in $20,000. It seems like Homejoy would make $7,500 - $10,000 suing the figures in the article, although Homejoy says it's 20% (http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_23983355/homejoy-ceo-...).
Now there's certainly a skill in recruiting and qualifying potential independent contractors - we'll leave aside the question of whether this is something an employer does - but since they don't engage in any sort of training or professional development for their cleaning people, that recruitment and qualification process is fixed cost, whose market value can be assessed - and which I suspect tops out at $1-2000, even including expensive outside services like criminal background checks and so on. Then there are the ongoing expenses of carrying insurance, amortized costs of arbitration providers, payment process, and backend operations...perhaps another $2000 a year, since I'm assuming Homejoy uses the very best products and services the market has to offer.
Even after these generous evaluations of costs incurred per independent contractor, Homejoy seems to be taking a large brokerage fee. By contrast, when I look at the rate structures of online securities brokers (who are by definition matching buyers and sellers, as well as offering a rather more complex software platform to trading clients), they just have some minimal account liquidity requirements and fixed fees of about $10/trade. Homejoy's clients and cleaners might reasonably ask just what it is they're paying such a large amount of cash to Homejoy for over time, because while it's a growing business and they presumably intend to endlessly expand the range, reach, and quality of their services, that's not likely to translate into expanding income for the people who do the cleaning, as there's an upper limit on the amount of money people are willing to spend on residential cleaning services.
Eventually, though, he’d rather be in the position of the bright young staff on laptops whom he had met when he was taking his cleaning test, one of the last times he’d see anyone from Homejoy in person. “I sidled up to them and said, ‘How do I get to where you are?’”
Oh, Mr Walker, what a silly question! Just go to business and/or computer school, after you've paid for the cost of your transit, communications, cleaning supplies, and both the employer and employee share of social security on your self-employment income. You can start by familiarizing yourself with IRS procedures for determining whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor: http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employ... Alternatively, you could work as a customer service representative, where you'll only make $13/hour but you will get awesome benefits, from free food to paid holidays to a pension scheme: https://www.homejoy.com/job-listings?gh_jid=15535#openings-b...
If you tell someone the job to get done, independent contractor.
If you tell them the job AND direct them how to do it, employee.
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employ...
"Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?
Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)
Type of Relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?"
If you tell them the job AND direct them how to do it, employee.
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employ...
"Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?
Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)
Type of Relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?"
That's a good rule of thumb, but the IRS itself points out there's no hard and fast rule and that it takes them at least 6 months to make a determination in any individual case.
Similarly, Mcdonalds is fighting a case that it doesnt control or influence how franchises pay the workers. Its the whole minimum wage issue being fought out by workers vs Mcds.
Also, if Homejoy is interviewing and qualifying these workers, how are they not employees? The way these workers are treated seems mean-spirited
As a software contractor I also get interviewed and pass basically a normal engineering test/interview process. I don't consider myself an employee of any of my clients.
It seems to me that the relationship between Homejoy and their "contractors" is more akin to you being hired by a contracting company and carrying out the contracts, in which case you are an employee
Did it strike anyone else that this piece was specifically written to discourage people from working with Homejoy? Not clients, but folks who do the cleaning? It seems a number of these articles all have the same touch points which come out of the union organizing handbook, "you deserve paid time off", "you deserve workmans comp", "you deserve a retirement plan" (all things unions have arranged for workers and things which services such as Homejoy don't provide)
The article never seems to go to the question of "Gee there are Janitorial Service companies that offer all of those things, the workers who feel they deserve those things should seek them out at those companies." Except those same companies are losing business to the Homejoys of the world.
That suggests to me that there is a structural imbalance in the availability of labor and a wage floor which prevents that labor from being engaged. That we're getting more people working, is that a bad thing? That more people can get rides in the city is that some how evil? I get that it is a challenge if you're organization is competing with another that isn't similarly constrained, but is the right answer to constrain the competition, or is it to loosen those constraints? Are we trying to keep existing businesses in business or get more people employed?
The article never seems to go to the question of "Gee there are Janitorial Service companies that offer all of those things, the workers who feel they deserve those things should seek them out at those companies." Except those same companies are losing business to the Homejoys of the world.
That suggests to me that there is a structural imbalance in the availability of labor and a wage floor which prevents that labor from being engaged. That we're getting more people working, is that a bad thing? That more people can get rides in the city is that some how evil? I get that it is a challenge if you're organization is competing with another that isn't similarly constrained, but is the right answer to constrain the competition, or is it to loosen those constraints? Are we trying to keep existing businesses in business or get more people employed?
If you'd like to argue for a pure market system then please direct the poor to starve on your door step. Personally, I prefer having this social safety net but it comes with the responsibility of keeping employers from abusing the system as well with things like minwage. That is why how this is evil (read: unfair to other employers).
As the article states this guy gets DC bus rides for free. That annoys me. Homejoy users should pay the full cost of getting their home cleaned. It does not make sense for tax payers (including myself) to be providing a subsidy for home cleaning service.
Is this really the a wage floor or just indirectly abuse of the a social-safety net for cheaper services by the wealthy?
As the article states this guy gets DC bus rides for free. That annoys me. Homejoy users should pay the full cost of getting their home cleaned. It does not make sense for tax payers (including myself) to be providing a subsidy for home cleaning service.
Is this really the a wage floor or just indirectly abuse of the a social-safety net for cheaper services by the wealthy?
Private companies such as traditional unionized(?) maid service organizations shouldn't be trusted to provide a social safety net either.
Unemployment was lower when slavery was the order of the day. That doesn't mean it was a good approach.
