Uber Fined $8.9 Million for Hiring Drivers with Criminal Records

[Megalith]

Uber has missed (or outright ignored) criminal records in the past. Earlier this year, over 8,000 Uber and Lyft drivers failed a Massachusetts background check. It appears that these issues haven't improved much: this week, Colorado regulators fined Uber for allowing 57 people with criminal offenses to drive for the company.

Colorado regulators slapped Uber with an $8.9 million penalty for allowing 57 people with past criminal or motor vehicle offenses to drive for the company. The state’s Public Utilities Commission said the drivers should have been disqualified, as they had issues ranging from felony convictions to driving under the influence and reckless driving. In some cases, drivers were working with revoked, suspended or canceled licenses.

 

[steakman1971]

Where I work, all employees must get a background check. We have a workflow set up - it's super easy. All we do is initiate the request by filling out a persons name and I think SSN. The third part does the rest and sends SAP back a response. This goes into our hiring system automatically. Why can't Uber do something like this? Maybe its growing pains...

 

[ymer]

Uber doesn't give a fuk about anything, so long as there are dumb people willing to drive for uber for free, their board of directors will continue to get richer and richer until their bubble bursts. Luckily this bubble only affects taxi gangs, so I have no problem with any of it.

 

[Lakados]

I never understood this, if somebody commits a crime they go to jail they pay their debt to society for their crime and they are released then what is the problem? They are not currently wanted for any crimes they have not done anything illegal that they haven't been punished for. If they got out and are doing all the stuff society requires, checking with their parole officer and all that jazz then why should they be treated so poorly? Just let them have a job, make money and get off/out of the system and live their life. Continuing to punish somebody long after their debts are paid really doesn't help anybody.

 

[Ur_Mom]

Why would that be a problem? Are people with a criminal past not allowed to work. This is why they continue a life a crime. Because they can't get a job anywhere, even at Uber. It's pretty fucked up. Go to jail, pay your debt to society, get out and you're still fucked.

It should be up to the company to be able to hire someone with a criminal background, not the government. If a company had a requirement (felony = no gun = not working armed security; financial job = insider trading = no job there), then that's on them. It shouldn't be up to the government to say "You can't hire this guy, he went to prison before".

 

[dargon]

I never understood this, if somebody commits a crime they go to jail they pay their debt to society for their crime and they are released then what is the problem? They are not currently wanted for any crimes they have not done anything illegal that they haven't been punished for. If they got out and are doing all the stuff society requires, checking with their parole officer and all that jazz then why should they be treated so poorly? Just let them have a job, make money and get off/out of the system and live their life. Continuing to punish somebody long after their debts are paid really doesn't help anybody.

And I'm sure some crimes, for example shoplifting, just get ignored by a background check. But would you want to get into a car driven by someone who had a record of raping women, even if they just got out of jail after 5, 10, 15 or 20 years? I know quite a few woman that it wouldn't matter how long it was, they wouldn't get in that vehicle if they knew who was driving it.

 

[Ragenrok]

I never understood this, if somebody commits a crime they go to jail they pay their debt to society for their crime and they are released then what is the problem? They are not currently wanted for any crimes they have not done anything illegal that they haven't been punished for. If they got out and are doing all the stuff society requires, checking with their parole officer and all that jazz then why should they be treated so poorly? Just let them have a job, make money and get off/out of the system and live their life. Continuing to punish somebody long after their debts are paid really doesn't help anybody.

agreed, I think except for situations where that crime is involved with a certain field, convicted pedophiles trying to get a teaching job or a rapist working for uber is understandable ground for not hiring lol. But most cases WTF does it matter that 5 years ago someone did something stupid, punishing them their whole lives by preventing them from becoming productive to us when they aren't a high risk to re-offend is just dumb

 

[ewb302]

Uber pays their drivers total shit. As with any employer that pays shit, you sometimes get shit in return. How is anyone surprised that some drivers have a criminal background.

And to add to that, I agree with above. Certain past offenses should not be held over someone's head for the rest of their lives. If someone wants to freely go work for a crappy paying company, let them. Perhaps it's their first step of climbing back up in life.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

I'm a bit torn on this.

