Leapforce does provide an income which many people desperately need and (in some cases) aren't able to earn any other way. They may be too old to be considered for an in-person job, or they may have young children at home or be disabled. The fact that we need the work so much, though, should not give Leapforce the right to treat us as anonymous, replaceable cogs in a machine. Should it?
I mean, what's up with their refusal to acknowledge withholding of work from individuals? This is why labor unions were invented: because employers held all the cards, and could declare any policies they wanted. This is what oppression feels like, people.
How many of you -- current LF workers, I mean -- would gladly give up the "awards" and badges in exchange for straight talk?
As in, a note from LF that says,
"You've been capped at 2 hours of taskage per day because last week you made (this particular type of mistake) on (this particular type of task) sixteen times. You will be capped at 2 hours of work per day from now until next Sunday at midnight. OR: You will be capped at 2 hours per day until you complete 200 more simulations of (this particular type of task.) We will send you an email notifying you when you are again allowed to do more than 2 hours per day of work.
How about a posted policy stating something like:
Standards for contract renewal: Your contract will be renewed unless you fall below (xyz standards) on specific tasks, as measured by (specific measurement).
For weaker workers, how about an email like this:
Your renewal date is approaching in one month and your track record isn't looking good. In order to be renewed for another six months, you must do the following in the next month: Re-read the (specific) guidelines, re-take the (specific quizzes) and do x number of simulations correctly. If you fulfill those requirements, we promise to renew you for six more months.
Even unwelcome information would be better than stonewalling.
For example, how about a news bulletin that says:
"Hey, workers, summer task availability is looking bleak" (followed by an actual reason, such as "we hire a bunch of college students in summer" or "half our client's workforce goes on vacation" or whatever. Real reasons). "We expect that for the 10 weeks from (date) until (date) there will only be tasks for approximately three hours per day. Budget accordingly."
(Summers at Leapforce, the task faucet slows to a drip. You may end up sitting at your computer for four hours just to catch a total of one hour's worth of tasks.)
It wouldn't take much to give workers some sense of control over their livelihood -- just some open information, some clear indication of what's happening and why, and what the prospects are.
If this aspect of the work were changed, the anxiety level would drop. People would be able to feel a bit safer.
Part 4 is here.