So you agree with the narrative that non-union employees are no better off than slaves? I would be interested in how you reason to that point of view.
No, their statement was that lowering unemployment is not an adequate sign of whether or not the labor force is healthy using an example from the past.
Mostly they are trying to build a business without taking any of the responsibilities.
"What’s more, to maintain its relationship with employees as independent contractors, the company can’t train them or provide much in the way of material assistance."
My wife and I have been using Homejoy for the past several months now, and I'm never satisfied with the results. After every cleaning, I tell myself that I'm going to look for a real cleaning service company next time. But then the low prices keep me coming back to Homejoy.
I've found the quality of service from the Homejoy cleaners to be insufficient. Every time it's always a different problem (I try to schedule cleanings when I'm home). One cleaner spent a disproportionate amount of time cleaning the toilet, and then didn't have time to clean the bathtub (I ended up scrubbing the bathtub myself after the cleaner left). Another time, the cleaners forget to dust off the TV stand, and I had to do it myself. I've had to clean or re-clean something myself about 80% of the time I've used Homejoy.
My complaints may sound insensitive, and fall under the category of "first-world problems", but when both my spouse and I are working long hours, hiring cleaning services can become very helpful (it's a common anecdote that hiring a housekeeper can save your marriage).
As the article states, my suspicion is that in this "independent contractor" model, Homejoy does not adequately train its contractors in cleaning, nor are the contractors they hire experienced in the cleaning industry. I remember reading that Homejoy used to put their contractors through an orientation/training program, but it's obviously not enough.
I've used other housekeeping services from real cleaning companies before, and they've always done an amazing job, especially compared to Homejoy. They're just usually two to three times more expensive. But maybe next time I'll really switch back to a real cleaning service (or at least try to find a city-single independent on craigslist).
My wife and I have been using Homejoy for the past several months now, and I'm never satisfied with the results. After every cleaning, I tell myself that I'm going to look for a real cleaning service company next time. But then the low prices keep me coming back to Homejoy.
I've found the quality of service from the Homejoy cleaners to be insufficient. Every time it's always a different problem (I try to schedule cleanings when I'm home). One cleaner spent a disproportionate amount of time cleaning the toilet, and then didn't have time to clean the bathtub (I ended up scrubbing the bathtub myself after the cleaner left). Another time, the cleaners forget to dust off the TV stand, and I had to do it myself. I've had to clean or re-clean something myself about 80% of the time I've used Homejoy.
My complaints may sound insensitive, and fall under the category of "first-world problems", but when both my spouse and I are working long hours, hiring cleaning services can become very helpful (it's a common anecdote that hiring a housekeeper can save your marriage).
As the article states, my suspicion is that in this "independent contractor" model, Homejoy does not adequately train its contractors in cleaning, nor are the contractors they hire experienced in the cleaning industry. I remember reading that Homejoy used to put their contractors through an orientation/training program, but it's obviously not enough.
I've used other housekeeping services from real cleaning companies before, and they've always done an amazing job, especially compared to Homejoy. They're just usually two to three times more expensive. But maybe next time I'll really switch back to a real cleaning service (or at least try to find a city-single independent on craigslist).
Just do it. We pay $65 a week to have our place cleaned by a Polish woman and she does a great job. She's super nice, does a great job, and is reliable. We have a 2-bed 2-bath, and it takes her round about two hours. So HomeJoy is diappointing you at $25 per hour. Go to Care.com, write a bullet point list of what you want done each week (we have some every other week stuff like inside the fridge, etc). Wait til you have 10 or so answers, respond to 2-3 that seem good, and go buy them coffee. Pick one. Never worry about it again.
I had a very similar experience. I love the cleaning lady I found through a more traditional route: word of mouth. But when I heard about Homejoy I had to give it a try, it is a little cheaper. But the cleaner they sent did a significantly worse job than my regular cleaner. Cleaning isn't something that everyone knows how to do, in fact most people don't really know how to clean. Without training, I don't see how Homejoy can offer any guarantee of quality, which is why I won't be using them in the future. Booking online is nice, but if the quality isn't there, it isn't worth it. I do pay my cleaner significantly more than $10/hour, but I feel fine about it. Since I have met her and see her pretty regularly, I would feel guilty if I felt like I wasn't paying her enough to live off of, and $10/hour in the Bay Area isn't enough to live off of. It might not be as convenient as online booking, but all the money goes directly to her, and I feel good about that.
alternate experience:
I've been a Homejoy customer for over a year. My wife and I have had the same cleaner for nearly all the appointments. We are very happy with the work she does.
For me, the killer application of Homejoy is in the scheduling and billing. Other local cleaning companies that had staff did not have the same web-based scheduling and payment tools.
I've been a Homejoy customer for over a year. My wife and I have had the same cleaner for nearly all the appointments. We are very happy with the work she does.
For me, the killer application of Homejoy is in the scheduling and billing. Other local cleaning companies that had staff did not have the same web-based scheduling and payment tools.
Since you already now this person for more than a year, why keep using Homejoy? You could make a deal with her that benefits both parties (she'd get 100% of the profits and you'd pay less since Homejoy is not in the middle)
- just curious how Homejoy manage to keep clients coming back to them.
I would expect that, the same way staffing services do (staffing services also offer an out for this, with a fee to the employer in the contract), their agreement with both the customer and the contractor/employee prohibits either from contracting with the other outside of Homejoy once they've been matched through Homejoy.
Not sure how they enforce it, though.
