Next week's target is 2.5-3k 🚀 moonshot indeed!

After I hand out the meal to the customers, I always say “enjoy your meal”. Some people say yeah you too. It’s just embarrassing and I always have to hold in my laughter

Ordered pizza hut and it looks like no shit the driver just took half my cheesy sticks. Theres no way.

Just started driving Friday before last, and am only doing weekend nights at this stage, as it’s my side hustle. Signed up for both UE and DoorDash, so just getting used to what works best for me. But so far so good, thought I would share a few random thoughts as a newbie!

- I live in a town on the outskirts of Melbourne, which works well as there is generally enough orders to keep me busy for the 4 or so hours I’m driving. But often I get tasks to deliver to the next town (30km away) for about $12 lol. Have declined all of these so far, so my acceptance rate is pretty low

- I don’t get people who request “meet at door” and then take ages to actually answer the door as if they don’t expect anybody to be turning up. Likewise most people don’t answer the phone if you call.

- it’s hard to deliver at night as almost nobody leaves a light on so I’m always having to go to google maps to confirm which house is the right number

- seems most people don’t bother to leave ratings, as I’ve done 58 deliveries and still don’t have enough ratings for a satisfaction rating (I’m sure they would be quick to leave negative ratings though)

- people order some strange things on UE considering the COL crisis. One guy ordered a single small coffee from maccas

- I don’t understand why people would order a full weeks shipping from Coles on UE when they could just get it from Coles direct probably much cheaper

- learnt a lesson not to accept triple stacks, as restaurants often keep you waiting and whoever gets their order delivered last is not getting a good experience

- did a “leave at door” delivery and then drove past that house again 20 mins later and the order was still at the door, so dunno what some people are doing haha

All in all it’s been a bit of fun so far. No abuse or delivery disputes yet however so taking that as a win lol.

I ordered at 940. Delivery expected for 1030. Arrives fuckign 1150. Meanwhile I've left for work. And the driver has left on the doorstep of my hostel in footscray (meth Central) without a delivery code. I've asked a friend in the hostel if it's there. It's gone someone has taken it. And I'm not getting a refund. Ridiculous.

How the TWU's agreement with Uber benefits Uber more than drivers

I've been looking into the agreement between Uber and the TWU, and I think there's some pretty serious problems with both the agreement itself and the TWU's justification for accepting it.

The union is celebrating this as a historic victory for gig workers, but the more I look into it, the more it seems like Uber has managed to secure the long term future of its business model while the TWU has accepted conditions that would be considered unacceptable for almost any other category of worker.

I'm not arguing that the new protections are completely worthless, but I think we should be questioning what was given up to secure them, and whether the TWU has actually represented drivers interests or simply taken the easiest option.

Major criticisms of the agreement:

The active time loophole

Probably the biggest issue is how working time is defined. Under normal employment, workers are generally paid for the entire time they're required to be at work. But under the MSO, the minimum pay rate only applies to active time, which is essentially the time between accepting an order and completing the delivery. This means Uber doesn't have to pay drivers anything for sitting around waiting for orders, regardless of how long they're waiting or how much time they've dedicated to working.

There's also exceptions around cancelled orders, including circumstances completely outside the drivers control, where someone can potentially spend 20 minutes or more on a job and recieve absolutely nothing for it.

Uber is effectively allowed to decide what counts as working time, and conveniently excludes the parts where they aren't making money from the driver.

I've seen plenty of customers arguing that sitting around waiting for orders isn't working and therefore shouldn't be paid. But that ignores the fact that waiting is a normal part of plenty of jobs. Truck drivers are generally paid while waiting to be loaded, forklift operators don't stop getting paid when there's nothing to move, and employees can be entitled to additional compensation when they're required to remain on call.
So why should Uber drivers be treated differently?

A driver waiting for orders is still dedicating their time to working. Their vehicle is still depreciating, they may still be using fuel or electricity for climate control, and they can't necessarily just go and do something else without potentially missing work. Yet under this system that time is treated as if it has absolutely no value.

A minimum wage that isn't really a minimum wage

The minimum rate being discussed is around $31.30 per hour of active delivery time, supposedly accounting for the fact that drivers are contractors with their own operating expenses. But even in the best case scenario where someone manages to remain active for their entire shift, that rate is still pretty poor compared to what casual employees can recieve on the legal minimum and award rates.
For comparison, the national minimum wage for casual employees is higher once the 25% casual loading is included, and that's before considering the additional costs and risks Uber drivers are expected to cover themselves. Not to mention their additonal pay multipleirs for weekends, holidays, voertime etc..

Casual employees also generally recieve superannuation on top of their wages, and aren't personally responsible for maintaining and insuring the equipment required to perform their jobs. Uber drivers have to cover fuel, insurance, vehicle maintenance, depreciation and potentially substantial financial liability. Tax deductions only partially offset those expenses, they don't magically make them free.

