[HN Gopher] Italy demands EUR733M in fines from food delivery pl... ___________________________________________________________________ Italy demands EUR733M in fines from food delivery platforms Author : Svip Score : 77 points Date : 2021-02-25 21:42 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.politico.eu) (TXT) w3m dump (www.politico.eu) | tppiotrowski wrote: | _> If the companies pay the fines within 90 days, they will be | able to avoid criminal proceedings_ | | If they prosecute UberEats, who exactly would be the one serving | prison time? | hikerclimber wrote: | good. I hope doordash and the other delivery platforms get fined | a lot of money. :) | cwhiz wrote: | Meanwhile, these companies can't make any money as it is.[0] | | At some point maybe we should consider that this model is | completely broken. The gig workers hate it, the restaurants hate | it, and the delivery companies can't make a profit. What in the | fresh hell are we doing where nearly every part of this "economy" | is mad about it? | | [0]: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/doordash-shares-sink-as- | re... | ransom1538 wrote: | " Meanwhile, these companies can't make any money as it is.[0]" | | Food creation & delivery: A hyper competitive, low margin, | inventory rotting, regulated, logistical & insurance nightmare. | bilekas wrote: | Gig workers don't hate how its set up, they make a nice bit of | cash for hard work when they need or want. | | Restaraunts don't hate it because they don't have to have staff | hired to deliver, infact all the logistics of delivery are | removed for them. | | > The San Francisco-based company reported a fourth-quarter | loss of $312 million | | Excuse me while I shed a tear for the billion eur company over | the riders who will get screwed for this ruling. | | DoorDash's business management is not reflective of its | customers, who are the riders and restaurants. Who, in this | scenario are the losers. | InitialLastName wrote: | Under a dumping accusation, their competitors are the victims | here. Operating at a substantial loss as a strategy to expand | your market footprint is pretty textbook anticompetitive. | readflaggedcomm wrote: | At what point do hundreds of millions of dollars in operating | losses begin to constitute "dumping," where a product (service | in this case) is priced below its cost in order to accumulate | market share and harm competitors? | | Other comments mention that delivery "worked fine" before, | which implies DoorDash can't argue that they were perfectly | innovative against a "dumping" accusation. | nradov wrote: | In legal terms "dumping" is only applicable to imports. | There's generally nothing illegal about delivering a local | service at a loss, except in limited cases when one company | has an effective monopoly and uses that pricing to drive out | competitors. For now the food delivery market is still highly | competitive. | oconnor663 wrote: | I mean, speaking personally as a customer, I'm a pretty big fan | of being able to search for food online and order it. When | we're trying to figure out whether a market is broken, the | question of whether customers are happy is a pretty important | starting point. (But maybe I'm just a weirdo and everyone else | who uses Yelp etc. is miserable?) | cedricgle wrote: | The gig economy is just a return to the basics of the | industrialization and the machine age; where people went to the | factories' gates to seek a job for the day. During this period, | such flexibility brought a huge boost in production, innovation | and revenue. So this model isn't necessary broken. | [deleted] | nullserver wrote: | Gig work and Airbnb saved my life and kept family off street. | | I got injured and disability decided to play hard ball. | | Working whatever hours I could be functional and being able to | stop and rest, or wait for medication side effects to ease off. | These are the only thing that kept us off the street. | jpdaigle wrote: | I'm kinda surprised that food delivery apps and ride-hailing | apps are all money-losing. Why? | | It's a modernization of an already-proven business model. | Chinese food and pizza was orderable by phone, and delivered | for free or a small fee, 30 years ago. | | So, the pizza restaurants proved that there's enough margin in | a 25$ pizza to pay a minimum wage driver to drive it to your | house. Delivery platforms come in and break this up: instead of | the restaurant having someone on payroll to deliver orders, you | just outsource that to another party (and pay them a fee, which | is passed-through to the customer, and replaces money you | would've paid the on-staff driver otherwise). | | Why can't the food delivery companies provide delivery services | for basically the same total cost as before, and subsist on | extracting a small percentage of the value, which is freed up | by the massive economy of scale that they can create by | aggregating orders from several restaurants into a single pool? | | Ditto for Uber... it's possible to operate a taxi company | profitably, and has been for a hundred years. Shouldn't Uber | have basically the same economics / cost per mile as a | traditional taxi company, except be more efficient thanks to | top-notch demand prediction that no local taxi company could | ever build? | jimbob45 wrote: | Kudos to the legislators for allowing the experiment to run as | long as it did to find potential solutions. | | Now it's time to legislate it away, just like many have done | with Uber/Lyft. | bpodgursky wrote: | Someone should let the gig workers know! | | I bet they'd quit if they knew how miserable they were. | srswtf123 wrote: | On the off chance you're unfamiliar with the term, I suggest | you learn about _wage slavery_. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery | bpodgursky wrote: | That sounds bad! It sounds almost as bad as unemployment | slavery, or homelessness slavery! | z3rgl1ng wrote: | Dope take. | [deleted] | _Microft wrote: | Did it occur to you that some people could be in situations | where they simply cannot quit a job no matter how miserable | it makes them? | hsgdh3487 wrote: | It probably did occur to GP, that's the whole point (if I'm | right to be charitable). | | Top comment is arguing that these people should be laid off | as part of a government initiative to reshape the economy. | If these people can't quit, what will happen if they are | laid off? Is there any policy that could help these | workers? My best guess is UBI, but that is another | discussion. | jdminhbg wrote: | That's going to be bad news when it gets legislated away | then, isn't it. | Narkov wrote: | I don't know you circumstances but it is possible to still do | something out of desperation - possibly to feed your family - | and hate it. | recursive wrote: | So in that hypothetical scenario, would that person be | better or worse off if they were denied the option to do | that thing they're doing that they hate? | Narkov wrote: | Worse off. Feeding their family is probably a higher | priority than a shitty job. | | It doesn't change the fact that the job is rubbish. | tiborsaas wrote: | I think drones will save them. Can't wait to spend a romantic | dinner in a small restaurant with my girlfriend and watch the | delivery drones come and go, humming around us. | [deleted] | [deleted] | programbreeding wrote: | I'm not saying this is a reason to do it, but the part of the | model that isn't broken is that people love it. The consumers | are benefiting. | floren wrote: | Yes, people love getting stuff cheap. But if, say, an auto | shop was offering cheap oil changes because they're just | dumping the used oil down the sewer instead of properly | disposing of it, "people like cheap oil changes" isn't | justification for the continued harm. | ghaff wrote: | There are tons of services I would use if I could get them | for well below cost. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > What in the fresh hell are we doing where nearly every part | of this "economy" is mad about it? | | We're at the point in the hype cycle where the service has | become popular, so the media has flipped to the contrarian | takes about how it's bad, actually. It wasn't that long away | that we were reading stories about how food delivery services | were providing restaurants an opportunity to keep their doors | open during COVID lockdown. | | Restaurants only hate food delivery when the companies try to | force them to lower prices (so the delivery service can capture | the margin) or when they perform bad-faith actions like | misrepresenting themselves as an official partner of the | restaurant when no such deal has been made. | | The restaurants who simply prepare orders at their normal | retail price and hand them off to delivery drivers who deliver | to customers who know what they're getting into are actually | loving this boom. It's extra business without the hassle of | dealing directly with customers. | | That's actually the driver of the problems: Restaurants have | been so eager to get a piece of this booming business that some | of them have given up their own margin to partner with delivery | services looking to squeeze every dollar out of the | restaurants. I suspect that era won't last long as restaurants | do the math on what it's costing them. | kgog wrote: | > It wasn't that long away that we were reading stories about | how food delivery services were providing restaurants an | opportunity to keep their doors open during COVID lockdown. | | Can you link to some stories? I didn't see any in my bubble. | LegitShady wrote: | >That's actually the driver of the problems: Restaurants have | been so eager to get a piece of this booming business that | some of them have given up their own margin to partner with | delivery services looking to squeeze every dollar out of the | restaurants. I suspect that era won't last long as | restaurants do the math on what it's costing them. | | They don't have a choice, with covid etc. Many restuarants | would rather not have delivery, or delivery that didn't cost | them 20% of gross. | nickff wrote: | Most restaurants would rather not pay rent/lease and | property taxes that eat more than 20% of gross, yet those | are recognized as 'costs of doing business'. These | restaurants are unfortunately locked in to a business model | that is incompatible with COVID. | nodesocket wrote: | Yet another cash grab on technology companies by a EU country. | Perhaps instead of driving companies out of the EU and then | slapping them with random fines and regulation they should | consider reforming their laws to be more business friendly. | _jal wrote: | They are hardly the first companies to play regulatory chicken. | It pays off nicely if you win; I do wish that sophisticated | investors and managers who make a bad bet would whine less. | onli wrote: | Those are not technology companies. They are logistic companies | with some IT integration. And it's a bit different than with | Uber: There, a lot of the resistance was indeed to protect a | monopoly that was bad for customers. But food delivery? That | worked just fine before those companies arrived. | rightbyte wrote: | Taxi worked too. The way too capped supply taxi market is a | US problem. | aneutron wrote: | I really can't make up my mind. On the one hand, it's truly | unhealthy for the overall job security and the social construct | (which is normal given it's modelled after the US). | | But on the other hand, it would have been a fucking travesty | doing a lockdown without ordering on Uber eats and Co. | | And those platforms were the