• UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. JOIN US! CLICK HERE

WBZ investigates why drivers failing background checks

elcentro20

Well-Known Member
Cheap pax can't afford to pay surge. Bring back the thousands of fired drivers.

The standards are pretty clearly laid out in the sheet at the DPU. The state can set the rules they want to set.

I'm a big fan of the enforcement of laws. If one doesn't fit what the state deems to be fair, they shouldn't be able to drive. There are some mistakes happening but this guy doesn't have a clean record and appealing to us with his personal story shouldn't afford him an exception.
 

rosco_78

Active Member
Surge should be more with all these deactivated drivers.....not sure why we wouldn't see more surgy pooh
 

TheMilkyWay

Active Member
It seems drivers may be able to sue for lost wages for incorrect termination and get their jobs back
What is incorrect deactivation? That's the point. The guy being interviewed says he was deactivated for "nothing" but in reality he did/does have a record from 20 years ago. Is it relevant or reason enough to be deactivated from being a driver? DPU says it's "unlimited look-back" Uber driver supporters say it shouldn't be unlimited, it should be __________ I don't know, how many years, are they giving a number?
 

scamp

Well-Known Member
Surge should be more with all these deactivated drivers.....not sure why we wouldn't see more surgy pooh
It was surging all over Boston area the last 2 weeeks.

It's dead this week primarily because it's school vacation week and so many are away. Traffic been much lighter in the mornings than normal am rush.

Wait until next week when hopefully demand increases.
 

putputcars

Active Member
It was surging all over Boston area the last 2 weeeks.

It's dead this week primarily because it's school vacation week and so many are away. Traffic been much lighter in the mornings than normal am rush.

Wait until next week when hopefully demand increases.
Does college have vacation this week too? The demand mostly comes with college students and young professionals no?
 

scamp

Well-Known Member
Does college have vacation this week too?
The demand mostly comes with college students and young professionals no?
College students are still taking rides but professionals requesting rides are way down so DEMAND IS LESS. Wait until next week to judge surging patterns again.
 

Gazelle Club

Active Member
Its important to know that DPU regulations do not comport with the law!!

https://uberpeople.net/threads/mass-cori-conditions.136693/#post-2031748

I posted in the above thread but will post again

Warning: The list of disqualifying conditions cited does not comport to the law

The disqualifying conditions cited here:

http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dpu/transportation-network-company/disqualifying-conditions.pdf

and in Exhibit A here for the agreement with Raiser (an Uber subsidiary) and the state:

http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dpu/transportation-network-company/rasier.pdf

The law is here:

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159A1~2/Section4

For example take a look at the first link with disqualifying conditions:

It will disqualify you for:

Any violent crime, as defined 140, §121, or any assault or assault and battery, or any threat to commit such a crime, or any violation of a G.L. c. 209A restraining order, or any crime involving the illegal use or possession of weapons.



However that is bogus!!

Chapter 140 §121 does not deal with the definition of violent crimes.

It deals with firearms

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section121

The correct section dealing with a violent crime is here which is Chapter 127 §133E

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVIII/Chapter127/Section133E

So both the state's and Uber's links do not even refer to the correct definitions!!

Secondly the law will not disqualify you for a CWOF or continued without a finding for assault or any of the other conditions save for a conviction for a violent crime contrary to what the state's or Uber's agreement with the state mention in the links above.

In fact the only disqualifying criminal record is the following which can be found here:

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159A1~2/Section4

(vii) has not had a conviction in the past 7 years for: (1) a sex offense or violent crime as defined in section 133E of chapter 127; (2) a crime under section 24 of chapter 90 or been assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program by a court; (3) leaving the scene of property damage or personal injury caused by a motor vehicle; (4) felony robbery; or (5) felony fraud; and (the rest deals with driving record)

So if you have been disqualified based on the erroneous disqualifying link from the state or from Uber's agreement with the state.. it does not comport to the law.. contact an attorney to help you!!

What has happened is that both links were in effect only until the law was signed into effect.

So for example with Uber the agreement with the state that was signed only applies until the law was passed:



So when the law went into effect the Uber agreement and the link from the state for disqualifications is NO LONGER VALID

The only thing that is valid now is the law that i stated above and provided here again for convenience:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159A1~2/Section4

Though the date of the above law was effective on November 3, 2016 it takes sixty days to become law so it became law on January 3, 2017 and as such made the Uber agreement and the disqualifying link void!!

So what Uber was able to do after they signed the agreement with the state (as well as Lyft) was to water down the criminal requirements.. so really not making it any safer than before as the pool of acceptable drivers from the original agreement in November until the law was signed into effect a few month later has been significantly expanded!!

That's called great lobbying by Uber and Lyft at the expense of passengers....

Any questions.. let me know by private message or here!

Hope this helps!!
 

Jagent

Well-Known Member
Moderator
I want to know why pax don't have a background check? Are drivers lives not as important as pax?
 

Gazelle Club

Active Member
If you get disqualified file an appeal immediately with DPU. Cite what I have posted above. Tell them as I have explained that their rules do not comport with the law. If you need help preparing the DPU defense I can help for free. If you lose the appeal then file the complaint in Superior court where you have a right to do so. It's easy to file a complaint and put the burden back on DPU. Their regulations do not comport with the law!
I'm not a lawyer but would be happy to draft a complaint on your behalf for free. Then you would sign it and file pro se.. on you own... You would just have to pay the court filing fee. No need to put up with this nonsense.
 
What is incorrect deactivation? That's the point. The guy being interviewed says he was deactivated for "nothing" but in reality he did/does have a record from 20 years ago. Is it relevant or reason enough to be deactivated from being a driver? DPU says it's "unlimited look-back" Uber driver supporters say it shouldn't be unlimited, it should be __________ I don't know, how many years, are they giving a number?
The case was dismissed which means he was found not guilty so whether it's on his record or not it shouldn't have been relevant
 

DudeGuy

Well-Known Member
The case was dismissed which means he was found not guilty so whether it's on his record or not it shouldn't have been relevant
It was continued without a finding, which means you admit they have enough evidence to convict, but if you behave for a period of time, they dismiss it and you don't go to jail. Not the same as a non guilty verdict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Djc

Gazelle Club

Active Member
How do you figure. You aren't earning wages. You never had a job.
It was continued without a finding, which means you admit they have enough evidence to convict, but if you behave for a period of time, they dismiss it and you don't go to jail. Not the same as a non guilty verdict.
Every judge in Massachusetts going forward should note from the record if an individual drives for a TNC. If so in his colloquy before accepting the defendant's plea, should tell the defendant that in all likelihood your plea of CWOF (Continued without a finding) will disqualify you from driving. Have your lawyer only agree to pre-trial probation which is not an admission and that District Attorneys accept as a plea. Get a good lawyer!
 

2500hd

Well-Known Member
I'm just about done doing my annual winter driving for Uber.Spring is just about here so time to get back to work. This whole background check is turning into a shitshow. If the economy was actually thriving then hundreds?? Of drivers would just walk away to another job without having to hire lawyers in hopes of reinstatement. The only people thriving in Boston are hack politicians and cops making 400k per year... the rest are chasing after crumbs with no health insurance, retirement or general safety net....that's my rant .
 

TheMilkyWay

Active Member
The case was dismissed which means he was found not guilty so whether it's on his record or not it shouldn
It was continued without a finding, which means you admit they have enough evidence to convict, but if you behave for a period of time, they dismiss it and you don't go to jail. Not the same as a non guilty verdict.
We know what it means but DPU says they include matters even if dismissed without finding. They also say they have unlimited look-back on serious matters. You go fight them, I don't need to.
 
Top