Uber Drivers Forum banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here in Massachusetts they are attempting extremely strict regulations on rideshare. In addition to the background checks Uber does the state also wants to do them. They want each individual driver to pay thousands of dollars for a livery license, barring rideshare from picking people up at the airport... And the list goes on.
Cab companies need to stop with the sour grapes and start getting with the times by converting their current long-standing infrastructure so that it can compete with rideshare.
If Massachusetts regulates Uber out of the Rideshare Market then it will be doing an egregious disservice to its residents.
Without a doubt by myself will not continue working with Uber or any rideshare company in Massachusetts but rather we'll take the 26 minute drive to Hartford Connecticut where it's more profitable then my current location.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
Here in Massachusetts they are attempting extremely strict regulations on rideshare. In addition to the background checks Uber does the state also wants to do them. They want each individual driver to pay thousands of dollars for a livery license, barring rideshare from picking people up at the airport... And the list goes on.
Cab companies need to stop with the sour grapes and start getting with the times by converting their current long-standing infrastructure so that it can compete with rideshare.
If Massachusetts regulates Uber out of the Rideshare Market then it will be doing an egregious disservice to its residents.
Without a doubt by myself will not continue working with Uber or any rideshare company in Massachusetts but rather we'll take the 26 minute drive to Hartford Connecticut where it's more profitable then my current location.
Uber has no proof of crimminal background checks. Also if they actually do them they are done by a private group and are done without fingerprints. They also only go back 7 years and are only state wide.
Do you really think that any jurisdiction was going to allow Uber to operate without restrictions? The transportation industry is filled with regulations and if you or others think that you are somehow different then you need to know how things work. Trucks and taxis operate under strict rules. You are no different.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,011 Posts
According to the Globe, not every jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts requires that taxi or limousine drivers submit fingerprints or submit to a Law Enforcement background check.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
According to the Globe, not every jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts requires that taxi or limousine drivers submit fingerprints or submit to a Law Enforcement background check.
Then it is a good chance to make all persons in all jurisdictions to undergo the same vetting process. That would make things fair. But wait. That would not be in the best interests for Uber.

Where I am from all persons who transport humans have full fingerprint background checks. This is also for truck drivers who carry freight.

We have seen too many cases where Uber drivers have passed Ubers rigorous background checks and to learn later that many have slipped through. I, like many others want the authorities to vet drivers that deal with the public as best as possible. It is not full proof but it gives some sense of confidence. In Canada they go beyond just a crimminal record checks for cabbies and bus drivers. If you have had any complaints regarding sexual inappropriate behaviour, you are toast. There are cases that never go to court let alone charges laid. Many times social workers remove an individual from a home when they believe a child is a victim of sexual exploitation or physical abuse but there are no formal charges. Another point is that a person can be pardoned but here, if the crimes are of a sexual nature, the record is clear but will not be granted a taxi license. It falls under a vulnerable persons search which is different from a crimminal record search.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
Then it is a good chance to make all persons in all jurisdictions to undergo the same vetting process. That would make things fair. But wait. That would not be in the best interests for Uber.

Where I am from all persons who transport humans have full fingerprint background checks. This is also for truck drivers who carry freight.

We have seen too many cases where Uber drivers have passed Ubers rigorous background checks and to learn later that many have slipped through. I, like many others want the authorities to vet drivers that deal with the public as best as possible. It is not full proof but it gives some sense of confidence. In Canada they go beyond just a crimminal record checks for cabbies and bus drivers. If you have had any complaints regarding sexual inappropriate behaviour, you are toast. There are cases that never go to court let alone charges laid. Many times social workers remove an individual from a home when they believe a child is a victim of sexual exploitation or physical abuse but there are no formal charges. Another point is that a person can be pardoned but here, if the crimes are of a sexual nature, the record is clear but will not be granted a taxi license. It falls under a vulnerable persons search which is different from a crimminal record search.
That is the stupidest thing I've heard for awhile. Complaint of? Please! Unfound accusations should not punish one from making a living for life just because some dick wanted to be funny. Just like the rating system gets played by passengers, fake DUI complaints being abused to get free credits, this is bullshit. People have the right to defend themselves. You know true innocent UNTIL (unless) proven guilty.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,011 Posts
Then it is a good chance to make all persons in all jurisdictions to undergo the same vetting process.

