Comment on Uber Eats undercover: Delivering your food for $1.74 an hour
TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 year agoI a, bothered by the ratio of what I pay extra for third party services as compared to what the delivery person receives. You can’t possibly drive the price up further
The solution already existed. It’s called restaurants delivering their own food. But Ubereats shoehorned their way into the equation to be an unnecessary middleman in order to profit.
I absolutely share the moral dilemma with the concept of third party delivery. They’re just as useless as health insurance companies, so if you see the problem with the latter, you can def see the problem with the former. (Not to say they’re on the same scale or have similar histories or have equal amounts of blood on their hands, just that they’re similar in structure in a system that work(s)/(ed) fine without them.)
But tons of restaurants didn’t offer delivery before. That’s what the other commenter was saying. For many places, especially smaller, locally owned restaurants, a 3rd party enabling delivery for them is a huge boon. But like the other commenter said, it needs to be implemented well and fairly, which it currently is not.
Also, comparing 3rd party food delivery to health insurance is definitely something…
I highly doubt it’s a “huge boon” to any small restaurant/business. With fees attached and drivers who really don’t give 2 shits, anything bad gets reflected on the restaurant. When in reality it could be the over worked driver that made a mistake, droppped off 4 orders at once so most of it is cold, rough handling, etc… Every place I have worked maybe came out even on good days from 3rd party orders. But you need extra kitchen staff (hard to find) extra host staff (parce and final prep on orders, plus regular duties). Maney way better spent ensuring people actually attend your restaurant in person and have a good experience
One issue I’ve heard is if a restaurant chooses not to use the service someone else can set up a page in their name without permission, and the platforms often won’t do anything to prevent it. Then confused delivery drivers start to show up, and customers complain to the restaurant about the markups/high pricing even when the restaurant is not actually involved at all.
On top of all that, many people just use delivery apps to find local restaurants, so you lose a lot of visibility if you aren’t listed, but for that one you can argue it’s in fact paying for the service you get (i.e. marketing).
In my experience, plenty of local shops delivered. And when Uber eats came about, they had to fire their own delivery people because so many would check Uber eats first. Not to mention the restaurants get less on the food, when small, locally owned restaurants are already surviving on razor thin margins.
So the idea for these services is basically “I don’t want to go to my local restaurant to pick up food, so I’m going to financially hurt them so a middleman can profit by forcing them to deliver to me (which plenty were doing already).”
My point is it’s such a uniquely stupid, uniquely American concept that hurts everyone involved, and makes a ton of money for one large company—who completely inserted themselves into it unnecessarily.
If the argument is whether or not there should be a moral dilemma when ordering from them, I say yes. We can’t absolve ourselves of our laziness on this one, I don’t think.
And the likening it to insurance companies was strictly for the purpose of a meaningless middleman who changed the structure of the system they exist in, in order to profit unnecessarily. I tried to make it clear the likeness stopped there, but maybe I wasn’t.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
The solution did not exist at all. There was a huge market gap. Lots of restaurants didn’t have the population density or resources to support a built in delivery service. I had two restaurants that delivered to my location prior to ride share delivery. It instantly jumped to dozens as soon as door dash came to town.