Not sure how they enforce it, though.
homejoy handles all billing and scheduling. i'm satisfied with the price and benefits
If anything, your story backs up the OP's one - your experience depends entirely on the quality of your cleaner, which is something that Homejoy do not control.
Yes, I agree that Homejoy's scheduling and billing experience is very nice.
I've been using different cleaners every time because of my experiences. But maybe next time, I should try sticking with just one. That way, the cleaner and I can start to build a relationship and they can get to know our apartment better. Then, maybe we can have a better overall experience.
I've been using different cleaners every time because of my experiences. But maybe next time, I should try sticking with just one. That way, the cleaner and I can start to build a relationship and they can get to know our apartment better. Then, maybe we can have a better overall experience.
The billing makes sense but, can you provide any detail about why scheduling is important to you? Is this really an ad-hoc service for you?
In my experience with HomeJoy and Exec (now HandyBook), they understand the value of recurring revenue and are actively pushing for customers to have regular service. For this kind of service, I would think that would be very normal.
In my experience with HomeJoy and Exec (now HandyBook), they understand the value of recurring revenue and are actively pushing for customers to have regular service. For this kind of service, I would think that would be very normal.
I do use recurring service with Homejoy, every two weeks.
Scheduling is basically on autopilot, unless there's the odd case of my cleaner cannot come (weather, sickness, other stuff), or my cleaning date falls on a holiday. Being able to have Homejoy handle all the details of adjusting appointments (since they know my desired cleaner's full availability) is nice.
Scheduling is basically on autopilot, unless there's the odd case of my cleaner cannot come (weather, sickness, other stuff), or my cleaning date falls on a holiday. Being able to have Homejoy handle all the details of adjusting appointments (since they know my desired cleaner's full availability) is nice.
That sounds like the way all traditionally "scheduled" services work. That's what makes me wonder about this model. A scheduled service is just not the same a ride.
The interesting thing is that Homejoy built that software, but instead of selling it to all of the local cleaning companies, they started a business to replace all of the local cleaning companies.
We'll see long term which of those two areas is more important (i.e. running a cleaning service, vs writing software for a cleaning service).
We'll see long term which of those two areas is more important (i.e. running a cleaning service, vs writing software for a cleaning service).
Bookmark this post for the next debate about the "programmer shortage" and engineer salaries.
Out of curiosity, what's the sq. footage of your living space?
It's a 2BR 2BA at about 1000 sq ft.
As with Uber & AirBnb this seems to be trend of moving the people providing the actual service from employees to independent contractors. Its a situation where both the consumer and the contractors are less protected and taken care of.
I find this a step backwards; but it remains to be seen if this is just a harbinger of change or just a passing fad.
I find this a step backwards; but it remains to be seen if this is just a harbinger of change or just a passing fad.
I have to agree. I think the "independent contractor" model has massive risk to the future of the US. Some of the biggest startups (Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, Homejoy, etc.) are building huge business models built on huge workforces of "independent workforces".
If the trend continues, this could mean a massive shift in the US's labor force from salaried jobs to independent contractors. A lot of folks in the Valley view this as a positive innovation, but I think this is a clear case where the free market is not going to work out what's best for our society.
Imagine a future world where companies like Uber are the norm. A majority of the workforce will face issues like: * No regulation on working hours (i.e. the industrial revolution v2) * Massive healthcare costs born on the taxpayer due to lack of employer provided healthcare (i.e. going past what we already see with corporations like Walmart) * Lack of retirement benefits for the workforce as they age (401k, pension, social security). People may argue that the government shouldn't force people to save, but what is likely to happen is that the taxpayer will bear the burden of supporting a lot of this population. * Lack of unemployment insurance which means that our labor force will largely be unprepared for the normal boom & bust cycle of our economy * Lack of worker's comp which means that employee's won't be shield from low probability high risk events
The scenario feels like a deja vu; during the Industrial revolution, we hit a point where technology progress was leading to inhumane working conditions for manufacturing workers. Eventually regulation caught up, but this was definitely not something that the free market sorted out on its own.
Are we really prepared to live in a society where independent contractors are the majority of our workforce and lack basic labor protections?
If the trend continues, this could mean a massive shift in the US's labor force from salaried jobs to independent contractors. A lot of folks in the Valley view this as a positive innovation, but I think this is a clear case where the free market is not going to work out what's best for our society.
Imagine a future world where companies like Uber are the norm. A majority of the workforce will face issues like: * No regulation on working hours (i.e. the industrial revolution v2) * Massive healthcare costs born on the taxpayer due to lack of employer provided healthcare (i.e. going past what we already see with corporations like Walmart) * Lack of retirement benefits for the workforce as they age (401k, pension, social security). People may argue that the government shouldn't force people to save, but what is likely to happen is that the taxpayer will bear the burden of supporting a lot of this population. * Lack of unemployment insurance which means that our labor force will largely be unprepared for the normal boom & bust cycle of our economy * Lack of worker's comp which means that employee's won't be shield from low probability high risk events
The scenario feels like a deja vu; during the Industrial revolution, we hit a point where technology progress was leading to inhumane working conditions for manufacturing workers. Eventually regulation caught up, but this was definitely not something that the free market sorted out on its own.
Are we really prepared to live in a society where independent contractors are the majority of our workforce and lack basic labor protections?
* working hours: but this time around, the market for piecework is much more competitive; just look at the lyft/uber drivers for example.
* health care: realistically, health care costs for poor people are born by society in any case. The questions are about whether we should do it in a simple, centralized way (socialized medicine) or in more complex ways (employer-purchased insurance companies and laws that require hospitals to provide emergency care)
* retirement: Pensions are already dead except for government workers. And it's the government that binds 401(k) plans to corporate employment; that can easily be changed.
