4 ms·

> You say this like it's a bad idea to hire people who were convicted of felonies who've served their time and are now out of jail. Yes, because its a good ide

> You say this like it's a bad idea to hire people who were convicted of felonies who've served their time and are now out of jail. Yes, because its a good idea to put them in a position of power right after they are out of jail. Did you not bother to read the link to the drunk girl who stupidly got into a car with one of these guys? One of the main arguments proponents make about these services is driving people who have been drinking home and people in strange places home. "Hey this one situation is risky, we shouldn't let them do X because there are clear instances of bad things happening because they pick up impaired passengers." isn't even close to saying "HEY NO ONE HIRE FELONS". If you want to engage in childish strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the problem I'm discussing, go troll someone else. > Anyway. In CA, folks who drive for nontraditional taxi services like Lyft and Uber have access to (and are required to carry) coverage while transporting a fare, coverage between the time they accept that fare and the time that they pick up that fare, and all other times they are operating their vehicle. [0][1][2] > But drivers have been incurring all sorts of risks when they use their personal vehicles for TNC work. During Period 1, Uber and Lyft do not offer collision (coverage for when the policyholder is at fault), comprehensive (for fire, theft and other damage), underinsured motorist coverage or medical payments. (They also do not offer those coverages for the succeeding periods, unless drivers carry them on their personal policies). > The new insurance is offered by Farmers as a supplement — called an endorsement — to drivers’ personal auto policies, and it will cost an additional 8 percent of their premium. A smaller insurer, MetroMile, already offers individual ride-service insurance, but it’s exclusive to Uber drivers. That insurance costs a base rate plus a per-mile charge. Yes, your article agrees I'm correct despite you arguing with me for some bizarre reason(?) The drivers themselves need to buy supplemental insurance or there is a gap in coverage during Period 1.

simoncion 11y ago
> Yes, because its a good idea to put them in a position of power right after they are out of jail. Did you not bother to read the link to the drunk girl who stupidly got into a car with one of these guys? Wow. Bro. A couple of things: Humans who would launch unjustifiable assaults against other humans come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them are convicted felons. Most of them are not. A proper background check [0] discovers with a relatively high degree of certainty whether or not one is likely to assault another (among many other things). It often takes a very, very long time before one can seal a felony conviction. "The guy who can't find solid work because he did a dramatically stupid thing a decade ago, despite the fact that he's a dramatically different and dramatically better guy now than he was then" is kinda archetypical. A prior felony conviction, along with the degree of one's success at rehabilitation is just another datapoint to be considered in a proper background check. > "Hey this one situation is risky, we shouldn't let them do X because there are clear instances of bad things happening because they pick up impaired passengers." You say that like regular cabbies with clean records aren't not-infrequently accused of theft, assault, and swindling. :/ > Yes, your article agrees I'm correct despite you arguing with me for some bizarre reason(?) Heh. You said: > The difference [in regards to insurance coverage] with Uber is the driver gets fucked instead of the Taxi/Uber company. [1] From what I can tell (and from what I've read in the Uber driver recruitment letters I've been getting in the mail), Uber et. al. are straightforward about the limits of their insurance. You all-but-explicitly claimed that nontraditional cab companies were making it difficult to understand the limits of their insurance policies. Perhaps their policies in regards to disclosure of this information have changed recently, but everything I've read that was actually published by the companies in question was straightforward and clear. [0] I know what such a thing is because I was subject to one in a former life. [1] Amusingly, you said this right after you mentioned that Uber had done the legwork required to find an insurer that was willing to insure commercial drivers making use of their personal vehicle during the time that they're not driving for Uber.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  > A proper background check [0] discovers with a relatively high degree of certainty whether or not one is likely to assault another (among many other things). ...yet you don't want Uber to do proper background checks. Okay. That makes no sense and you basically admit I'm correct then go on and on about something else. > From what I can tell (and from what I've read in the Uber driver recruitment letters I've been getting in the mail), Uber et. al. are straightforward about the limits of their insurance. Once again, you aren't countering my argument in any way shape or form. You are saying "Well, yes the burden is shifted to drivers and that is okay." > You all-but-explicitly claimed that nontraditional cab companies were making it difficult to understand the limits of their insurance policies You clearly don't understand what I've written at all and I'm going to stop here because its pretty clear you are attacking strawmen and patting yourself on the back for it for some bizarre reason.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > ...yet you don't want Uber to do proper background checks. Okay. Heh. When did I say that? I bet you can't provide a quote... because I neither said it, nor implied it. :) From the sound of it, it's you who's interested in forgoing proper background checks, and just blackballing everyone who's been convicted of a felony: > In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think of a scenario where background checks fail." Think through your statement: * You -obviously- strongly disagree with Grishnakh's assertion that background checks are frequently going to be insufficient to root out everyone who would harm another human while driving them around... especially when they've recently arrived in the country. * You express that disagreement by rephrasing his statement as (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Because background checks fail, it's okay to hire convicted felons who've served their time and are now out of jail.". * This implies that you feel that blanket prohibitions on employing people who've been previously convicted of a felony are acceptable. If one wants to perform a more-thorough-than-usual background check on folks convicted of a felony, charge them more to perform the check. [0] Do that, rather than instituting a policy that ends up being -at best- dramatically classist, -at worst- dramatically racist, and -at all times- dramatically damaging to the folks who've reformed themselves and are now decent, honest, useful people. > You are saying "Well, yes the burden is shifted to drivers and that is okay." Sure, but that wasn't the core of your argument. Your argument's core was that Uber et. al. were being dishonest and/or intentionally deceptive about the limits of their coverage. > You clearly don't understand what I've written at all... No, I do. I can read both the text and the subtext of what you've written. :) [0] But, frankly, the same level of scrutiny should be applied to everyone... you never know who's an antisocial scumbag that just hasn't been caught yet.