innovators in the space. Restaurants | who could develop similar platforms would have never allocated | the money, and others who would never have had the opportunity to | offer such services, would have never tapped the overall market | (i.e. People with Internet who are hungry and need food for any | reason, be it no groceries or just laziness). | | Can't there be some sort of middle ground ? | bilekas wrote: | Also I know what you mean about the job security and so on, but | this industry was previously provided by the | restaurant/businesses which would offer a base salary and then | tips were there's lets say. But deliveroo uber and co, offered | the riders a means to earn more money with less job-security, | the restaraunts to reduce the fees of delivery.. | | It was a pretty balanced trade-off.. To which both concerned | parties did agree.. Goverment wasn't even needed here. I feel | worse for the delivery people in all this because they wont | have that extra money, instead deliveroo and co will just | reduce their earnings to compensate. | | It's stupid. | jeroenhd wrote: | The American and most of the European labour market cannot be | compared like this because of the way regulations in these | areas work. | | The problem is not that Uber Eats and Deliveroo are making too | much money, it's that they're making it over the backs of their | employees. | | European employment regulations have strong protections of | workers, and these companies try to work around those | regulations by classifying their employees as gig workers. | Delivery drivers used to be regular employees until these | companies swept in and used investment money to work the | competition out of the market. | | It's no wonder the government is stepping in to end this. In | the US, this would never happen, because the right to start a | job without too much paperwork or get fired on the spot is | deeply ingrained in the laws of many US states, at least | compared to European labour relations. | | The middle ground here is that delivery drivers need to be paid | fair minimum wages with the relevant job protections so that | restaurants can compete with their own delivery crew without | major (foreign) investment. Your local pizza joint can never | compete against Uber or Deliveroo without some kind of tax | evasion, that's part of the design of the Big Delivery business | structure. | | These delivery companies make plenty of money, there's no risk | of them running into impossible to overcome that their general | investment-based mode of operation hadn't already planned for. | They may need to raise prices to pay their employees decent | wages, but that's only healthy for the free market. In some | countries (like mine), delivery companies take a whopping | 12-14% of the entire bill as compensation for delivery, which | is often listed as free, yet it's economically inviable to go | up against these giants now that they control the market. | [deleted] | ahelwer wrote: | I went through an entire year of lockdown across two major | cities without using a delivery service once. Just go out and | pick up the food yourself, either on foot or via bike or car. | tomcooks wrote: | Hot take:cooking your own food | ahelwer wrote: | Also a good solution, although I tried to eat takeout once | a week to help keep local restaurants from closing. | tomcooks wrote: | Why a travesty? Is your part of the world locked out of | supermarkets? | newsclues wrote: | The software needs to be run by the restaurants so they own the | entire experience. | | I think restaurants would love to pay $xxxx upfront and a small | monthly or annual fee for updates. | | But software developers want a slice of the revenue. | | It's greed in a low margin industry. | | It's a perfect Open Source project. | bilekas wrote: | No.. This is not a good idea. | | Sure there is merit to them being "coordinated and continuous | workers", I can see the argument for that regardless of the gig | economy. But having to back-pay the taxes for said workers is | close to extortion. | | My Middle ground would be a mediator instead of an ultimatum. | | > Should the platforms hire all 60,000 couriers, there's a high | price to pay to catch up on previous, missed social security | payments, said European labor law specialist Luca de Vecchi. | Social security contributions in Italy can amount to up to 33 | percent of an employee's salary and must be paid by the | employer. | | This is just crazy.. How can the government expect a company to | backpay what the government allowed in the past ? | | This is wrong. | jdsully wrote: | If you wrongly classify an employee as a contractor the IRS | will go after you for back payroll taxes. It's not extortion, | its collecting taxes you illegally avoided. | bilekas wrote: | Think about what you just said.. If it was okay to be | classed as a contractor in FY2018, then the legislative | said no you need to backpay. FY2018 is no longer valid.. | Even though, they approved it, IRS accepted. See my point ? | | You cant retrospectively change the status of their work | status. | | You didn't wrongly state your status at the time.. | VWWHFSfQ wrote: | Why these companies do business in the EU at all is beyond me. | jimnotgym wrote: | Why these companies try to force EU workers to work under US | labour laws is not beyond me. | TrackerFF wrote: | Correct. If skirting around labor laws is part of your business | model, Europe is not the place to do business. | lwkl wrote: | Yes I hope they get kicked out of Europe. We have no need for | companies that want to get around our employment laws and don't | pay social security. | | That's parasitic behavior. In the end society has to pay the | long-term cost for their short-term gain. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-02-25 23:00 UTC)