* insurance: the government already insures the population against risks such as disability and unemployment. We can do more of this or less...
No, our society is not prepared to handle this new way of coordinating labor. I'm sure the political process of agreeing about how to change will be pretty rocky. But the industrial revolution didn't wait for societies to prepare, and I don't see any fundamental reason to think we can't handle this.
No, our society is not prepared to handle this new way of coordinating labor. I'm sure the political process of agreeing about how to change will be pretty rocky. But the industrial revolution didn't wait for societies to prepare, and I don't see any fundamental reason to think we can't handle this.
Another way to think about this is to analyze the service provider's own business model. Homejoy offers itself to its clients as a 'venue' where they can find qualified cleaning professionals, so the commission they take on their brokerage of cleaning services is a combination of costs, normal profits (essentailly your opportunity cost at market rates), and economic rent (of the brand).
As an European, I find it funny to see tax-payer funded healthcare depicted as a great tragedy :)
In any case, I'm sure health insurance companies are pretty happy to know they have people volunteering to play the role in this reenactment of Baptists and Bootleggers.
In any case, I'm sure health insurance companies are pretty happy to know they have people volunteering to play the role in this reenactment of Baptists and Bootleggers.
I think we're in the midst of something like the "Industrial Revolution", but can't quite see it yet. Only in hindsight, once the dust settles, will we be able to make sense of what's happening and changing. We're entering a new kind of economy at a macro scale that the world has not quite witnessed before.
But the changes are happening around us, and I think this "independent contractor" model will be a big force during this new "industrial revolution." Companies, empowered by technology, are trying to become more cost efficient, and in a short-sighted way, the single largest cost sheet for any company are its employees.
Personally, I think Capitalism as we know it will reach its limits once technology reaches a certain threshold of efficiency; we just don't need as many people working the same amount of hours anymore.[1] (isn't that the very definition of efficiency?) Then we as a society will need to figure out another way to live (new-style of feudalism? welfare state?). But until that new model comes in to play, and we're in the middle of this new "industrial revolution", the contractor model will be set to dominate.
[1] http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-tec...
But the changes are happening around us, and I think this "independent contractor" model will be a big force during this new "industrial revolution." Companies, empowered by technology, are trying to become more cost efficient, and in a short-sighted way, the single largest cost sheet for any company are its employees.
Personally, I think Capitalism as we know it will reach its limits once technology reaches a certain threshold of efficiency; we just don't need as many people working the same amount of hours anymore.[1] (isn't that the very definition of efficiency?) Then we as a society will need to figure out another way to live (new-style of feudalism? welfare state?). But until that new model comes in to play, and we're in the middle of this new "industrial revolution", the contractor model will be set to dominate.
[1] http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-tec...
Wow, I just typed out something similar, referenced the "Industrial Revolution", and was thinking along the exact same lines as you.
It's clearly a harbinger of change. The cost of hiring a cleaning service is X+Y, where X is labor and Y is overhead (including insurance, etc). Customers seem to be demonstrating that they are willing to take some risks in order to get services with reduced Y, and workers are demonstrating that they are willing to take some risks in return for money and flexibility.
The only way this is a passing fad is if customer or employee risk aversion suddenly drastically increases. I don't see any compelling reason why it would.
The only way this is a passing fad is if customer or employee risk aversion suddenly drastically increases. I don't see any compelling reason why it would.
> and workers are demonstrating that they are willing to take some risks in return for money and flexibility.
Workers are only willing to do this because, as you read in the article, the only other choice is to be unemployed. They are not choosing this voluntarily.
Workers are only willing to do this because, as you read in the article, the only other choice is to be unemployed. They are not choosing this voluntarily.
Also, the companies are deflecting costs back onto taxpayers by ensuring that many of their workers will need to depend on government services for health care, housing and food assistance, etc. Sure, some of these taskrabbits/ubers/lyfters/whatever are making a real wage at this stuff, but many of them are also minimally employed –– and trying hard to get work as they can get it.
In so many ways, we are all subsidizing these companies.
In so many ways, we are all subsidizing these companies.
I'm sorry you're getting downvoted; you're absolutely correct.
I can't rely directly to yummyfajitas, but here is a NYT article that summarizes the issue[1]:
"“They may be able to paint someone’s shed this week,” says Dr. Standing, a professor of developmental studies at the University of London. “But they don’t know what will happen next week.”
He views peer marketplaces as part of a larger global phenomenon, in which labor brokers encourage people to work on contingency without basic employment benefits or protections. The companies essentially channel one-off tasks to the fastest taker or lowest bidder, he says, pitting workers against one another in a kind of labor elimination match.
The flexible timetables of project work are a trade-off for regular employment income and benefits. Retailers, restaurant chains and other employers may require more rigid work schedules than piecemeal gigs, or, worse, keep their workers guessing from week to week about which hours they will work. But many of those employers also offer workers benefits like disability pay or commuter discounts.
Uber, Lyft and TaskRabbit, for instance, do not regard the workers who provide services to their users as employees. The companies say they are simply arenas, like eBays for gigs. They require their service providers to work as independent contractors and, as such, the workers don’t qualify for employee benefits like health insurance, payroll deductions for Social Security or unemployment benefits."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/technology/in-the-sharing-...
"“They may be able to paint someone’s shed this week,” says Dr. Standing, a professor of developmental studies at the University of London. “But they don’t know what will happen next week.”
