Uber
has persistently ignored requests to fingerprint it's drivers for more thorough
criminal background checks, and the company's BOSS now explains why.
Fingerprint-based
criminal background checks have been a aching spot for companies for example
Uber and Lyft. The businesses refused to fingerprint their drivers as well as
preferred pulling out associated with areas where fingerprinting had been
mandatory.
Austin,
Texas, for example, requires drivers to supply fingerprint scans for criminal
background checks, and both Uber as well as Lyft decided to pull from the city
rather than accept the practice. A non-profit car-hailing organization called
RideAustin promptly swooped within, complying with the fingerprint needs.
Uber,
for its component, continues to oppose fingerprinting it's drivers, fueling
what is among the biggest controversies surrounding the organization. Uber CEO
Travis Kalanick now addresses the problem, explaining his company's position
toward fingerprinting.
Talking
with President Obama's older adviser Valerie Jarrett in the seventh annual
Global Entrepreneurship Summit, Kalanick offers several explanations why his
company is interested in hiring drivers without criminal background checks
based on fingerprint tests.
Not
only are the actual checks slow and costly, which would take a toll about the
company's hiring process, but the CEO additionally reckons that Uber's position
against fingerprinting has much related to the justice system.
Based
on Kalanick, bypassing the fingerprint needs allows Uber to hire drivers who've
been unfairly caught in the cogs from the U. S. criminal rights system. The
company really wants to give those people an opportunity at employment, so it
prefers using other means of background checks.
"We
have systems in position where if you're imprisoned, you literally can't obtain
work, even if you're found to become innocent, " Kalanick clarifies.
"And it's unjust. inch
The
CEO further bashes industries for example taxis for relying on fingerprinting
as a way to protect their personal interests.
On the
additional hand, Uber's interests are also questioned in relation in order to
how it treats it's workers. The company faced legal cases over classifying its
motorists as independent contractors instead of giving them employee standing,
which would offer all of them additional benefits. More particularly,
classifying drivers as workers would grant them a few legal protection and make
sure they are eligible for reimbursements with regard to expenses.
Uber
also faced legal cases over its practices associated with background checks.
Back within April, for instance, the organization agreed to pay a minimum of
$10 million to settle case in California. That lawsuit accused Uber associated
with misinforming its customers concerning the background checks it performs on
its drivers, misleading clients to consider that drivers went via thorough
criminal screening before obtaining the job. The lawsuit also dedicated to the
company's refusal in order to fingerprint potential drivers.
In spite of legal
hurdles and excellent controversy, however, Kalanick's statements now confirm
once more that Uber is still firmly in opposition to fingerprint-based
background checks and that is unlikely to change at any time soon.
Techsourcenetwork