That would make things fair. That would not be in the best interests for Uber.

Where I am from all persons who transport humans have full fingerprint background checks.

We have seen too many cases where Uber drivers have passed Ubers rigorous background checks and to learn later that many have slipped through.

In Canada they go beyond just a crimminal record checks for cabbies and bus drivers.

If you have had any complaints regarding sexual inappropriate behaviour, you are toast.
All should have to do the same thing. T. Kalanick is on record, before the D.C. City Council as admitting that both Uber and the taxis do the same thing (...and Uber is a "technology company, not a transportation company", correct?). If Uber and the taxis are doing the same thing, the drivers should be subject to the same things. My point in the remark about what the Boston Globe stated is that if taxi drivers in a given jurisdiction do not have to submit to fingerprint checks, TNC drivers should not, either. In jurisdictions where they do, TNC drivers should have to. There is a problem in that TNC drivers are multi-jurisdictional, but, perhaps erring on the side of caution would be better.

The only reason that Uber does not want to be regulated is that it can not compete when it is regulated. Uber has stated that it can not compete even with minimal regulation. Anyone with half an ounce of brains (or should I put "fourteen grams of brains"?. I lived in Canada when it was going metric, so I do understand the Metric System) should be able to see that Uber put its proverbial foot into its proverbial mouth with a statement such as that. Fortunately for the TNCs, they are able to make "arrangements" with the politicians so that they do not "see" that. What Uber is stating is that it can not compete in a marketplace where it must play by the same rules by which all others in said marketplace must play. In short, Uber can not compete fairly or in a fair marketplace. Uber can compete only if it has no fetters and its competition is excessively fettered.

In the District of Columbia, all applicants for a limousine or taxi licence must submit to an FBI Fingerprint/Background Check. Every time that there is a renewal, the Taxicab Commission re-checks with the FBI and the driver must submit a D.C. Arrest/Conviction Record (commonly called a "Police Clearance", here) as well as one from the jurisdiction in which he lives (if he lives in the suburbs).

In Maryland, the suburbs do a Law Enforcement Background Check but do not require fingerprints from applicants for taxi licences. The State licences limousine drivers. They must submit fingerprints. In fact, they must make at least one special trip to Baltimore to secure their limousine licence.

In Virginia, the jurisdictions licence taxi drivers. They do Law Enforcement Background Checks, but do not require fingerprints. There is no special licence required to drive a limousine. Funny, all of the problems with Uber Black drivers in this area have come from limousines that bear Virginia plates.

One of the reasons that Houston wants to licence the drivers and make them submit to a Law Enforcement Background Check is because the Uber driver who sexually assaulted the female passenger there had passed the check from the firm that Uber uses. Shortly after the Police in Houston booked him, his fingerprints brought up a previous conviction. I seem to recall that it was in New Mexico, which ain't perzackly none too far from no Texas. I am not sure of the New Mexico, but it was somewhere and it came up very quickly once Law Enforcement checked out the driver.

In the District of Columbia, if you have a conviction for sexual misconduct, you will not receive a hack licence. If you were arrested but subsequently cleared, there is no problem. If you got a nolo prosequi, you had better have a good explanation, a good lawyer or both.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,011 Posts
I realized it was Canada but common sense should dictate even they should wake up a bit.
They have, as have other nations. Still, there are a few subtle differences. Here, we have complete Freedom of Speech, at least on paper. Here, the courts still do realise that you can not silence someone who expresses an opinion that is not popular, out-of-fashion or not conforming to that which is "generally accepted". In other nations, even those with democratic societies, the government still can silence those opinions.