He views peer marketplaces as part of a larger global phenomenon, in which labor brokers encourage people to work on contingency without basic employment benefits or protections. The companies essentially channel one-off tasks to the fastest taker or lowest bidder, he says, pitting workers against one another in a kind of labor elimination match.
The flexible timetables of project work are a trade-off for regular employment income and benefits. Retailers, restaurant chains and other employers may require more rigid work schedules than piecemeal gigs, or, worse, keep their workers guessing from week to week about which hours they will work. But many of those employers also offer workers benefits like disability pay or commuter discounts.
Uber, Lyft and TaskRabbit, for instance, do not regard the workers who provide services to their users as employees. The companies say they are simply arenas, like eBays for gigs. They require their service providers to work as independent contractors and, as such, the workers don’t qualify for employee benefits like health insurance, payroll deductions for Social Security or unemployment benefits."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/technology/in-the-sharing-...
I think we're seeing the result of this not working out, between Uber and Lyft, Homejoy's article, and TaskRabbit moving away from an auction marketplace.
I'm confused. Are you trying to assert that if homejoy did not exist, these workers would be receiving higher wages and would not need government services?
Or perhaps that if the government services you describe (e.g., free money if you don't work) did not exist, workers would have a stronger bargaining position to request higher rates from homejoy?
Could you clarify your counterfactual?
Or perhaps that if the government services you describe (e.g., free money if you don't work) did not exist, workers would have a stronger bargaining position to request higher rates from homejoy?
Could you clarify your counterfactual?
Neither of those situations you provide above.
As noted in the article I link and quote further down the thread, these companies utilize an often-desperate workforce that will take whatever they can get to work. These companies keep their workers as independent contractors without any benefits. Sometimes that is fine, especially if someone is working as a Taskrabbit during his/her weekend to make some extra money. But the reality is that many of these people are relying on these services for nearly all their income and then leaning heavily on government support to make up the difference (i.e. what keeps a roof over their head or food in their stomach).
I am not making a case for any wholesale policy change on the part of these new services. I am just stating that there is baggage here and that maybe it would be better if benefits were offered through these jobs to their workers/contractors so that the customer pays for the complete cost of the service and that business model, instead of taxpayers.
And I am no economist or expert in the matter ––– all I know is either from news articles or anecdotes. Maybe I'm wrong.
As noted in the article I link and quote further down the thread, these companies utilize an often-desperate workforce that will take whatever they can get to work. These companies keep their workers as independent contractors without any benefits. Sometimes that is fine, especially if someone is working as a Taskrabbit during his/her weekend to make some extra money. But the reality is that many of these people are relying on these services for nearly all their income and then leaning heavily on government support to make up the difference (i.e. what keeps a roof over their head or food in their stomach).
I am not making a case for any wholesale policy change on the part of these new services. I am just stating that there is baggage here and that maybe it would be better if benefits were offered through these jobs to their workers/contractors so that the customer pays for the complete cost of the service and that business model, instead of taxpayers.
And I am no economist or expert in the matter ––– all I know is either from news articles or anecdotes. Maybe I'm wrong.
The value the customer gets from the labour should be higher than the cost the employer pays to labour, otherwise no labour will be bought or sold.
If the price of a persons labour is insufficient for their living needs the only option is to draw it from society (welfare/charity) or have them suffer. Trying to pass that on to the customers or the employers of labour directly will result in unemployment.
If the price of a persons labour is insufficient for their living needs the only option is to draw it from society (welfare/charity) or have them suffer. Trying to pass that on to the customers or the employers of labour directly will result in unemployment.
For the programs you describe to be a subsidy for Homejoy/Taskrabbit, then those companies need to actually be benefiting from them. From your description, it seems to be a subsidy for the workers, not Homejoy/Taskrabbet.
Like everyone else.
That's the way the market is moving, but that doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it. Society is not some race to the bottom to be the last person to starve to death in the gutter. A lot of hard-won labor victories (overtime, breaks, termination rights, FMLA, etc) are being lost here and we don't have to accept it. I know regulation and unionization are dirty words here, but they are some of the very few weapons to fight this trend.
Are you saying that everyone in the country hates their job, is barely scraping by, and only does it because they have no other choice?
I don't think customers are always informed of that risk though, especially when a company is simply ignoring regulations that the customer assumes are being followed.
Perhaps Homejoy should put this on their site in order to make sure customers are informed:
“THE COMPANY DOES NOT PROVIDE CLEANING SERVICES, AND THE COMPANY IS NOT A CLEANING SERVICE PROVIDER. . . . THE COMPANY OFFERS INFORMATION AND A METHOD TO OBTAIN SUCH THIRD PARTY CLEANING SERVICES, BUT DOES NOT AND DOES NOT INTEND TO PROVIDE CLEANING SERVICES OR ACT IN ANY WAY AS A CLEANING SERVICE PROVIDER, AND HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY FOR ANY CLEANING SERVICES PROVIDED TO YOU BY SUCH THIRD PARTIES.”
“THE COMPANY DOES NOT PROVIDE CLEANING SERVICES, AND THE COMPANY IS NOT A CLEANING SERVICE PROVIDER. . . . THE COMPANY OFFERS INFORMATION AND A METHOD TO OBTAIN SUCH THIRD PARTY CLEANING SERVICES, BUT DOES NOT AND DOES NOT INTEND TO PROVIDE CLEANING SERVICES OR ACT IN ANY WAY AS A CLEANING SERVICE PROVIDER, AND HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY FOR ANY CLEANING SERVICES PROVIDED TO YOU BY SUCH THIRD PARTIES.”
