Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More than 8,000 ride-share drivers flunked Mass. background checks

bostonherald.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 51 posts

Re: More than 8,000 ride-share drivers flunked Mass. background checks

#21

Post by [deleted] »

masto wrote: post #18
anon1121 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they were rejected because they don't currently have an active license.

http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dpu/transportation-network-comp... Last page. License suspended in the past 7 years. 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 receiv…

[deleted]

Re: More than 8,000 ride-share drivers flunked Mass. background checks

#22

Post by shams93 »

tn135 wrote: post #7

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.

Or even someone caught peeing in public if you get caught having to pee in public you can get on the offender list even in cities with absolutely no public restrooms to mitigate the need for that.

Re: More than 8,000 ride-share drivers flunked Mass. background checks

#23

Post by spectistcles »

bingomad123 wrote: post #10
eridius wrote: post #2

> “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…

Probably safe to say that those fringe cases aren't representative of the full slew of 8,000 people here.

Re: More than 8,000 ride-share drivers flunked Mass. background checks

#24

Post by eridius »

bingomad123 wrote: post #10
eridius wrote: post #2

> “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…

What you're describing are really rare edge cases. Nearly all people on the sex offender registry actually did something that justifies being on there. And those people should not be put into a position of power over strangers at night.

As for economic hardship, I don't see how that justifies getting a job as a driver when your license is suspended. It's literally illegal for them to drive at all like that. It doesn't matter why it's suspended, people for whom it is illegal to be driving should not be given a job as a driver.

Re: More than 8,000 ride-share drivers flunked Mass. background checks

#25

Post by gruez »

anon1121 wrote: post #11
chrisco255 wrote: post #9

Indefinite look back periods deprive people with decades-old convictions from doing honest work for honest pay. This is counterproductive to society.

The indefinite look back is only for certain disqualifying offenses. Most (many of which are still rather serious) are 7 years. http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dpu/transportation-network-comp...

Counterpoint: plenty of non-violent offecences there with unlimited lookback as well.

G.L. c. 272, §7 (Support From, or Sharing, Earnings of Prostitute)

G.L. c. 272, §12 (Procuring Person to Practice, or Enter a Place for Prostitution; Employment Office Procuring Person)

G.L. c. 272, § 16 (Open and Gross Lewdness and Lascivious Behavior)

G.L. c. 272, §53 (Indecent Exposure)

G.L. c. 272, §53 (Accosting or Annoying a Person of the Opposite Sex)

G.L. c. 272, §53A (Engaging in Sexual Conduct for a Fee)

G.L. c. 272, §105 (Upskirting)

Re: More than 8,000 ride-share drivers flunked Mass. background checks

#26

Post by alpha_squared »

eridius wrote: post #24
bingomad123 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What you're describing are really rare edge cases. Nearly all people on the sex offender registry actually did something that justifies being on there. And those people should not be put into a position of power over strangers at night. As for economic hardship, I don't see how that justifies getting a job as a driver when your license is suspended. It's literally illegal for them to drive at all like that. It doesn'…

> Nearly all people on the sex offender registry actually did something that justifies being on there.

Citation? I don't necessarily doubt it's true, but 'nearly all' can be completely relative. I'd like to see actual numbers for a statement like that.

Re: More than 8,000 ride-share drivers flunked Mass. background checks

#27

Post by jmcdiesel »

Background checks are useless when so much bad information is floating around...

Is being caught with a gram of pot a good reason to not have a job? Because in states where it is (or even, was, but is not now) illegal its often a felony. I have friends who live in legal states with MJ posession charges from when it wasnt legal. Still haunting them... seems like bullshit all around...

On top of that, here's a fun little story. There is a guy, born a month after me to the day, in the next closest hospital to where I was born, with the exact same first, middle and last name as me. In 2003, he got in a bar fight that spilled out into a parking lot, during the fight his pants where torn (not taken off) in a way that exposed his genitals. He was charged with a sexual crime and is now a sex offender.

You wanna know how often that comes up on low level background checks for me? You know how much it sucks having to preempt a BGC with a future employer with "you might see a thing that says im a sex offender, here's a nice PDF i've made explaining the issue..."

The thing about this that makes it suck so hard, is not only are background checks bleeding other people's information into mine... but the guy is a sex offender for no reason at all... I feel bad for the dude.

Thats why this system sucks, regardless...

Re: More than 8,000 ride-share drivers flunked Mass. background checks

#28

Post by tptacek »

gruez wrote: post #25
anon1121 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The indefinite look back is only for certain disqualifying offenses. Most (many of which are still rather serious) are 7 years. http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dpu/transportation-network-comp...

Counterpoint: plenty of non-violent offecences there with unlimited lookback as well. G.L. c. 272, §7 (Support From, or Sharing, Earnings of Prostitute) G.L. c. 272, §12 (Procuring Person to Practice, or Enter a Place for Prostitution; Employment Office Procuring Person) G.L. c. 272, § 16 (Open and Gross Lewdness and Lascivious Behavior) G.L. c. 272, §53 (Indecent Exposure) G.L. c. 272, §53 (Accosting or Annoying a P…

Sexual assault is non-violent? These all sound like things that would reasonably disqualify drivers.

Re: More than 8,000 ride-share drivers flunked Mass. background checks

#29

Post by pdelbarba »

alpha_squared wrote: post #26
eridius wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing are really rare edge cases. Nearly all people on the sex offender registry actually did something that justifies being on there. And those people should not be put into a position of power over strangers at night. As for economic hardship, I don't see how that justifies getting a job as a driver when your license is suspended. It's literally illegal for them to drive at all like that. It doesn'…

> Nearly all people on the sex offender registry actually did something that justifies being on there. Citation? I don't necessarily doubt it's true, but 'nearly all' can be completely relative. I'd like to see actual numbers for a statement like that.

As far as I'm concerned, just 1% is enough for me to question whether this is a reasonable metric and 10% would be "this is utter garbage"
Post reply on HN