# DoorDash now illegally throttling drivers



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

Decline 30 orders or so straight? Doordash now stops sending you orders without pausing your dash. This is 100% against independent contractor laws and punishes you for a low acceptance rate.

I end the dash and start a new one. They send me one garbage order and then ghost me for declining it. End dash and do it all over again. Same scenario.

FTC can’t rule against these garbage companies fast enough.


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

Can you link us to law that defines this implicitly ore do you just _think_ it’s illegal?


----------



## Uberdriver2710 (Jul 15, 2015)

games happen when it's slow

I have other games to play.


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

More juvenile memes.


----------



## Uberdriver2710 (Jul 15, 2015)

Atavar said:


> More juvenile memes.


I can tell, you're no fun at all.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

Atavar said:


> Can you link us to law that defines this implicitly ore do you just _think_ it’s illegal?


Acceptance rate cannot be punishable under independent contractor laws. If proven in court, they would have to pay up.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

nosurgenodrive said:


> Acceptance rate cannot be punishable under independent contractor laws. If proven in court, they would have to pay up.


It should be illegal for companies to retaliate against ICs when they decline work offers but it probably isn't.

Unfortunately, protections for so-called "independent contractors" are woefully weak. They're vague and full of loopholes, probably as a result of heavy lobbying $$$$$$$$$$ by corporate interests.

The IC laws are long overdue for major reform.


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

nosurgenodrive said:


> Acceptance rate cannot be punishable under independent contractor laws. If proven in court, they would have to pay up.


Where is this stated in law?


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> It should be illegal for companies to retaliate against ICs when they decline work offers but it probably isn't.
> 
> Unfortunately, protections for so-called "independent contractors" are woefully weak. They're vague and full of loopholes, probably as a result of heavy lobbying $$$$$$$$$$ by corporate interests.
> 
> The IC laws are long overdue for major reform.


Agreed. However the "should" (which is correct) is a lot different from the "is" another poster stated.
City and municipal governments can place restrictions on gig companies. More drivers "should" get involved in local government. Municipal statutes can be precedent launching pads for state regulations when the prove to work.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

Atavar said:


> Where is this stated in law?


It has already been tried and won by drivers. Which is why they cannot deactivate you for low acceptance rating. Punishing you by not sending you rides or orders qualifies as punishment.


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

So point out where in law it is illegal instead of just spouting things you wish were true?


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

nosurgenodrive said:


> It has already been tried and won by drivers. Which is why they cannot deactivate you for low acceptance rating. Punishing you by not sending you rides or orders qualifies as punishment.


Give us examples


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

Atavar said:


> Give us examples


Bro, how long have you been around? AR case is old news. Look it the **** up yourself.


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

nosurgenodrive said:


> Bro, how long have you been around? AR case is old news. Look it the **** up yourself.


Typical troll responce


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

Atavar said:


> Typical troll responce


Blocked.


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

nosurgenodrive said:


> Blocked.


Cool. Thank you


----------



## Ms. Mercenary (Jul 24, 2020)

[
This is uncalled for. Grow up and expand your vocabulary.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

Ms. Mercenary said:


> This is uncalled for. Grow up and expand your vocabulary.


Flip off. Blocked.


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

nosurgenodrive said:


> It has already been tried and won by drivers. Which is why they cannot deactivate you for low acceptance rating. Punishing you by not sending you rides or orders qualifies as punishment.


Punishing you for not accepting orders is not deactivation.

There is no law or case law stating that work is ever guaranteed.

There is no contractual obligation stating that work is ever guaranteed.

Proving punishment would be nearly impossible.


----------



## Ms. Mercenary (Jul 24, 2020)

nosurgenodrive said:


> Flip off. Blocked.


See, now one person blocking me when the vast majority finds me interesting and worthwhile isn’t going to change much in my life.

Several people blocking you, on the other hand, because you’re a tempramental, hissy-fit throwing, rude and obnoxious being will definitely affect your ability to write stupid posts like this.

Frankly, your allegations are so empty they required no response whatsoever. So you should be grateful anyone reacted at all.

In the meantime I suggest you find a lawyer and go after DoorDash, as you obviously have a rock-solid case.

Best of luck to you.


----------



## Ms. Mercenary (Jul 24, 2020)

SinTaxERROR said:


> Punishing you for not accepting orders is not deactivation.
> 
> There is no law or case law stating that work is ever guaranteed.
> 
> ...


“Blocked!” 😂😂😂


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

Ms. Mercenary said:


> See, now one person blocking me when the vast majority finds me interesting and worthwhile isn’t going to change much in my life.
> 
> Several people blocking you, on the other hand, because you’re a tempramental, hissy-fit throwing, rude and obnoxious being will definitely affect your ability to write stupid posts like this.
> 
> ...


Of course we love and admire you. I think you are one of the few sane voices here. 
ok, that was overstated but you get my drift.


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

Uberdriver2710 said:


> I can tell, you're no fun at all.


You know, that really doesn’t bother me at all.


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

SinTaxERROR said:


> Punishing you for not accepting orders is not deactivation.
> 
> There is no law or case law stating that work is ever guaranteed.
> 
> ...


That’s more of what I meant to say but I didn’t to it clearly. They lost a lawsuit that said they can’t deactivate for low AR, it didn’t say they couldn’t deprioritize you.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

SinTaxERROR said:


> Punishing you for not accepting orders is not deactivation.
> 
> There is no law or case law stating that work is ever guaranteed.
> 
> ...


Just a lawsuit and discovery.

We don’t work for them. They work for us.


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

Atavar said:


> That’s more of what I meant to say but I didn’t to it clearly. They lost a lawsuit that said they can’t deactivate for low AR, it didn’t say they couldn’t deprioritize you.


Exactly…


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

It was the 2016 law suit that freed drivers from AR deactivation. Uber tried time outs after that, but they were forced out of that position too.

Would just take some more law suits to prove time outs are being used and have them made illegal or have us reclassified as employees. Likewise, lawsuits to have surge given to the drivers and not the broker would keep them from stealing surge pricing. A lawsuit from passengers on price fixing would also force them to give the surge to drivers.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

I don’t know if y’all remember when eBay owned PayPal. Well, they were forced to break up PayPal and eBay because of the conflict of interest.

Presently Lyft and Uber try to say they are a TNC company and a broker at the same time. The conflict of interests is obvious here. A third party handling the finances as a true broker needs to be created for these companies not to be employers, but i think they’ll just choose to go the employer route before giving up control of the money.


----------



## Ms. Mercenary (Jul 24, 2020)

I’m shocked to see how many attorneys deliver with the apps. Those pesky student loans, no doubt. 😂


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

nosurgenodrive said:


> It has already been tried and won by drivers. Which is why they cannot deactivate you for low acceptance rating. Punishing you by not sending you rides or orders qualifies as punishment.


The California court case in 2016 was about terminating (deactivating) drivers because of their AR. 

I've said repeatedly that it should be illegal for the companies to punish drivers in any way, shape, or form for declining work offers. But I've never seen or heard about any court ruling that dealt with anything but termination. If you know of such a ruling post a screenshot.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SinTaxERROR said:


> Proving punishment would be nearly impossible.


Up to now that's been true because the gig companies' top secret dispatch systems have always been 0% transparent.

If the govt mandates fully transparent proximity-based dispatch systems then any attempt to punish drivers would be easy to prove.

Back in the early days Uber stated that the closest driver gets the ping. They knew that a proximity-based dispatch model would have lots of appeal to taxi drivers fed up with having to pay bribes to dispatchers. You can see their early training videos on Youtube.

Proximity-based dispatch turned out to be a big fat lie.


----------

