ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

California

Governor signs bill requiring tighter background checks by Uber, Lyft

SACRAMENTO >> Uber and Lyft will have to start taking a deeper look into their drivers’ criminal histories under a new law signed Wednesday by Gov. Jerry Brown.

Starting Jan. 1, ride-hailing startups in California must look at violent convictions throughout a prospective driver’s entire record, instead of examining only those that occurred within the past seven years — as the companies do now. The new law requires Uber, Lyft and others to reject any driver who has been convicted of a violent felony or a terrorism-related offense, or is a registered sex offender. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Nicholas Maietta

    All i can say is at least they didn’t just target registered citizens like they normally do.

    • New Person

      it said violent offenders.

      Being a registrant, you don’t have to be involved in a violent crime to be forced to register. So ALL registrants are being singled out.

      This is the state being completely not equal convicts – which would fit the Bill of Attainder prohibition.

  2. Rick

    Well I had no idea that a state goverment can tell a private company who they can or cannot hire. I guess now states have unlimited authority over the “commerce clause”, or “equal protection”, two meaningless facets of law. And I guess it doesnt matter how long ago an offense occurred? Again the public safety clause overrules the constitution. Why dont they just say they cant work in california at all. They might as well, since theyre using political and public pressure to ban them from driving a cab. And to boot now someone can raise sexual charges at any time. You know theres a reason for statutes of limitations, they give a person the right to file charges within a certain amount of time because otherwise preparing a defense or a prosecution gets very difficult. Oh well, when the witch hunt begins it just gets worse. I wonder if the aclu will challenge these unconstitutional laws.

  3. Anon 230384e21

    Once again LOSER Jerry Brown getting into PRIVATE business of a PRIVATE Company., I suppose it would be bad business for uber/lyft to go against brown and say they will hire who they want but If I had a company Id write the loser and tell him to screw off and meddle in STATE/GOV business not private business.

    Whats next… a RC can not RIDE in a uber/lyft car ??

    • American Detained in America

      I’m surprised there hasn’t already been a law against an RC being in a taxi or Uber or Lyft.

    • Renny

      Aren’t already flagged by the Uber/Lyft system whether we are applying to work or applying for a ride?

      I did not think Former Citizen Detainees WERE allowed to use these types of ride services, not by law, but by the terms of agreement of the companies themselves. I need to research deeper, for I may have been wrong.

      I do completely agree with Rick, that the State should have no say in the hiring practices of privately owned companies, regardless of the nature of the business. The State CAN and has determined where we are allowed to work, but this is new, telling the companies who they are allowed to hire as opposed to just passing their illegal laws against us.

      This is why Former Citizen Detainees play the lottery. The odds of winning the Mega or Powerball are greater than the odds of having a good career. A job we can find, sometimes, but a good career, better off playing the lottery or applying to join al Qud.

      I emailed Lyft to find out how they protect their drivers from sex offender riders

      • Steri

        @Renny, sex offenders usually commit a crime against a child, and since Lyft does not hire children there is no reason to protect their drivers from sex offender riders. The more appropriate question would have been how do they protect drivers from violent people. It’s more likely a driver will be attacked by a violent person, than be molested by a sex offender.

      • Renny

        They answered and said at the present time they do not conduct background checks on riders.

        Another loophole for our enemies to close.

  4. Harry

    I avoid using taxis and I would not want a job as taxi driver or a bus driver

  5. Timmr

    This big daddy, tougher than thou attitude is why I dumped the Grey Davis/Bill Clinton democratic party.

  6. Paul

    This is really interesting. Now the state is going to tell employers who they can and can’t hire? This doesn’t even make sense, because Penal code Section 290.46(j)(2) expressly prohibits the use of information disclosed on the website for purposes relating to health insurance, insurance, loans, credit, EMPLOYMENT, education, housing, or benefits, privileges, or services, provided by any business establishment. The statute provides that a user is authorized to use the website’s information “only to protect a person at risk,” who is defined by Penal Code section 290.45(a)(8) as a person who “is or may be exposed to a risk of becoming a victim of a sex offense committed by the offender.” How do they get away with this? What’s next?

    • C l a r k

      Right. .right…the driver wasn’t at fault, yet state idiots simply have far tooooo much time on their hands coming up with a toilet law like that..Un-frikkin -believeable.
      Idiots.

      • C l a r k

        What this state and all states need to Background Check for anyone accused of something and notify the accused is really being assigned a district attorney prosecutor AS your Defense Attorney.
        Get some of THAT for all citizens to know in your Background Check.
        Prosecutor for the kangaroo court in orange county….
        And an oc district attorney prosecutor getting assigned post trial as YOUR defense attorney.
        SHAM. Corrupt.. .assigned to you to keep it that way.

  7. Just me

    October 9th 2017

    2.5 years driving for Uber, over 2500 rides and still 4.95 stars – and more written compliments on my account then I can count and yet today my account is suspended pending further review of my background from Uber. I was told to wait for 7-10 days to hear from Uber via email… Alas.

    Im a registrant with 2 felony convictions from the 1990’s as a result of a relationship with a 16 year old.

    • JoeBlo

      My Uncle.cant even find work and tried Ub an Lyft…his was the same but early 80’s.not 90’s so I feel for.ya bro. Good job with what you have (auto) and good job history and NOW they wanna take that away! Messed up. They are not creating jobs (Gov.) They’re taking them away just like the undoc. Hispanics.
      Funny you “Just Me” and my 57 cant even work even tho youve both been outta trouble since the ip’s/[]’s

      • just me

        Thank you for you comments regarding my loosing (apparently its not official ) my Uber job. I have a difficult time with jobs despite being skilled in my profession. Contract work is best but the added rideshare income helps.

        Life is not suppose to be fair, and I can understand why a company is being cautious when it comes to felons. that said parents hail rideshare for their kids all the time and when a kid shows up without a parent – i cancel the ride (respectfully) — registrant or not its a huge responsibility driving kids around which I dont want. Secondly, I give adults rides – why is my background an issue and third somehow (asking for the impossible) It would be nice for Uber to look more carefully at those who have been driving for them, making them money and as in my case giving excellent service with rating to prove it — but i digress, not gonna happen

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.