Which is contradicted by their home page, which says "Get your place cleaned" and "we will come back and re-clean it"
this is a good point, and while TOS may 'legally' protect a company via so-called 'consent' the reality is people often have a different idea of what they THOUGHT they were getting in to and what legally the company claims they can get away with.
This is the kind of things that eventually lead to class action suits, but settling this via the courts takes years.
This is the kind of things that eventually lead to class action suits, but settling this via the courts takes years.
It seems more true that workers have signalled that they are desperate. This is doubly true with workers with only a high school education and those who are minorities.
We have some major structural employment issues going on.
We have some major structural employment issues going on.
You realize that "structural employment issues" refers to the either a) an inability for buyers and sellers to find each other or b) a bunch of sellers have no willing buyers at any price?
Homejoy is resolving those structural issues by making it easier for buyers and sellers to find each other.
Homejoy is resolving those structural issues by making it easier for buyers and sellers to find each other.
The ever-growing group b) isn't helped by Homejoy etc. No matter how low their price or how low the search costs get, they still have no purchasers. Their labor has either zero or negative marginal product.
That's a structural issue: just as aging pulls people out of the labor pool, the increased substitutability of capital for labor is pulling out working-age adults from the pool of workers who are realistically able to work. Homejoy etc. does help the people at the margins of this pool who wouldn't otherwise be affordable to employ (e.g. due to overhead costs), but it doesn't obviate the basic structural trends happening.
That's a structural issue: just as aging pulls people out of the labor pool, the increased substitutability of capital for labor is pulling out working-age adults from the pool of workers who are realistically able to work. Homejoy etc. does help the people at the margins of this pool who wouldn't otherwise be affordable to employ (e.g. due to overhead costs), but it doesn't obviate the basic structural trends happening.
Why do you believe group (b) is growing? Is the number of people who are disabled and unable to clean a home or do any other useful work increasing?
I don't see either the user or contractor as "less protected" In fact, my experience with homejoy has been the opposite.
When I gave a rating of literally "Meh. 5/10" for a decent but not impressive cleaning job, they went nuts--found me a new cleaner, offered discounts, said they would work with the cleaner to make sure she learned lessons, etc. way more than i would have done if i were hiring her directly.
On the other side, if a cleaner thought my house was disgusting or hated my cats or something, I presume it would be easier for him to decline the job than if he were an employee of a service with contracts and reputations.
Of course there are no guarantees about how they will dish out that $7M insurance fund but based on my experience with them, I have a feeling HJ would err on the side of paying more and maintaining their reputation.
When I gave a rating of literally "Meh. 5/10" for a decent but not impressive cleaning job, they went nuts--found me a new cleaner, offered discounts, said they would work with the cleaner to make sure she learned lessons, etc. way more than i would have done if i were hiring her directly.
On the other side, if a cleaner thought my house was disgusting or hated my cats or something, I presume it would be easier for him to decline the job than if he were an employee of a service with contracts and reputations.
Of course there are no guarantees about how they will dish out that $7M insurance fund but based on my experience with them, I have a feeling HJ would err on the side of paying more and maintaining their reputation.
> I presume it would be easier for him to decline the job than if he were an employee of a service with contracts and reputations.
Do you have any reason to believe that outside of a need to avoid cognitive dissonance? I ask because it is well-known that for some services (e.g. Uber) refusing open contracts will result in penalties or termination of the agreement with the service.
Do you have any reason to believe that outside of a need to avoid cognitive dissonance? I ask because it is well-known that for some services (e.g. Uber) refusing open contracts will result in penalties or termination of the agreement with the service.
When you say "5/10" you mean "decent but not impressive".
When most people give "5/10" they mean "terrible, but did not shit of the coffee table".
Did they check with you what you meant by 5/10?
When most people give "5/10" they mean "terrible, but did not shit of the coffee table".
Did they check with you what you meant by 5/10?
Just continuing the practice of hollowing everything out, making everything a little cheaper and a little worse at a time. Turning employees into contractors, etc.
Fast food is too expensive for this person. That doesn't strike me as an awesome situation.
Fast food is too expensive for this person. That doesn't strike me as an awesome situation.
[deleted]
This article looks at supply side but ignores the demand side benefits to the sharing economy model. It works from an assumption that someone else other than the business offering a service and the contractor willing to work it knows best.
Boiled down - full time jobs good, contract jobs bad. Reasoning? We talked to this guy who has a cute kid he is struggling to protect. We also talked to a regulator who gets ink for saying it is awful, just awful.
If contract is undesirable then apply for work at a traditional cleaning service. He now has the experience through HomeJoy, seems doable.
Should he be making what the coders and web devs who built HomeJoy make? No. He doesn't have those skills yet.
Society owes him:
1. The opportunity to learn the skills to compete in our economy. (With our education system, I fear he's not received what he is owed here...and if so, injustice.)
2. A free market to "find your wage" or "start your own" based on the extent to which you can build things others want.
This guy is a hard worker. Software is eating the world and changing the rules. When that happens, many opportunities and new niches are created. I hope that the regulators realize this and let it continue. I hope that this guy finds a profitable place in the changes.
Boiled down - full time jobs good, contract jobs bad. Reasoning? We talked to this guy who has a cute kid he is struggling to protect. We also talked to a regulator who gets ink for saying it is awful, just awful.
If contract is undesirable then apply for work at a traditional cleaning service. He now has the experience through HomeJoy, seems doable.
Should he be making what the coders and web devs who built HomeJoy make? No. He doesn't have those skills yet.
Society owes him:
1. The opportunity to learn the skills to compete in our economy. (With our education system, I fear he's not received what he is owed here...and if so, injustice.)
