3 ms·

"This drumbeat that Uber needs to do background checks is so incredibly silly and naive." No, it's not. Uber is directly responsible for the people it allows o

by st3v3r 10y ago

"This drumbeat that Uber needs to do background checks is so incredibly silly and naive." No, it's not. Uber is directly responsible for the people it allows on it's platform. As such, they should be doing everything they can to make sure those people they allow on their platform are not going to be doing things like this. "The soccer-momification" That's when I knew you don't need to be taken seriously.

darawk 10y ago
In what way are they responsible? Why should a company be responsible for the criminal behavior of its employees, when those employees are not acting in the interest of the company? Sure, if an employee cuts corners to save the company money and earn a promotion, yes, that's the company's fault. But if a teller shoots some guy that walks in, is that really the bank's fault?
- st3v3r 10y ago
  "In what way are they responsible? " They dispatched the driver to the person. "Why should a company be responsible for the criminal behavior of its employees, when those employees are not acting in the interest of the company?" Because they're still acting on behalf of the company.
  - darawk 10y ago
    This is obviously not true in general. If it were, business would grind to a halt. Businesses cannot be responsible for every action that any employee might take while on the job. What does this suggest? That arguments in absolute terms on either side are wrong. Which further suggests that there is some balance to be struck between responsibility and efficiency - between negative externalities and economic productivity. The litmus test that I posit makes sense here is one of two things: - High-impact correlated risk - Inability of the market to compensate for the issue (due to informational asymmetries or agency problems, say) An example of the first might be nuclear weapons or pharmaceuticals. An example of the second might be restaurants food safety (attribution of sickness to a particular place, and estimation of sanitariness are difficult). I don't think uber meets either of these standards. Certainly there is no high-impact correlated risk. Which leaves inability of the market to provide this safety net. Pretty clearly, an Uber competitor could emerge that advertises the thoroughness of its background checks, and charges a premium for this service. If people want it, they'll use it. If they don't, it'll die. There is no need for the government to step in here.

by st3v3r 10y ago

darawk 10y ago

In what way are they responsible? Why should a company be responsible for the criminal behavior of its employees, when those employees are not acting in the interest of the company? Sure, if an employee cuts corners to save the company money and earn a promotion, yes, that's the company's fault. But if a teller shoots some guy that walks in, is that really the bank's fault?

st3v3r 10y ago
"In what way are they responsible? " They dispatched the driver to the person. "Why should a company be responsible for the criminal behavior of its employees, when those employees are not acting in the interest of the company?" Because they're still acting on behalf of the company.
- darawk 10y ago
  This is obviously not true in general. If it were, business would grind to a halt. Businesses cannot be responsible for every action that any employee might take while on the job. What does this suggest? That arguments in absolute terms on either side are wrong. Which further suggests that there is some balance to be struck between responsibility and efficiency - between negative externalities and economic productivity. The litmus test that I posit makes sense here is one of two things: - High-impact correlated risk - Inability of the market to compensate for the issue (due to informational asymmetries or agency problems, say) An example of the first might be nuclear weapons or pharmaceuticals. An example of the second might be restaurants food safety (attribution of sickness to a particular place, and estimation of sanitariness are difficult). I don't think uber meets either of these standards. Certainly there is no high-impact correlated risk. Which leaves inability of the market to provide this safety net. Pretty clearly, an Uber competitor could emerge that advertises the thoroughness of its background checks, and charges a premium for this service. If people want it, they'll use it. If they don't, it'll die. There is no need for the government to step in here.