The legal processes in other nations, even those with democratic societies, have somewhat different standards, as well.

There are drawbacks to our way of doing things, but, I can not state that I would prefer the ways of any other nation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,994 Posts
Isn't this all a moot point anyway? This Mass put some legislation through that basically says "uber can do whatever they want!".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
do you think you, as an uber or TNC driver, think you shouldn't get at least a state authorized background check and some form of business tax certificate or medallion? if so, why? do you think you're different from any other person or company that does business in any city or state. if you think so please tell me why. id really like to read your explanation. BTW, where I live uber x and xl and lyft drivers aren't getting these, even though city code requires them to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Here in Massachusetts they are attempting extremely strict regulations on rideshare. In addition to the background checks Uber does the state also wants to do them. They want each individual driver to pay thousands of dollars for a livery license, barring rideshare from picking people up at the airport... And the list goes on.
Cab companies need to stop with the sour grapes and start getting with the times by converting their current long-standing infrastructure so that it can compete with rideshare.
If Massachusetts regulates Uber out of the Rideshare Market then it will be doing an egregious disservice to its residents.
Without a doubt by myself will not continue working with Uber or any rideshare company in Massachusetts but rather we'll take the 26 minute drive to Hartford Connecticut where it's more profitable then my current location.
Don't know what Hartford you mean... Hartford CT is unprofitable just like everywhere else charging $1.10 a mile.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,970 Posts
Why do uber acolytes get their bum holes all puckered up whenever they are faced with any kind of regulation?

Background checks. Livery insurance etc... Whats the big deal? It's the cost of doing business. Consider yourselves lucky you are able to slip through this loophole that lets you operate a transportation service without the permits needed to operate a cab/livery in the state. As for the airport restriction well I can tell you Logan airport is a cluster poop now with all the cabs/livery/uber liverys /courtesy vans and regular folk picking people up. How much more fun will it be to have a hundred uberx's in constant circling mode hoping for a ping clogging up the works. And boohoo too about the convention center no fly zone...the city of Boston put out for bid hundreds of new taxi permits which people bid hundreds of thousands dollars for which helped pay for the convention center. Those cabbies helped to pay for the convention center they should be allowed to preserve the contract to service the riders from it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
That is the stupidest thing I've heard for awhile. Complaint of? Please! Unfound accusations should not punish one from making a living for life just because some &%[email protected]!* wanted to be funny. Just like the rating system gets played by passengers, fake DUI complaints being abused to get free credits, this is bullshit. People have the right to defend themselves. You know true innocent UNTIL (unless) proven guilty.
It is not from unfounded accusations. It cases where there have been complaints of sexual misconduct a person can be prevented from working with vulnerable persons such as children and the mentally ill and this includes taxi drivers, care givers and bus drivers. These are not just minor complaints. They are complaints that have been investigated by a third party. My guess is that not all will not pass but there is further scrutiny. WAV providers must have cameras on while transporting persons with disabilities to ensure there are no inappropriate actions by the drivers.
Many school teachers have lost their jobs because of complaints of touching students and no formal charges. I don't think it is because of one unsupported complaint.
As with the US, not all jurisdictions in Canada have the same rules. Where I live the rules are very strict. One complaint would not exclude a person. If you read back to what example I gave where I said that in cases where a child had been removed from a home because of sexual abuse and I would add physical abuse, that perpetrator may not qualify for a taxi license.
This is only my understanding of the rules and I could be wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
I should clarify with some information here. A fingerprint background check where I live in Canada is not enough. One needs a vulnerable sector search. Cases where there have been complaints of sexual inappropriate behaviour may exclude an individual from obtaining a taxi licence. We are not just talking about one complaint here without charges.
The vulnerable sector will exclude drivers who have been pardoned for sex crimes. It is just another step in protecting the public.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/faqs-about-vulnerable-sector-checks
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top