2. A free market to "find your wage" or "start your own" based on the extent to which you can build things others want.
This guy is a hard worker. Software is eating the world and changing the rules. When that happens, many opportunities and new niches are created. I hope that the regulators realize this and let it continue. I hope that this guy finds a profitable place in the changes.
Hope is nice, but it doesn't get the guy housing or food or health insurance.
As a society, we're moving toward a new economic model. One that's superior in terms of creating output and wealth, but strikingly materially inferior for lots of people: it requires a different and much less broad-based skill set than the old economy required. It's possible for an individual to find the odd piecemeal job that requires those old-style skills, but extremely difficult to make a real living off of it.
Short of turning people into soylent green or magically educating everyone to above the current median skill level, I see the only real solution to this problem to be a basic income or a job guarantee. (I don't, however, see any way for US political institutions to create those solutions.)
As a society, we're moving toward a new economic model. One that's superior in terms of creating output and wealth, but strikingly materially inferior for lots of people: it requires a different and much less broad-based skill set than the old economy required. It's possible for an individual to find the odd piecemeal job that requires those old-style skills, but extremely difficult to make a real living off of it.
Short of turning people into soylent green or magically educating everyone to above the current median skill level, I see the only real solution to this problem to be a basic income or a job guarantee. (I don't, however, see any way for US political institutions to create those solutions.)
> educating everyone to above the current median skill level
I see improving education as the best solution here. There is plenty of room for innovation and improvement.
I see improving education as the best solution here. There is plenty of room for innovation and improvement.
The issue is that we've been pointing to education as the solution for decades. Despite that, we still have no real clue as to how to improve education, and this is particularly true for the bottom 20% of performers--throwing more teachers or different curriculum at them has resolutely failed, experimentation by charter and independent schools hasn't given us any plausibly paradigm-changing leads, and initiatives like Khan Academy and Coursera are focused on self-directed learners, who that bottom 20% definitely are not.
Obviously better education would be the dream solution for taxpayers, society, and students, but so far as I can tell it's just a dream that never translates to reality.
Obviously better education would be the dream solution for taxpayers, society, and students, but so far as I can tell it's just a dream that never translates to reality.
Education also finds itself on the chopping block before anything else in this country. This leads to things like Universities hiring researchers over instructors so they can somehow justify themselves before the politicians who want to remove funding whenever they can.
We point at education, but we don't exactly supply it with the capability to perform what we want it to.
We point at education, but we don't exactly supply it with the capability to perform what we want it to.
It's not about the abstract regulators, it's about the voters. I imagine we're not too far away from the uber-ization (really, the contracter-ization) of the economy becoming a political issue.
As much as I'm not really interested in having lengthy conversations with my cleaning person (she's there to clean, not hang out), I do interact with her. I don't mind the interaction. I "know" her. Our kids attend the same school even. If we're not going to be around, we leave a key where she knows it will be. Even if we are there when she arrives, we usually take off at some point (as it is distracting to be working while they're trying to vacuum, etc). I would be very uneasy about having an unknown person coming into my house when I'm not there. I would not just order a cleaner online like this.
For an anecdotal counterpoint, I started using Homejoy about 2 months ago. I've had 5-6 different cleaners at this point. I asked the last 3 cleaners what they think of working for Homejoy and they unanimously replied that they love it. The pay is pretty good and all three said that they love how Homejoy gives them jobs and then gets out of the way.
I wonder if the worker in the article is representative of most Homejoy cleaners. He takes the bus to get across town, which turns a 2.5-hour cleaning into a 5-hour task. I think all of the cleaners I've had so far have cars, so in those cases, they're making $50 for 2.5 hours of work and maybe 15-60 minutes of commuting, instead of 150 minutes of commuting. The economics are much better in that scenario.
My anecdotes do not address the issues of workers comp or unemployment insurance, but the people I've met through Homejoy so far seem very happy to work there.
I wonder if the worker in the article is representative of most Homejoy cleaners. He takes the bus to get across town, which turns a 2.5-hour cleaning into a 5-hour task. I think all of the cleaners I've had so far have cars, so in those cases, they're making $50 for 2.5 hours of work and maybe 15-60 minutes of commuting, instead of 150 minutes of commuting. The economics are much better in that scenario.
My anecdotes do not address the issues of workers comp or unemployment insurance, but the people I've met through Homejoy so far seem very happy to work there.
> they unanimously replied that they love it
If I were an employee, I'd say that too. Especially given that they are rated by the clients. If you were badmouthing your own employer, the chances of you getting a 5-star rating are significantly lower.
If I were an employee, I'd say that too. Especially given that they are rated by the clients. If you were badmouthing your own employer, the chances of you getting a 5-star rating are significantly lower.
That's a great observation. I agree, though I felt like the people I talked to were more effusive than they would have been out of obligation. (That is, they could've said, "It's nice." instead of gushing for 5 minutes.)
I really couldn't imagine using one of these services and dealing with an independent contractor. Too many things can go wrong in a house.
The cleaning service I used tried to move a dresser to clean behind it better and in the process scratched the hell out of the wood floors. I appreciated the over eagerness to clean, but it was still a big screw up. The company handled it, we got estimates from a few refinishers and they cut us a check for the highest one.
I know that this is possible with an independent contractor, but I know its highly unlikely that that would happen.
I pay a premium for the service because of that, and because they treat their employees well and pay a good wage with benefits, the employees in turn work their asses off for it and the owner has a waiting list of new employees every time he has expanded his team.