Those with PAST criminal histories have a very hard time finding jobs even though they served their time and have been rehabilitated. Denying them gainful employment in a field (ie: Uber) which may not be related to what they did (ie: larceny) just makes their situation more desperate. This in turn increases the likelihood of the ex-felon committing other crimes to support him or her self.

When you do your time, you are supposed to be square with the system again with the hopes you have the opportunity to change yourself with the opportunity. Losing everything (or coming close) can make a person change.

But at the same time, I think Uber should be smart enough NOT to hire someone who has a history or sexual assault, or driving infractions as that impacts their customer.

 

[oldmanbal]

I'm a bit torn on this.

Those with PAST criminal histories have a very hard time finding jobs even though they served their time and have been rehabilitated. Denying them gainful employment in a field (ie: Uber) which may not be related to what they did (ie: larceny) just makes their situation more desperate. This in turn increases the likelihood of the ex-felon committing other crimes to support him or her self.

When you do your time, you are supposed to be square with the system again with the hopes you have the opportunity to change yourself with the opportunity. Losing everything (or coming close) can make a person change.

But at the same time, I think Uber should be smart enough NOT to hire someone who has a history or sexual assault, or driving infractions as that impacts their customer.

I agree, there should clearly be a disconnect between certain offenses barring you from employment in certain industries. Anything sexual, driving, or child related should be barred from employment in a position of driver for a service like UBER. There's too many concerns that would never be publicly acceptible for these types of employees. However, it gets more dicey when you start to look at assaults, domestic, and drug related offenses. Typically you would want to weigh it on a case by case scenario, but larger companies really don't have any wiggle room to allow questionable hiring when there is more than enough applicable individuals to fill your ranks. When the consumer loses faith in a company like UBER, the ability to rebound continues to decline. I'm not a single female in need of such a service, but if my sister was going to use a company like UBER that was known for hiring individuals that raise red flags, I don't believe she would even consider them as an option.

 

[vegeta535]

Some crimes are just too broad also. You can be charged as a sex offender by just pissing behind a dumpster in a ally. Sure people who served time for rape shouldn't be hire for a job like a Uber driver.

 

[bucket]

One of my Uber drivers was unable to drive me from Portland, OR to Vancouver, WA (4 mile trip) because his license was revoked in Washinton state.

 

[martinmsj]

I have a problem with this article. It never addresses the biggest elephant in the room. The article shows no direct link between the issues with Uber drivers with records and the drivers involved in those situations they mention. That bothers me a lot. Like the author is hiding something.

And I'm sure some crimes, for example shoplifting, just get ignored by a background check.

How do you even figure a background check won't affect someone's employment? You have two equal candidates until you get back their background check, the shoplifting is now a factor. That's how background checks work; that's part of the process.... How can you prove anybody did not discriminate for such a record when all you get is an email or short phone call saying "they've moved on to other candidates"?

... But would you want to get into a car driven by someone who had a record of raping women, even if they just got out of jail after 5, 10, 15 or 20 years? I know quite a few woman that it wouldn't matter how long it was, they wouldn't get in that vehicle if they knew who was driving it.

That's a person with a specific record. This doesn't prove anything against the rule concerning felonies. Of 2016 rape and murder accounted for about 10% of violent crime. Aggravated Assault was 64%. There was a case two years ago about a man who thought he was stopping a burglar by placing his car right behind the other car bumping it forward. It wasn't a burglary, he paid fines and did probation however the charge was aggravated assault. Does this make him more likely a violent Uber driver versus someone who wasn't paying attention on the road and rear-ended someone?

The Justice system is not perfect, far from it.

 

[KarsusTG]

I never understood this, if somebody commits a crime they go to jail they pay their debt to society for their crime and they are released then what is the problem? They are not currently wanted for any crimes they have not done anything illegal that they haven't been punished for. If they got out and are doing all the stuff society requires, checking with their parole officer and all that jazz then why should they be treated so poorly? Just let them have a job, make money and get off/out of the system and live their life. Continuing to punish somebody long after their debts are paid really doesn't help anybody.

