4 ms·

> 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 mo

by edent 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        That's a particularly bad example to argue from, since that is clearly not an example of extra-legal punishment, since child molesters are generally legally forbidden from working with children even after any prison terms is complete, and legal daycare centers often have a positive legal obligation to conduct background checks and exclude such offenders. So, excluding those offenders from isn't extra-legal punishment, its simply legal punishment. This is, of course, different in critical ways from the general case of excluding convicts from hiring pools.
        12y ago

by edent 12y ago

Dylan16807 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        That's a particularly bad example to argue from, since that is clearly not an example of extra-legal punishment, since child molesters are generally legally forbidden from working with children even after any prison terms is complete, and legal daycare centers often have a positive legal obligation to conduct background checks and exclude such offenders. So, excluding those offenders from isn't extra-legal punishment, its simply legal punishment. This is, of course, different in critical ways from the general case of excluding convicts from hiring pools.
        12y ago