Difference between revisions of "WinterMilestone 4 Dubs: Worker's Union - Insurance Plan"
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
== What's the problem you are solving ==
== What's the problem you are solving ==
Revision as of 15:02, 7 February 2016
- 1 Worker's Union - Insurance Plan
- 1.1 What's the problem you are solving
- 1.2 Related Work
- 1.3 Concept
- 1.4 References
- 2 Milestone Contributor
Worker's Union - Insurance Plan
What's the problem you are solving
Crowdsourcing platforms are known for being of very importance to a lot of people’s income. While showing itself as an extra source of income, or even an alternative to common jobs, many people rely on those platforms to make a living. One of the biggest problems with today’s crowdsourcing platforms is that workers doesn’t have anyone to resort if they feel like a requester is not being fair. If a person does a job, for instance, provides medical assistance. If something goes wrong, and someone wants to prosecute the doctor, he will probably have someone(or some organization) to verify if all the procedures were done correctly and decide whether the incident was caused by a doctor’s mistake. The same principle applies to many others examples. These organization can be Unions, or any other association(like Doctors or Lawyers). This principle could work on a Crowdsourcing platform. When a worker get his HIT rejected, he just lost some of his time for not being paid, and sometimes it is not even his fault - it can be the result of a poorly written request or even from bad faith of a requester. Some forums emerged in order to balance that inequality. The usage of forums is a way of organizing workers to avoid getting into doing HITS from particular requesters is good, but the platform can improve this system and provide proper support for workers.
Let's start with a real life example. You hire someone to paint your house all blue. The painter comes and does his jobs. In the end, you say you didn't like the color and you are not going to pay. We know we can't simply do that in real life. It will probably become a judicial problem. There are a lot of different possibilities. The painter maybe painted the house red instead of blue. Maybe the house is 80% blue and 20% green. Anyway, there is a mismatch between a requester and a worker. First, we have to verify if there is a real mistake. Secondly, it is necessary to check if the instructions provided were clear enough to avoid that mistake. However, our goal here in crowdsourcing is to not rely on a third-party decision and be able to provide an efficient self and open government of our system. Therefore, why not use our own capacities to judge if the rejection was fair or not? We are then talking about a Worker's Union and a insurance plan for unfair rejections.
The main system is related to the insurance that workers can request when they think the rejection decision was unfair. If they are right when they request this method, they might get their money back if there's a common decision from both parties. Otherwise, they are subject to the Strike Rule, which will be further explained. The idea is that there will be an algorithm to decide which are the best members to evaluate a rejection case again. If the users accept the task (it will be shown as a normal task), they will have the opportunity to assess the case. If they decide that the requester was wrong; they will send back the case to the requester with their decision and the requester can agree or not with them. This decision will be public. If the Union decides the task was indeed wrong, the worker will be subject to the Striker Rule (he might not be able to request an evaluation again for a while). The public record will be available so workers can decide if they trust the requester or if they don't. If the Union doesn't work properly, they might be punishing a good requester (it's not good for them) or benefiting a bad requester. It's for their own best interest to always act properly.
Union Fee and insurance plan: Waterfall
It's necessary to have a fee to pay for the evaluation tasks. Our idea is that if requesters are paying it, everyone is paying it. It's a waterfall system. If the requester has to pay a fee, he might need to lower the price of the task (even if it's a very small fee). Therefore, everyone feels the effect of this decision and is currently paying for it.
There would be the following steps:
- Requesters pay a small fee per batch: Union Fee (similar to MTurk operational fee for example)
- Requester rejects a work
- Worker request his insurance plan
- The system use the good reputation and previous approval of the related requester parameters to issue a task for specific members
- The Union fee is used to pay the task
- Selected users decide if they want to join the committee (not mandatory)
- The committee evaluate the case
- The case comes back to the requester and he decides to keep or change his opinion
- The case is registered: both the decision of the requester and of the committee can be public seen.
- It's public. Therefore, other workers can see if the requester has a long history of ignoring the committee decision.
Selected group of users for the task
Although all the workers are important, there is always a reputation system that can rank the different performances of workers. It means that there is a different level of reliability for workers. Moreover, some requesters have approved and liked the work of a specific set of workers of the platform. Therefore, they would have a higher chance of relying on them. If we could combine the reputation and the previous approval of a requester; we can combine these two tools to arrange a committee of workers that could evaluate a situation.
There should be a high standard of approval to provide the worker's final decision. Something around 70% of the workers must agree it shouldn't be reject to confirm this as their final decision.
The final decision and public record
If a worker believe the rejection was not fair, he may request that a group of selected and reliable workers assess the situation and judge if it was fair or not. If it was indeed unfair, the committee could request the requester to evaluate again the situation. If the case was unfair, then the requester will know that he's probably made the correct decision. The case will be public. It means that everyone can see the decision of the requester and the decision of the committee and if they match.
- Gabriel Bayomi - @gbayomi
- Flavio Scorpione - @scorpione
- Henrique Orefice - @horefice
- Lucas Bamidele - @lucasbamidele
- Teogenes Moura - @teomoura