11–20 of 51 posts
Indefinite look back periods deprive people with decades-old convictions from doing honest work for honest pay. This is counterproductive to society.
Indefinite look back periods deprive people with decades-old convictions from doing honest work for honest pay. This is counterproductive to society.
I will take this with a grain of salt given the excessive criminalisation of ordinary behaviour. Even for horrible terms like "sex offender" we can not be sure if the guy was a rapist or someone getting a happy ending in massage parlour.
I will take this with a grain of salt given the excessive criminalisation of ordinary behaviour. Even for horrible terms like "sex offender" we can not be sure if the guy was a rapist or someone getting a happy ending in massage parlour.
It's crazy that Uber would make such a fuss about this and characterize it as merely a matter of depriving putative drivers of income. Yes, there will almost certainly be instances in which the indefinite look-back period or criminal history criteria would lead to an arguably unfair outcome for a particular driver. However, surely that would be an issue for only a very small proportion of people. Even if it isn't, I…
i'd argue that nearly all drivers who failed massachusetts's background check would likely provide very similar quality rides as current uber/lyft drivers. the utility to all of those now-working people certainly wouldn't be outweighed by the disutility of a potentially small (and probably statistically insignificant) rise in bad rides.
people make mistakes, but people change constantly. we should encourage positive change in people, not discourage it. allow people to do legitimate work despite past mistakes, rather than compounding the punitive effects of their mistakes and thus encouraging more bad behavior (often out of despair or desperation).
uber has made many mistakes, but i agree with them here. let these people work.
> The most common reason for rejecting a potential driver was a suspended license [on their record] A previously suspended license flunks the background check? I've had mine suspended for failing to pay a parking ticket that was never mailed to me. Kind of a lame reason to never be able to drive for lyft or uber.
No, they were rejected because they don't currently have an active license.
"The bill creates a two-part driver background check system, one by the transportation network companies themselves that is then followed by a check by the state. Drivers would be screened every six months. Drivers must not appear on the National Sex Offender Registry; not had a conviction in the past seven years; and must not have more than four traffic violations or any major traffic violation in the preceding three-year period."
"Operating after Suspension of Drivers License" is a major traffic violation in Massachusetts.
"Employing unlicensed motor vehicle operator; permitting person with suspended or revoked license to operate motor vehicle" is also a major violation, and could happen if, for example, the owner of the vehicle was intoxicated and ask someone who wasn't intoxicated to drive.
It's crazy that Uber would make such a fuss about this and characterize it as merely a matter of depriving putative drivers of income. Yes, there will almost certainly be instances in which the indefinite look-back period or criminal history criteria would lead to an arguably unfair outcome for a particular driver. However, surely that would be an issue for only a very small proportion of people. Even if it isn't, I…
that isn't a utilitarian approach but a conservative one. i'd argue that nearly all drivers who failed massachusetts's background check would likely provide very similar quality rides as current uber/lyft drivers. the utility to all of those now-working people certainly wouldn't be outweighed by the disutility of a potentially small (and probably statistically insignificant) rise in bad rides. people make mistakes, b…
> The most common reason for rejecting a potential driver was a suspended license [on their record] A previously suspended license flunks the background check? I've had mine suspended for failing to pay a parking ticket that was never mailed to me. Kind of a lame reason to never be able to drive for lyft or uber.
No, they were rejected because they don't currently have an active license.
I just finished dealing with threatening letters from the DMV telling me that my license was suspended because I cancelled my insurance 6 months ago. It turned out to be a race condition with my insurance company's software miscommunicating the dates of a policy change. If I had been out of town or received the notice three days later, I'd have this on my record, and I never did a damn thing wrong.
> “Thousands of people in Massachusetts have lost access to economic opportunities as a result of a screening that includes an unfair and unjust indefinite look-back period,” an Uber spokeswoman said today. “We have an opportunity to repair the current system in the rules process so that people who deserve to work are not denied the opportunity.” Given all of the negative press about Uber lately, you'd think they'd g…
I will defend the right of sex offenders, people with suspended licenses etc. unless I know the specific crime for which they were convicted. A person pissing in a bush can become a sexual offender, an 18 year old kid having sex with 16 year old girlfriend can become sex offender. People might get their license suspended because of economic hardship. Putting all these people in same bracket as a brazen criminal is a…
If you would not be able to pass a CBC and hold a taxi license you should not be driving people around.
If you think edge cases are an issue then it's an issue with the criminal justice system not background check.
There will always be extreme cases because you need to draw a line at some point.
You might find it acceptable for an 18 year old to have sex with your 16 year old child, how about 19? 20?
Public urination can land you on the list but it's pretty rare compared to actual sexual assault cases.
It's crazy that Uber would make such a fuss about this and characterize it as merely a matter of depriving putative drivers of income. Yes, there will almost certainly be instances in which the indefinite look-back period or criminal history criteria would lead to an arguably unfair outcome for a particular driver. However, surely that would be an issue for only a very small proportion of people. Even if it isn't, I…
that isn't a utilitarian approach but a conservative one. i'd argue that nearly all drivers who failed massachusetts's background check would likely provide very similar quality rides as current uber/lyft drivers. the utility to all of those now-working people certainly wouldn't be outweighed by the disutility of a potentially small (and probably statistically insignificant) rise in bad rides. people make mistakes, b…