Service economy is great for people in our line of work who can command a high rate and have something to lose if we screw up. I'm not convinced that it works well pushed down to this level with people who already have so little.
The cleaning service I used tried to move a dresser to clean behind it better and in the process scratched the hell out of the wood floors. I appreciated the over eagerness to clean, but it was still a big screw up. The company handled it, we got estimates from a few refinishers and they cut us a check for the highest one.
I know that this is possible with an independent contractor, but I know its highly unlikely that that would happen.
I pay a premium for the service because of that, and because they treat their employees well and pay a good wage with benefits, the employees in turn work their asses off for it and the owner has a waiting list of new employees every time he has expanded his team.
Service economy is great for people in our line of work who can command a high rate and have something to lose if we screw up. I'm not convinced that it works well pushed down to this level with people who already have so little.
As someone who has used similar services (not Homejoy) the hardest part is quality control and consistency. For this type of service you typically give a rundown to the first crew for what you need, places to avoid etc... they also do tend to be late or not on the time they say they will be at the place of employment.
With rotating crews this process has to be repeated each time, and the results are always very different.
I would much prefer a more personalized service that is a bit more expensive, but keeps the crew consistent and gives better benefits. Sadly these are very hard to find.
With rotating crews this process has to be repeated each time, and the results are always very different.
I would much prefer a more personalized service that is a bit more expensive, but keeps the crew consistent and gives better benefits. Sadly these are very hard to find.
Suppose I find a good cleaner. Without an ordinary job contract, they lose nothing from striking a deal to do my house again, without the middleman. Has this issue arisen?
This, like the inability to take Homejoy to court (yeah right), is probably against the <Booming-Voice-Of-God>TERMS OF SERVICE</Booming-Voice-Of-God>!!
After looking at the numbers a little closer, it doesn't seem that Homejoy would be any cheaper (for me at least). It seems they charge $25-$35 an hour. It is not clear if that is per cleaner or not. I get the impression it is "per hour per cleaner" if more than one arrived. I started a booking at Homejoy and put in my bedroom/bathroom count and it recommended 7 hours. Even at their low end, 7 hours is $175.
I currently use a person that has a small team so usually 2-3 people come to my house. And they usually spend 2-3 hours cleaning. So we've got 6-8 person-hours (which fits with Homejoy's estimate if 1 person came). I pay a flat fee of $180 for them to clean my house... so roughly $25-30 an hour.
I don't know what my person pays her employees (it seems mostly a family business) but I have to believe that NOT paying for Homejoy's cut puts more money in all their pockets. Maybe I should just be thankful I found a good cleaner for a good price.
I currently use a person that has a small team so usually 2-3 people come to my house. And they usually spend 2-3 hours cleaning. So we've got 6-8 person-hours (which fits with Homejoy's estimate if 1 person came). I pay a flat fee of $180 for them to clean my house... so roughly $25-30 an hour.
I don't know what my person pays her employees (it seems mostly a family business) but I have to believe that NOT paying for Homejoy's cut puts more money in all their pockets. Maybe I should just be thankful I found a good cleaner for a good price.
Your crew is probably not paying taxes, and maybe pays less per person than homejoy.
She is a company. She pays taxes. Like I said, I don't know what she pays her people.
Can someone who uses this service answer a question: If this guy, who is in the top 30% of cleaners in DC builds a reputation, can his bill rate, and thereby his income go up? If this is the case it sounds like a great way for someone who is a hard worker, but lacks skills to make a fair living.
A more sensible solution to me would be that the booking agency takes a 10-15% cut for handling booking, billing, etc., because they're not the ones doing the work.
Homejoy in Dallas charges $35 hour unless you agree to 2 or more cleanings a month then it is $25.
They give you the option to rebook the same cleaner but it is weird. We changed it to clean every week and our person did not show up. then we change it to like clean once a month and they did.
The receipt gives you the cleaners address and name
They give you the option to rebook the same cleaner but it is weird. We changed it to clean every week and our person did not show up. then we change it to like clean once a month and they did.
The receipt gives you the cleaners address and name
Just as a historical note, despite getting some 58 upvotes and having perfectly good discussion, this story was flagged off the front page within an hour or so.
There's nothing that Hacker News hates more than any suggestion that the world we live in is less than perfectly fair and equitable.
There's nothing that Hacker News hates more than any suggestion that the world we live in is less than perfectly fair and equitable.
The best thing you as a customer can do in these cases is if you find a good cleaner, work with them directly instead of through Homejoy. Then you don't have to pay for the middle man.
you could use Homejoy to find a good cleaner and then talk to them directly, they are a contractor and are free to make a contract with anyone they wish.
I would be quite interested to read the contract that cleaners have to sign with HomeJoy to see how it addresses this situation.
They are not employees of HomeJoy.
What does that have to do with the discussion above, which is about contractual arrangements?
Because the more contractual arrangements they have the more the start looking like employees. FedEx is dealing with this right now with their contract workers.
I still don't see your point. Are you saying HomeJoy's cleaners don't have a contractual relationship with the company? That seems highly unlikely. I just expressed an interest in reading the terms of the contract that I assumet hey have, given that they're described as independent contractors.
Uber drivers make a lot more and most aren't full-time. I workout with a guy that loves it. For him it's just extra cash, and it's extra serious cash.
There was a court case recently concerning FedEx's declaration that many of their drivers in California and Oregon are "private contractors", even though the drivers drive FedEx trucks, wear FedEx uniforms, follow FedEx schedules, etc.
The 9th circuit court of appeals ruled that the drivers are actually employees:
http://www.leonardcarder.com/news/75-1%20Opinion%20and%20Ord...