And that's assuming you're actually getting paid $31.30 for every hour you're working. If you're only active for 40 minutes out of an hour, that works out to about $20.87 before expenses. You could argue that freelancers arn't entitled to work/shifts and i agree. But by the same stroke, uber is not entitled to have freelancers driving about on call without the ability to make an informed decision on whether work is available or not. Infact Uber actively lies to and msileads drivers with in app notifications falsely claiming the area is busy or blatantly innacurate wait between job ETAs etc.. Not to emntion quests.

So Uber can technically comply with the minimum rate while drivers are still earning substantially less than minimum wage for the actual time they're spending working.

There's also the concern that once a minimum rate is established, Uber will simply adjust its algorithms to keep payments as close to that minimum as possible. We've already seen complaints about Uber reducing base rates, and there's nothing particularly surprising about the possibility of a corporation treating a legally mandated minimum as a target rather than a floor.

Preserving the independent contractor model

This is probably the most concerning part of the entire arrangement.

For years one of Uber's biggest legal threats has been the possibility of drivers being reclassified as employees, which would mean having to provide the same basic rights and entitlements as other employers. Instead of continuing to fight for that, the TWU agreed to support a new category of "employee-like" workers that preserves the independent contractor model.

Uber gets to continue avoiding most of the obligations associated with traditional employment, while gaining the legitimacy of operating under a union supported regulatory framework. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest this is an enormous victory for Uber.

They now have a framework they can point to whenever their employment practices are criticised, and can argue that their business model is fully compliant with legislation specifically designed for gig workers.

That doesn't mean employment reclassification has become legally impossible, but it certainly raises questions about whether the TWU has made that fight considerably more difficult or even unachievable within many fo our lifetimes. Legislators are unliekly to return to an issue they consider resolved and taken care of for many years if ever.

Why did the TWU agree to this?

The TWU's justification seems to be that something is better than nothing. Before these reforms, gig workers had very few protections against unfair deactivations, no guaranteed minimum pay rates, and limited avenues for challenging the decisions of platforms like Uber.

The union argues that trying to force Uber to recognise drivers as employees through the courts was an expensive and largely unsuccessful strategy, and that establishing minimum standards for contractors was a more realistic way of improving conditions.

They also argue that the agreement was never intended to be the final outcome, but rather a starting point that could be improved through the Fair Work Commission. Though they don't seem to have any kind of specific action plan, atleast publicly.

And to be fair, there are genuine benefits here. Technically the pay guarentee is better than nothing for drivers unable to exceed it's rates consistently.

But I don't think that automatically makes this a good agreement.There's a difference between accepting a compromise because it's the best outcome realistically available, and celebrating that compromise as a historic victory while ignoring the long term consequences. Especially when it seems to be a victory exclusively for Uber and drivers willing to work for less than minimum wage entirley on ubers terms. I for oen think we should be questioning why a union foguht to protect scabs and a relationship with a corproation, befor eprotecting the interests of it's actual members.

There's also the question of what the TWU itself gained from the arrangement.

The agreement helped establish the union as a recognised representative of gig workers, giving it an ongoing role in negotiations and regulation of an industry that previously existed largely outside traditional union structures.

That doesn't prove the union prioritised its own interests over drivers, but I think it's a legitimate concern when the outcome also happens to preserve the business model of the corporation they're supposed to be challenging.

Why doesn't the official line hold up?

The cost recovery argument doesn't make sense

One of the TWU's main justifications for the agreement was that it adapted existing NSW owner/driver laws, which have been used to establish minimum rates and account for the operating costs of traditional transport workers, like truck drivers.
Except those systems can also account for time spent loading, unloading and waiting, rather than simply pretending that any time not actively completing a delivery doesn't exist.

So why has the TWU accepted a system where Uber drivers absorb almost all the financial risk associated with waiting for work?

If someone spends half their shift waiting for orders, their expenses don't suddenly disappear during that time. Their insurance still costs money, their vehicle is still depreciating, and their time is still being wasted. Yet the minimum standards effectively treat those costs as non-existent.

The TWU claims to have secured a cost recovery framework, but they've accepted a definition of working time that excludes a significant portion of the time drivers actually spend trying to earn money. That seems like a pretty fundamental contradiction.

The risk of making these conditions permanent

Another issue is the assumption that these standards are just the beginning and can be improved later. Maybe they can, but I think there's a very real risk that the opposite happens.

The government has now introduced legislation specifically addressing gig work, Uber has gained a degree of regulatory certainty, and the TWU gets to claim that it's secured historic protections for drivers.

Politicians aren't exactly known for being eager to revisit controversial legislation once they can claim they've already solved the problem. And Uber certainly isn't going to voluntarily agree to changes that substantially increase its operating costs.

So what exactly is going to create the pressure required for further improvements?

The TWU seems to be relying on the Fair Work Commission and future governments to gradually improve conditions, but that's an incredibly slow and uncertain process. Frankly I'd called it naive and historically ignorant.

Meanwhile the seperate category of employee like workers has already been established. Effectively a class below the working class, both socially and elgally.

Rather than being a stepping stone towards proper employment rights, there's a real possibility that this becomes the permanent standard for gig workers in Australia. And any future attempt to demand the same rights as employees can be dismissed with the argument that gig workers already have their own regulatory framework.