They didn't pay their debt to society. They just paid that portion of it...

Although, we do put people in jail too easily.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

They didn't pay their debt to society. They just paid that portion of it...

That statement makes no sense. If the law see's fit to release you, then you paid your debt for your crimes. There's are clauses about double jeopardy and cruel and unusual punishment in the constitution. A lifetime societal sentence of poverty and ostracism certainly seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me. It's not like they are looking to be CEO of a company. They just want basic employment at the lowest ranks, which is the only thing society will afford them.

In some ways it's sad because good people do make bad mistakes. And they might have people that depend on them.

 

[lostin3d]

Unfortunately this has happened nearly a year after UBER helped the last nail in the coffin for the local cab company where I live.

 

[viper1152012]

This isn't where I wanted to get out?

 

[rudy]

I never understood this, if somebody commits a crime they go to jail they pay their debt to society for their crime and they are released then what is the problem? They are not currently wanted for any crimes they have not done anything illegal that they haven't been punished for. If they got out and are doing all the stuff society requires, checking with their parole officer and all that jazz then why should they be treated so poorly? Just let them have a job, make money and get off/out of the system and live their life. Continuing to punish somebody long after their debts are paid really doesn't help anybody.

Its a complicated problem with no solution. Do you want the non politically correct, honest answer? People who commit crimes have a higher probability to keep doing it. So from the perspective of consumers its just safer to stay away from it. By your logic everyone should have no problem living in an area with high crime because the people out there are not in prison so they must have served their time right? Why should people keep punishing them by not living near them? I wont get into the more complicated psychology of things but I get what you are saying its easy to get pushed back into crime when society wont give you a chance, but at the same time no matter how many chances society gives, lots of people they will just keep screwing up. Humans are not in any way shape or form the rational creatures we would like to believe. And believe me I know life isn't fair. Some people will be convicted falsely, some people would have really turned their life around.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Its a complicated problem with no solution. Do you want the non politically correct, honest answer? People who commit crimes have a higher probability to keep doing it. So from the perspective of consumers its just safer to stay away from it. By your logic everyone should have no problem living in an area with high crime because the people out there are not in prison so they must have served their time right? Why should people keep punishing them by not living near them? I wont get into the more complicated psychology of things but I get what you are saying its easy to get pushed back into crime when society wont give you a chance, but at the same time no matter how many chances society gives, lots of people they will just keep screwing up. Humans are not in any way shape or form the rational creatures we would like to believe. And believe me I know life isn't fair. Some people will be convicted falsely, some people would have really turned their life around.

By your standards no one deserves the right for a second chance because you just know they are likely to commit crimes again. So let's condemn them and be done with it.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? If you carry your attitude forth to all people who screw up, you create a self fulfilling prophecy.

I used to try to help people who had marriage and addiction issues. And you are right a lot of them will fail multiple times. But most honestly want to change. Then there's a few who are relatively good people who are in denial about their issues. Then one day when they face "losing it all" it hits them like a ton of bricks. And they do everything they can to claw their way out. For some it's like a second chance, or rebirth of life they are fighting for.

No one is asking you live next to them. No one will is asking you to pay for their new life.
They just want a place to start to prove themselves, to provide themselves some security.

Now I don't think Uber should allow anybody who interfaces with the public on a private level hire someone convicted of assault, rape, or mugging. That's just common sense.

But there are plenty of non violent offenders out there looking for work.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Meanwhile, Uber has almost 60 million people's information stolen, and they are not fined one bit.

 

[Deleted member 88227]

Meanwhile, Uber has almost 60 million people's information stolen, and they are not fined one bit.

and they didn't even tell anyone until a year after it happened

 

[aeliusg]

Colorado's laws on this are fine. No felony in the past 5 years, no violent crimes, no moving violations. Uber is at fault here for not applying any sort of standard at all. If you ride in a taxi or limo you have a reasonable expectation that the driver isn't a rapist fresh out of the clinker. It's only right that Uber should do the same by them and their users.

