Ride-hail screening less strict than taxis
State utility regulators voted Thursday to require annual background checks for drivers at Uber, Lyft and other ridehailing companies, but decided not to subject them to the fingerprinting required of taxi drivers.
In a 5-0 vote, the California Public Utilities Commission passed rules that mirror the annual checks already required by Lyft and the airportride company Wingz, and that drew no objection from industry leader Uber.
The companies will have to use contractors accredited by a national association of background screeners and report the results to the state commission. They must examine criminal records and disqualify drivers who have been convicted of violent felonies or sex crimes, or, within the previous seven years, have been found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol or
drugs, domestic violence or other specified crimes.
Commission members said the changes would strengthen the previous rules, which barred drivers with certain types of criminal records and registered sex offenders but did not require periodic background checks. They rejected arguments by the taxi industry and other critics that the same fingerprint screening that state law requires for cab drivers should be applied to drivers for the ride-hailing companies.
Fingerprinting takes time and money, and, for these companies and drivers, “the costs outweigh the benefits,” Liane Randolph, the commissioner assigned to the issue, said at Thursday’s meeting in San Francisco.
She said fingerprint-check records, which go through an FBI database, are not always accurate, do not include photos of their subjects, and could exclude a disproportionate number of minority drivers if imposed as a requirement.
The commission’s plan “strikes the right balance,” said another commissioner, Martha Aceves. “It will protect riders as well as providing all of the folks in our society an ability to work.”
All five commission members were appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown.
Advocates of fingerprinting say ride-hailing companies use background checks that are far more limited than the FBI database and have failed to spot numerous drivers with criminal records.
“Uber and Lyft are lying to you,” Alec Stefan, a Monterey taxi driver and founder of the Monterey Peninsula Taxi Workers Association, told the commissioners during a public-comment period before Thursday’s vote. “Do your job. Protect the people.”
Berman Obaldia, vice president of the California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, countered that fingerprinting would impose “an unfair economic burden on workers, including minority groups, and smallbusiness owners.”
Opposition by the ride-hailing companies and their allies has thwarted attempts by California lawmakers to extend fingerprinting requirements to the companies’ drivers. One law, effective this year, requires screeners to conduct lifetime searches for records of violent felonies and other serious crimes.
Both Uber and Lyft cut off service in Austin, Texas, when it required fingerprint checks for drivers last year. After the state legislature overrode the Austin law, the companies resumed service this May.
London revoked Uber’s license in September and said one reason was the company’s safety standards for its drivers. Uber has continued to operate in London while it negotiates with city officials.
In the past, Uber has claimed that it conducted the best background checks in the industry. It dropped those assertions last year and paid $10 million to settle a lawsuit by San Francisco and Los Angeles County. Lyft paid $250,000 to avoid a similar suit.
Both companies praised Thursday’s action by the state commission. “We are encouraged by their decision which promotes both public safety and economic opportunity for California drivers,” Uber said in a statement.
Lyft said the decision “recognizes the strength and effectiveness of our current backgroundcheck process.”
“It will protect riders as well as providing all of the folks in our society an ability to work.” Martha Aceves, California Public Utilities Commission member, on the new regulation