4 ms·

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 ce

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 can't help but take the utilitarian approach and err on the side of caution.

throwaway2048 10y ago
8000 employees for uber in a single state is not a small proportion.
- Retric 10y ago
  I suspect they got many people who can't become Taxi etc drivers due to these issues and lack higher paying skills.
clairity 10y ago
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, 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.
- fataliss 10y ago
  Checking each single applicant's offenses and determining wether it's relevant or not for their driver position takes a lot more time/money. If you want an automated process that guarantees the security of your customer aka the passengers as much as possible for the lowest cost possible you just eliminate anyone with "qualifying" offense. This is not more conservative than it is efficient.
  - clairity 10y ago
    no, if efficiency were your primary concern, then you would work to lower the adverse action rate of 11%, because typically you need to manually review each potential adverse action to avoid violating the FRCA when you reject the candidate. "clear" records require no manual review (obviously) so are more efficient than finding adverse records. by contrast, uber & lyft are able to do background checks with less than a ~2% adverse action rate. it's debatable that background checks make passengers safer, so getting rid of background checks altogether would be the most efficient of course. checkr (https://checkr.com/ https://checkr.com/) has built a nice little business doing background checks despite the inefficiencies.
- benchaney 10y ago
  Another reason it isn't a utilitarian approach is because not allowing reformed criminals to work causes recidivism. If people have no way to make an honest living once they serve their time, they are virtually guaranteed to commit more crime. The attitude of "Don't hire criminals, it isn't safe" makes society as a whole less safe.

throwaway2048 10y ago

8000 employees for uber in a single state is not a small proportion.

Retric 10y ago
I suspect they got many people who can't become Taxi etc drivers due to these issues and lack higher paying skills.

clairity 10y ago

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, 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.

fataliss 10y ago
Checking each single applicant's offenses and determining wether it's relevant or not for their driver position takes a lot more time/money. If you want an automated process that guarantees the security of your customer aka the passengers as much as possible for the lowest cost possible you just eliminate anyone with "qualifying" offense. This is not more conservative than it is efficient.
- clairity 10y ago
  no, if efficiency were your primary concern, then you would work to lower the adverse action rate of 11%, because typically you need to manually review each potential adverse action to avoid violating the FRCA when you reject the candidate. "clear" records require no manual review (obviously) so are more efficient than finding adverse records. by contrast, uber & lyft are able to do background checks with less than a ~2% adverse action rate. it's debatable that background checks make passengers safer, so getting rid of background checks altogether would be the most efficient of course. checkr (https://checkr.com/ https://checkr.com/) has built a nice little business doing background checks despite the inefficiencies.
benchaney 10y ago
Another reason it isn't a utilitarian approach is because not allowing reformed criminals to work causes recidivism. If people have no way to make an honest living once they serve their time, they are virtually guaranteed to commit more crime. The attitude of "Don't hire criminals, it isn't safe" makes society as a whole less safe.