4 ms·

I've got mixed feelings. At one end, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the state to require more insurance coverage for Uber drivers since there will be mo

by moey 11y ago

I've got mixed feelings. At one end, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the state to require more insurance coverage for Uber drivers since there will be more risk involved than a regular driver. Background checks required by state? That's Uber's job to decide, and they do it anyway. If Uber doesn't do background checks, and there are incidents (even a small number) it will hurt their business at the end of the day. It's in their best interest to do the background checks in the manner they please. This is a weird situation where Uber doesn't want to "employ" it drivers and pay for w/e is needed for them to do business, but at the same time their drivers require them to provide them with everything to do their job and now their source of income (employer) left the state and them jobless. I wish we were provided with more details like how much this background check/insurance would cost. They already do both (Uber does a background & provides commercial insurance coverage) so honestly this half-written articles do nothing but make people even MORE confused on how Uber REALLY does business.

edent 11y ago
> If Uber doesn't do background checks, and there are incidents (even a small number) it will hurt their business at the end of the day. I really hate this mode of thinking. What's wrong with preventing incidents? A background check isn't going to weed out 100% of muggers, rapists, or Enron Executives - but it will likely reduce the number of muggings, rapings, and fraud. Your argument is basically "There's no need to inspect restaurants - if people die of food poisoning, the business will suffer." Well, yeah - but how about we take some simple precautions to stop people getting hurt?
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  >What's wrong with preventing incidents? Privacy issues and companies making hiring decisions on non-work-relevant personal life choices. Do you support background checks for all jobs? Nothing you said is specific to Uber. But there's a reason companies can't ask if you have children, etc.
  - amyjess 11y ago
    > Do you support background checks for all jobs? Yes. Yes, I do. I'm female, and on top of that, I'm part of a group that is exceptionally vulnerable to hate crimes. I'm glad I work at an company where I don't have to worry about a co-worker being a known rapist.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      All right. Well I wish you the best, but be careful. If someone has served their time in prison then that should be the end of the punishment. Common sense restrictions are fine, but they should be eligible for most jobs. It's utterly cruel to pretend someone's punishment is over, then throw them onto the streets with no assistance and near-zero chance of having a life again. By all means keep people locked up if a crime is truly bad enough, but if they've served their time then they've served their time.
      - norea-armozel 11y ago
        You're conflating the background check with extra-legal justice. They're not the same. The issue of re-introduction of convicts who have served their sentences is a problem of the State as the State is one who does the punishing.
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        If you refuse to hire someone based on past crimes, that's extra-legal justice. When it becomes widespread enough, the State has two choices: stop said discrimination, or be complicit in it.
        norea-armozel 11y ago
        So, I should be required to hire someone at a daycare center even if that person was a child molester (unrepentant)? I'm not trying to lure you in the "think of the children" trap, but it's an honest question in light of the potential jobs a person could obtain. If said ex-con child molester was to get a job somewhere else like in meat packing or IT that's different. But if they were to waltz up to a daycare center and apply knowing full well their conviction would show up on the background check, you really think they should get the job? I'm all ears, but don't expect me to accept your conclusion.

by moey 11y ago

edent 11y ago

> If Uber doesn't do background checks, and there are incidents (even a small number) it will hurt their business at the end of the day. I really hate this mode of thinking. What's wrong with preventing incidents? A background check isn't going to weed out 100% of muggers, rapists, or Enron Executives - but it will likely reduce the number of muggings, rapings, and fraud. Your argument is basically "There's no need to inspect restaurants - if people die of food poisoning, the business will suffer." Well, yeah - but how about we take some simple precautions to stop people getting hurt?

Dylan16807 11y ago
>What's wrong with preventing incidents? Privacy issues and companies making hiring decisions on non-work-relevant personal life choices. Do you support background checks for all jobs? Nothing you said is specific to Uber. But there's a reason companies can't ask if you have children, etc.
- amyjess 11y ago
  > Do you support background checks for all jobs? Yes. Yes, I do. I'm female, and on top of that, I'm part of a group that is exceptionally vulnerable to hate crimes. I'm glad I work at an company where I don't have to worry about a co-worker being a known rapist.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    All right. Well I wish you the best, but be careful. If someone has served their time in prison then that should be the end of the punishment. Common sense restrictions are fine, but they should be eligible for most jobs. It's utterly cruel to pretend someone's punishment is over, then throw them onto the streets with no assistance and near-zero chance of having a life again. By all means keep people locked up if a crime is truly bad enough, but if they've served their time then they've served their time.
    - norea-armozel 11y ago
      You're conflating the background check with extra-legal justice. They're not the same. The issue of re-introduction of convicts who have served their sentences is a problem of the State as the State is one who does the punishing.
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        If you refuse to hire someone based on past crimes, that's extra-legal justice. When it becomes widespread enough, the State has two choices: stop said discrimination, or be complicit in it.
        norea-armozel 11y ago
        So, I should be required to hire someone at a daycare center even if that person was a child molester (unrepentant)? I'm not trying to lure you in the "think of the children" trap, but it's an honest question in light of the potential jobs a person could obtain. If said ex-con child molester was to get a job somewhere else like in meat packing or IT that's different. But if they were to waltz up to a daycare center and apply knowing full well their conviction would show up on the background check, you really think they should get the job? I'm all ears, but don't expect me to accept your conclusion.