Comment by moey | Hacker News Reader

Comment by moey | Hacker News Reader

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.

> 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?

>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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It may not be the best example, but it's an example that highlights the fact that if there's anything in a person's history that could be considered a legitimate risk to the workplace employees, property, and the like then you can't conclude this is a punishment. In the case of Uber, if they did the prescribed background checks in Kansas and they found a percentage of their drivers have been convicted of a DUI and are operating under phony licenses. Would you say it's extra-legal punishment for Uber to kick them off their service? I would think not, but we could narrow the problem to any conviction for a DUI within five years or any conviction for narcotics within the same time span (I think it's actually seven years such convictions still appear on your background check, but I'm not sure either way). Do you think it's extra-legal punishment in that context as well? If so, why should any firm take on the added risk of an ex-con with either of those charges? Can you prove their behaviors at present are consistent with safe driving practices?

That's really what's at stake here for Uber. Taking on a risky driver isn't in their best interest, but they off-load that risk onto the driver and the public at large (externalizing the cost of those drivers habits onto the larger public while internalizing all the profits for their shareholders) which means we're the ones who have to pay the cost of the risky drivers that operate under Uber. If they paid for the risk involved, then I'd have no problem with them operating anywhere. But as I see it, if they're going to play around the legal system which has similar requirements for other industries, this seems to me that they should be subjected to the same legal requirements or that the same legal requirements be nullified for every firm in every industry in the United States (I doubt that will ever happen).

So are you saying that I should be required to be friends with rapists?

Because refusing to be friends with a rapist is also "extra-legal justice" according to your logic.

I don't see anyone saying anyone should be required to do anything. I see someone stating that when private discrimination on the basis of status assigned by the State exists and is widespread, the State either actively intervenes to prevent the discrimination or is facilitating the discrimination.

You can't refuse to hire someone for race, or family status. It would be reasonable if you couldn't refuse to hire someone for a crime they have already completed a sentence for (unless it's relevant to the job). There already exist some state laws of this sort, especially for crimes that have been expunged.

Friendship is unrelated, and you wouldn't even know if they were a felon.

And non-felons are capable of horrible crimes too. They weren't born felons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com