I didn't realize that people with criminal records like this could become Uber drivers. That is, these types of crimes are relevant to working as an Uber driver—more than things like tax fraud or failure to pay child support.
In a civilized society people should be able to get jobs when they get out of prison. It's called "time served" for a reason. Everything other is just paving the path to recidivism - when people can't make a living because no one will hire ex-cons, they don't have any other way of literally staying alive than living as hobos or breaking the law.
The attitude in your comment is imho perfectly representing why the US has such problems with career criminals.
The only class of people where even after time served there should be safeguards are when there's a psychological reason that actually makes people dangerous, like pedophilia.
The state should provide an interface for employers to input the personal data of the candidate and the job the candidate is applying for, and the interface should simply give a "OK", "not OK", "no way OK" (e.g. for pedophiles applying for childcare jobs) and "OK with conditions". That would be a safeguard for privacy while also providing employers with a check that they don't hire someone totally wrong for the job.
This sounds vaguely similar to the approach taken in the UK. For most jobs, you can't refuse to employ someone because of spent convictions (and the applicant isn't required to tell the employer of them), and sentences up to 4 years are considered spent after a certain amount of time[1]. The employer cannot request a criminal records check, and if an individual requests their own record it will only show details of unspent convictions.
For certain roles (e.g. healthcare or childcare), a employer can request a criminal records search which WILL show spent convictions, as as you indict certain offenses will permanently make someone unsuitable for those jobs. There are three levels:
* a standard check shows spent and unspent convictions, cautions, reprimands and final warnings * an enhanced check shows the same as a standard check plus any information held by local police that’s considered relevant to the role * an enhanced check with barred lists shows the same as an enhanced check plus whether the applicant is on the list of people barred from doing the role[2]
Which of these an employer is allowed to do depends on the job in question (e.g. becoming a solicitor -> standard check, working in an elderly care home as a cleaner -> enhanced check without the adult's barred list check, working in a school -> enhanced check with the children's barred list check).
[1] https://www.gov.uk/exoffenders-and-employment [2] https://www.gov.uk/dbs-check-applicant-criminal-record
Apparently Lyft shares the attitude you describe, but Uber does not.
https://www.thezebra.com/insurance-news/5215/criminal-backgr...
Note that I was merely showing surprise that this was allowed, not passing judgment. I had heard of cases (see above link) where people were denied because of prior misdemeanor convictions, which is why I was surprised.
Colorado fined them $8.9M last year for violating background check laws.
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/20/uber-colorado-fine/
"The PUC said the drivers should have been disqualified. 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, the state said. A similar investigation of smaller competitor Lyft found no violations."
Nothing disqualifies you as long as they have documentation of a background check and drug test -- axe-murdering crack head with a penchant for buggering small animals, perfectly legal.
The governor got some flack for that one...