God job Seattle!๐
this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
83 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
60029 readers
2896 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Although the law does not define what a reasonable policy should look like, it says the companies should not deactivate drivers for failing to drive enough hours, falling below a minimum customer rating or turning down ride offers and deactivation should not be based on the results of a background check or driver record, except in egregious circumstances.
Wait what? This sounds rather extreme. I suppose Uber could have some sort of mechanism for evaluating driver performance other than customer ratings, but I'm not sure what that could be in practice.
Interviews by an FTE manager and reasonable complaint management and resolution like every other customer facing job would be a start.
If costumer reviews/ratings were ever actually useful in any way you could make an argument for it.
But they're a huge mess abused all over.
The thing is they're a mess for everyone. So there is statistical value in looking for outliers over a long timeline.
Like anything else it's the details that matter and how they're used.
They're a mess for everyone, and there is very little correlation between reviews and actual quality. There is not statistical value to using them.
More importantly, the confidence in any prediction you make using them is damn near zero. They absolutely should not be able to fire anyone with reviews being a factor in any way.
It could be comparing travel times/routes although those kinds of comparisons get complicated pretty quickly and can potentially incentivize dangerous driving. Ratings have the same issue, just pointing out there are other factors that could be used.
One of the main reasons that ratings are one of the worst methods of evaluating employees that interact with the public is that they tend to be impacted by people's unconscious racism and sexism.
They absolutely look at routes. The thing is drivers run for multiple companies at once which is fine. The issue is when your Grub order sits in the back of the car for 50 minutes while they deliver 3 Uber orders across town.
I had a guy pick up an order 2 blocks from my house ( I was sick) then drove 20 minutes the opposite direction with my food to pick up at another place.
I'm on the drivers side, but they are bad apples.
You say unconscious. I say overt.
Overt certaintly happens, but when talking about averages for the population a lot of people judge others differently based on who they are and not necessarily what they do.
Yep, it happens even in populations where everyone explicitly condemns racism.
The way it happens is everyone has a baseline of what they'd consider fair treatment. They'll condemn people as racist if they treat someone below that baseline of fairness - that is the most egregious form of racism. However, they'll also do favours for people (i.e. treat them above the baseline) if they are perceived to be like them, while treating everyone dissimilar at the baseline - i.e. favours for pepole like them, and fairness for everyone else. While that means no one can point to an individual case where someone was obviously treated unfairly, statistically it means that the minorities get treated worse.
and often subconsciously, for mild cases, it's so ingrained they don't even realize they're doing it.
Crocodile tears ๐