Thread

1. dayvid · 1790201069 · focus · HN ↗

   Ever since it was found that they took part of driver&#x27;s tips for themselves, I didn&#x27;t trust the company <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;us-news&#x2F;2025&#x2F;feb&#x2F;27&#x2F;doordash-new-york-tips-delivery-workers" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;us-news&#x2F;2025&#x2F;feb&#x2F;27&#x2F;doordash-new...

   1. BeetleB · 1790203785 · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

      1. altairprime · 1790204064 · focus · HN ↗

         Extrapolating from DoorDash scale to ‘your favorite local restaurant’ scale is inappropriate. Fraud at an exponentially higher scale deserves a similarly exponential increase in mistrust. Yes, bad actors individually exist, but when megacorporations scale up bad actors to national and international levels, it’s appropriate for mistrust to scale up accordingly. I have not been able to determine which of the restaurants I frequent are bad actors in this regard, but I have absolutely been able to determine that DoorDash is an unrepentant bad actor, as many consecutive “we fucked you over and paid pennies on the dollar to do so” settlements have confirmed. So changing my behavior to avoid a corrupt megacorp does not automatically correlate with contradiction and hypocrisy in my local behaviors.

         1. BeetleB · 1790206789 · focus · HN ↗

            &gt; Fraud at an exponentially higher scale deserves a similarly exponential increase in mistrust.

            It was never determined to be fraud. Keep in mind that what they were accused of was never actually tested in courts.

            Also keep in mind that this practice is explicitly enshrined in the laws of many states for restaurant workers. If the worker got a tip, the restaurant owner was allowed to pay below minimum wage for that hour to that worker (as long as wage + tip met the federal minimum wage).

            Which is why I was asking. If you&#x27;re in one of those (many) states, chances are high that most restaurants are doing what people find so despicable of Doordash. So yes, it is &quot;at scale&quot;.

            1. jasonwatkinspdx · 1790210014 · focus · HN ↗

               Ok, so let&#x27;s imagine that it&#x27;s common that mom and pop stores cheat employees by adjusting timesheets. Let&#x27;s say we also find that Walmart was doing this as official policy accross all their stores.

               Are we supposed to just say &quot;welp, that&#x27;s ok Walmart, keep doing it, because we can&#x27;t stop every other mom and pop store in the nation from potentially doing this.&quot;

               It&#x27;s an absurd position to take.

               1. altairprime · 1790215818 · focus · HN ↗

                  This. The three conversational branches in reply to the question posed are “yes”, “no”, and “TIL”; none of those three branches ends up in a conversation that excuses DoorDash, nor in one that promotes increased tolerance of DoorDash. If anyone feels otherwise, then present the case for why we should tolerate Doordash’s behavior, rather than asking one-sentence leading questions and then arguing about the indirection layer of the leading question.

                  In this instance, for constructed example, one might present a straightforward claim that we should not direct moral outrage towards DoorDash for those behaviors they voluntarily paid money an apology for. I’m certain that’s not the correct phrasing of the argument intended, but since that claim hasn’t been made yet to us, of course my constructed example is wrong! That’s why it’s so essential to present one’s views as sentences, rather than through leading questions.

                  Above, no claim is presented for why discussing local restaurant behaviors has any bearing on how we interpret, moralize, and respond to the behavior of the faceless megacorp DoorDash. Without that connection having been drawn, this is a functionally irrelevant tangent into businesses not comparable to DoorDash in either scale or function.

                  1. BeetleB · 1790257080 · focus · HN ↗

                     &gt; The three conversational branches in reply to the question posed are “yes”, “no”, and “TIL”; none of those three branches ends up in a conversation that excuses DoorDash, nor in one that promotes increased tolerance of DoorDash.

                     Nothing related to any of my comments was meant to excuse DoorDash. What gave people that idea? It was meant for people to question their views on tipping to begin with.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.