simoncion 11y ago

> Yes, because its a good idea to put them in a position of power right after they are out of jail. Did you not bother to read the link to the drunk girl who stupidly got into a car with one of these guys? Wow. Bro. A couple of things: Humans who would launch unjustifiable assaults against other humans come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them are convicted felons. Most of them are not. A proper background check [0] discovers with a relatively high degree of certainty whether or not one is likely to assault another (among many other things). It often takes a very, very long time before one can seal a felony conviction. "The guy who can't find solid work because he did a dramatically stupid thing a decade ago, despite the fact that he's a dramatically different and dramatically better guy now than he was then" is kinda archetypical. A prior felony conviction, along with the degree of one's success at rehabilitation is just another datapoint to be considered in a proper background check. > "Hey this one situation is risky, we shouldn't let them do X because there are clear instances of bad things happening because they pick up impaired passengers." You say that like regular cabbies with clean records aren't not-infrequently accused of theft, assault, and swindling. :/ > Yes, your article agrees I'm correct despite you arguing with me for some bizarre reason(?) Heh. You said: > The difference [in regards to insurance coverage] with Uber is the driver gets fucked instead of the Taxi/Uber company. [1] From what I can tell (and from what I've read in the Uber driver recruitment letters I've been getting in the mail), Uber et. al. are straightforward about the limits of their insurance. You all-but-explicitly claimed that nontraditional cab companies were making it difficult to understand the limits of their insurance policies. Perhaps their policies in regards to disclosure of this information have changed recently, but everything I've read that was actually published by the companies in question was straightforward and clear. [0] I know what such a thing is because I was subject to one in a former life. [1] Amusingly, you said this right after you mentioned that Uber had done the legwork required to find an insurer that was willing to insure commercial drivers making use of their personal vehicle during the time that they're not driving for Uber.

fweespeech 11y ago
> A proper background check [0] discovers with a relatively high degree of certainty whether or not one is likely to assault another (among many other things). ...yet you don't want Uber to do proper background checks. Okay. That makes no sense and you basically admit I'm correct then go on and on about something else. > From what I can tell (and from what I've read in the Uber driver recruitment letters I've been getting in the mail), Uber et. al. are straightforward about the limits of their insurance. Once again, you aren't countering my argument in any way shape or form. You are saying "Well, yes the burden is shifted to drivers and that is okay." > You all-but-explicitly claimed that nontraditional cab companies were making it difficult to understand the limits of their insurance policies You clearly don't understand what I've written at all and I'm going to stop here because its pretty clear you are attacking strawmen and patting yourself on the back for it for some bizarre reason.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > ...yet you don't want Uber to do proper background checks. Okay. Heh. When did I say that? I bet you can't provide a quote... because I neither said it, nor implied it. :) From the sound of it, it's you who's interested in forgoing proper background checks, and just blackballing everyone who's been convicted of a felony: > In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think of a scenario where background checks fail." Think through your statement: * You -obviously- strongly disagree with Grishnakh's assertion that background checks are frequently going to be insufficient to root out everyone who would harm another human while driving them around... especially when they've recently arrived in the country. * You express that disagreement by rephrasing his statement as (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Because background checks fail, it's okay to hire convicted felons who've served their time and are now out of jail.". * This implies that you feel that blanket prohibitions on employing people who've been previously convicted of a felony are acceptable. If one wants to perform a more-thorough-than-usual background check on folks convicted of a felony, charge them more to perform the check. [0] Do that, rather than instituting a policy that ends up being -at best- dramatically classist, -at worst- dramatically racist, and -at all times- dramatically damaging to the folks who've reformed themselves and are now decent, honest, useful people. > You are saying "Well, yes the burden is shifted to drivers and that is okay." Sure, but that wasn't the core of your argument. Your argument's core was that Uber et. al. were being dishonest and/or intentionally deceptive about the limits of their coverage. > You clearly don't understand what I've written at all... No, I do. I can read both the text and the subtext of what you've written. :) [0] But, frankly, the same level of scrutiny should be applied to everyone... you never know who's an antisocial scumbag that just hasn't been caught yet.