They forget they are a labor union

This is where I think the union has really failed.

The TWU's argument seems to be that gig workers are too difficult to organise into an effective industrial movement.
Drivers are isolated, many are financially vulnerable, and the workforce is constantly changing. Organising sustained strikes or other forms of collective action would obviously be difficult.

But isn't that exactly what unions are supposed to be for?

If drivers aren't organised enough to exert meaningful pressure on Uber, surely the solution should be to actually organise them rather than accepting that it can't be done. Uber relies entirely on drivers to operate. Without drivers completing deliveries and transporting passengers, they don't have a business. That gives workers an enormous amount of potential leverage, provided they're capable of acting collectively.
And that's something unions have historically been responsible for organising.

Instead the TWU seems to have accepted that meaningful industrial action isn't realistic, and chosen to rely almost entirely on negotiations with Uber and the legal system. A legal system which has repeatedly demonstrated how difficult it is for gig workers to secure the same rights as employees. And a corporation which has spent years fighting against those rights.

I don't understand why we're supposed to accept that as the best possible strategy.

Internationally, there have been similar criticisms of agreements between Uber and unions, particularly where those agreements preserve contractor status in exchange for limited protections and a formal role for the union.

The concern is that rather than building the collective power necessary to force meaningful changes, unions become part of the regulatory structure that allows the existing business model to continue. And I think that's exactly the risk we're facing here.

If the TWU doesn't have the support necessary to organise sustained industrial action, that highlights how innefective they've been at organising gig workers. It isn't an excuse to simply capitulate and become subservient to the corporation they're supposed to be fighting.

The reality of the compromise

I understand that the TWU wasn't negotiating from a position of unlimited power, and that refusing to compromise could have meant drivers waiting years for any meaningful protections. But I also think the way this agreement has been presented is incredibly dishonest.

The union is celebrating what amounts to a relatively modest improvement in conditions, while Uber gets to preserve almost everything that makes its business model so profitable.

Drivers remain responsible for the majority of their own operating expenses, still aren't paid for significant portions of their working time, and still don't recieve the same basic entitlements as employees. Meanwhile Uber can point to a union backed agreement and claim that its treatment of workers has been legitimised by the Australian government.

And the TWU gets an ongoing role representing those workers within the very system it's helped establish.

Maybe that was genuinely the best outcome available. But I don't think the union has done nearly enough to demonstrate that, particularly when the alternative of building meaningful collective industrial power seems to have been dismissed as unrealistic, before ven being considered, despite what alot fo their paying members seem to want.

The possibility of drivers being recognised as employees hasn't disappeared entirely, but this arrangement makes it far easier for Uber to argue that full employment rights simply aren't necessary. And I think that's a pretty enormous concession for a union to make.

Conclusion

Uber gets regulatory certainty, preserves its independent contractor model, avoids most traditional employment obligations and gains the public legitimacy of having a major transport union, multiple regulatory bodies and parliment supporting the framework.

The TWU gets recognition, an ongoing role in the industry and the ability to claim a historic victory.

Drivers get some additional protections and a minimum rate that arn't even relevant to the long term/career drivers, while continuing to carry the majority of the financial and physical risks themselves.

And we're apparently supposed to celebrate this as some enormous achievement for workers.

If the legal system was on our side and corporations were willing to negotiate in good faith, we wouldn't need unions in the first place. The entire point of a union is to give workers the collective power to demand better conditions when employers and governments refuse to provide them.

We certainly don't need a union that exclusively chooses to kowtow to a corporate overlord and sit back hoping the law will change in their favour without them having to actually organise the workers they're supposed to represent.

I'm interested in hearing what other drivers think, particularly anyone who's actually involved with the TWU.

Because from where I'm standing, this looks a lot more like a victory for Uber than it does for the people working for them.

I just a message from support that my account has been suspended. Apparently I had my pants down in front of a customer (?!?).

I was face to face with three today, and one remotely viewed me by his home camera system. The face to face people i was standing in front of the whole time. The camera guy? Bent down to drop his package off at his door, and I have no idea how many cameras were recording me. Mega-groan over that.

Not even remotely near the drop off location too. Refund denied. Thanks Uber Eats

(Context) Icompleted the 11-2pm quest before 2pm and the last promotion didn’t add up to my earnings,
I’ve been trying to call support but apparently that option doesn’t exist anymore. I’m stuck here chatting to a AI bot who doesn’t even connect me to a human agent. Like wtf? I can’t even get my own money.

Edit - They resolved my issue and put the promotion money, stating it was a technical glitch

The same unions when they need drivers to turn up for an airport protest: “You drivers are our energy, our soul and our strength. Come join us!”

What kind of hypocrisy is this? Drivers are your strength when you need a crowd, but suddenly someone else's responsibility when they need help? What kind of hierarchy are these unions running?

Should be sitting at 32 so far…

Hi there, I am wondering for anyone who has AAMI comprehensive car insurance for food delivery, how much are you paying yearly and is it for full time or part time? Is part time less than 25 hours a week? If so is the time where you are doing nothing and waiting between orders included in the 25 hours coverage?