 

[ewb302]

I think Uber is going to fade away. Too many issues. Frankly, if the original taxi companies would create an app and payment method that was similar to Uber, I'd use a regular taxi. Jumping into a random Uber driver's personal car has always felt a bit weird to me anyway.

 

[rudy]

By your standards no one deserves the right for a second chance because you just know they are likely to commit crimes again. So let's condemn them and be done with it.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? If you carry your attitude forth to all people who screw up, you create a self fulfilling prophecy.

I used to try to help people who had marriage and addiction issues. And you are right a lot of them will fail multiple times. But most honestly want to change. Then there's a few who are relatively good people who are in denial about their issues. Then one day when they face "losing it all" it hits them like a ton of bricks. And they do everything they can to claw their way out. For some it's like a second chance, or rebirth of life they are fighting for.

No one is asking you live next to them. No one will is asking you to pay for their new life.
They just want a place to start to prove themselves, to provide themselves some security.

Now I don't think Uber should allow anybody who interfaces with the public on a private level hire someone convicted of assault, rape, or mugging. That's just common sense.

But there are plenty of non violent offenders out there looking for work.

Well in this case they are proven guilty. Also for clarification it is not my standard, I am just pointing out the other side of the argument and the pragmatic nature of it. I know all too well that the reality is you are never forgiven completely, you must rebuild your reputation over time that is why our parents try to prevent us from making mistakes, and even then some people will never forgive you. I have been in a few accidents, guess what, lexis nexus never forgives me, its always on my record and I pay dearly for it in car insurance costs, my police record for tickets is also a life long deal. And a lot of people find that fair cause they don't want their rates to go up to cover me. I love your point about most honestly want to change, and I absolutely could not agree with you more. But here is the thing surely you saw people who really honestly wanted to change, but didn't right? So now you know the real complication. Humans have these insanely powerful subconscious drives that keep throwing them back into their problems. And on top of that even those that seem to change often fall back much later in life, often when they hit a mid life crisis. The law seems to be relevant, you don't want someone whom is violent in a car with people whom will be vulnerable, and you don't want people driving cars for others who have a history of violations in cars. Subconscious drives act at so many levels that most people don't even want to acknowledge. It can be a simple as being a bad driver or getting mad any time someone leaves the toilet seat up. Most people have no idea why they act the way they do and thus far all our psychologists, and correctional measures just cant seem to consistently correct the problems. So what do you do? You make pragmatic laws to exclude people who have problems in certain areas from working in those fields. Unfortunately those people will have to accept that their past mistakes mean they will have to change jobs.

 

[NickJames]

Well in this case they are proven guilty. Also for clarification it is not my standard, I am just pointing out the other side of the argument and the pragmatic nature of it. I know all too well that the reality is you are never forgiven completely, you must rebuild your reputation over time that is why our parents try to prevent us from making mistakes, and even then some people will never forgive you. I have been in a few accidents, guess what, lexis nexus never forgives me, its always on my record and I pay dearly for it in car insurance costs, my police record for tickets is also a life long deal. And a lot of people find that fair cause they don't want their rates to go up to cover me. I love your point about most honestly want to change, and I absolutely could not agree with you more. But here is the thing surely you saw people who really honestly wanted to change, but didn't right? So now you know the real complication. Humans have these insanely powerful subconscious drives that keep throwing them back into their problems. And on top of that even those that seem to change often fall back much later in life, often when they hit a mid life crisis. The law seems to be relevant, you don't want someone whom is violent in a car with people whom will be vulnerable, and you don't want people driving cars for others who have a history of violations in cars. Subconscious drives act at so many levels that most people don't even want to acknowledge. It can be a simple as being a bad driver or getting mad any time someone leaves the toilet seat up. Most people have no idea why they act the way they do and thus far all our psychologists, and correctional measures just cant seem to consistently correct the problems. So what do you do? You make pragmatic laws to exclude people who have problems in certain areas from working in those fields. Unfortunately those people will have to accept that their past mistakes mean they will have to change jobs.

Actually most states allow you to expunge traffic citations from public record after a certain amount of years. Your insurance should also drop overtime once you maintain a clean record. The US has the highest amount of re offenders for a reason. We do nothing to help integrate them back into society so they will continue to live on the streets or commit crime because they have nothing left to lose. Give a criminal a place to live and a good job and see how quickly the re offender rates drop.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Well in this case they are proven guilty. Also for clarification it is not my standard, I am just pointing out the other side of the argument and the pragmatic nature of it. I know all too well that the reality is you are never forgiven completely, you must rebuild your reputation over time that is why our parents try to prevent us from making mistakes, and even then some people will never forgive you. I have been in a few accidents, guess what, lexis nexus never forgives me, its always on my record and I pay dearly for it in car insurance costs, my police record for tickets is also a life long deal. And a lot of people find that fair cause they don't want their rates to go up to cover me. I love your point about most honestly want to change, and I absolutely could not agree with you more. But here is the thing surely you saw people who really honestly wanted to change, but didn't right? So now you know the real complication. Humans have these insanely powerful subconscious drives that keep throwing them back into their problems. And on top of that even those that seem to change often fall back much later in life, often when they hit a mid life crisis. The law seems to be relevant, you don't want someone whom is violent in a car with people whom will be vulnerable, and you don't want people driving cars for others who have a history of violations in cars. Subconscious drives act at so many levels that most people don't even want to acknowledge. It can be a simple as being a bad driver or getting mad any time someone leaves the toilet seat up. Most people have no idea why they act the way they do and thus far all our psychologists, and correctional measures just cant seem to consistently correct the problems. So what do you do? You make pragmatic laws to exclude people who have problems in certain areas from working in those fields. Unfortunately those people will have to accept that their past mistakes mean they will have to change jobs.

Yes the do go back to their old ways (addicts relapse, infidelity repeats, etc). All kinds of people came in those church doors looking for help. I received some rudamentry training to help others because I wanted to make a difference. So sometimes I would just keep the church open for AA, na, sa, or a-anon, n-anon, or s-anon. Those are private. Other times I would help with marriage building workshops. But the good father and other qualified church members and volunteer councilors did the heavy lifting. I never did counciling, but during marriage building workshops things would come up during exercises.

I can't talk about specifics but I remember one couple who was on the edge. She was seeing lawyers and having papers drawn up. He screwed up big time. But he was in tears not for himself but for his wife and family. I think it finally hit him what he did and set out to change his life. He didn't have any more chances. And he quit making excuses. I like to think he made it. At least for the time I was there he seemed to be on the road to recovery. And he stayed out of trouble.


Dozens of stories like him. Some show up once and never come back to counciling, or a-anon groups or workshops. Many relapse. Some make it. Some don't.

Long story short: Some do clean up their lives.

I don't have the time to help out much as I used to as have my own family to raise now. But a few do make it.

Any way to your point: Once convicted, and if his job puts him or her in a position to repeat what he or she was convicted of, then he/she should not be working that job. Addicts / people who are in true recovery realize that if they are in a bad environment, they remove themselves from that temptation or bad situation. And I most certainly wouldn't put an offender near the elderly, infirmed, women, or children if they could cause harm. For example: could one work at a soup kitchen? Yes. They are never alone, and monitored. Could one work warehouse if his crimes were non financial and non physically violent? Yes. Could one do construction work if young enough? Yes. Could one be a lineman if young enough? Yes. Could one conduct a train if he didn't do narcotics or alchohol? Yes.

The kinds of jobs most of them get though keep them at a life of poverty or damn near it. Jobs like Janitor, cook, waiter, fast food, garbage. Certainly not enough to take care of themselves. And most definitely not to support a family. Tax payers end up paying for it one way or another once they are out because good work is hard to find for them.

 

[rudy]

It is my understanding that reporting agencies keep this stuff forever. Each insurer is free to take whatever they want into account for you, but they can see the records forever. In a place like MI where we have a point system those points fall off over time but afaik the record is always there.