Washington D.C. Cab Drivers Protest Unfair Background Check Legislation for Uber and Lyft

By Michael Klazema on 10/13/2014

Ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft have already taken cities like Chicago and San Francisco by storm with their freelance, app-based twist on traditional taxi or chauffer services. Now, it looks as if Uber and similar services will soon be making their way to Washington D.C. However, cab drivers in the nation's capital may well have to dragged kicking and screaming, or, more accurately, honking and braking, into the brave new world of ridesharing services

D.C. cabbies are not the first group of cab drivers to speak out against services like Uber and Lyft. In virtually every city where these services have set up shop, taxi companies have dealt with decreases in business. That's because an increasing number of people are opting out of using traditional taxis and opting into the Uber/Lyft system, which allows passengers to book rides via a smartphone app. Uber and Lyft drivers are everyday Joe's and Jane's who make extra cash by using their cars as taxis.

However, while most cab drivers seem to be against Uber and Lyft because they are stealing business, that's not the case in D.C. On the contrary, several Washington cab drivers have said that they would welcome the business of Uber and Lyft in Washington…but only if those businesses registered with the city's Taxicab Commission.

Currently, the Washington D.C. is in the process of drafting legislation that would allow Uber, Lyft, and other ridesharing companies to operate in Washington without Cab Commission membership. The legislation would require ridesharing companies to conduct background checks on all of their drivers. IT would also stipulate insurance requirements for each Uber and Lyft driver.

To an outsider, that might sound safe enough: keep criminals out of ridesharing services, and make sure that insurance policies are in place in case of an accident. However, D.C. cabbies don't think the proposed legislation would be safe or fair. The Taxicab Commission has a laundry list of stipulations for its drivers and vehicles, regulating everything from vehicle safety to training for taxicab operators.

As a result, the City Council's attempts to set new rules for Uber and Lyft's instead of making the companies adhere to existing rules maintained by the Taxicab Commission, reeks of preferential treatment for the new companies. Worse, it essentially undermines the regulations that the Cab Commission has spent years designing.

D.C. cabbies agree that the double standard is a ridiculous one, and recently took to blocking downtown city traffic and honking their horns in loud protest. Quite simply, these cab drivers believe that all chauffer services should follow the same rules—whether they are traditional cab companies or new, "in vogue" services like Uber and Lyft.

From all angles, it doesn't really make sense why City Councilmembers would want to create new sets of rules for Uber and Lyft when those services could so easily be beholden to the same rules and regulations already documented for the Taxicab Commission. This situation is especially questionable given the fact that incidents in other cities, from violent encounters to rapes, ”have shown that Uber and Lyft's background checks aren't necessarily enough to keep passengers safe. The more in-depth regulations that would be imposed by the Cab Commission might be a good test case for seeing if there is another, better way to regulate these ridesharing services.


Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • June 20 Repeat background checks are becoming more common, with companies in India leading the charge. What does this trend look like, and how can employers embrace it now to stay ahead of the curve?
  • June 19

    Every federal job involves a background check of some kind. These background checks and how they are evaluated vary based on job, department, and security clearance level.

  • June 18

  • June 14 Ban the box laws aim to improve opportunities for employment. Could they have the opposite effect instead?
  • June 13 Jacobs Petroleum Products is a regional petroleum company that operates throughout Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Maryland. Apart from their employees carrying much responsibility and have frequent contact with customers, the company’s hiring also tends to be segmented since individual store managers are responsible for hiring talent for their own stores. In this employment landscape, Jacobs Petroleum Products needed a reliable and effective way to screen its new hires for criminal infractions and other red flags.
  • June 12

    The University of Wisconsin System may tweak its hiring and reference check processes. The potential changes come after one of UW’s assistant deans was accused of sexual harassment.

  • June 07 Stories of abuse by coaches in youth sports leagues continue to crop up around the country, but rules and guidelines remain patchy and enforcement is often lacking. The struggle to implement an effective system continues nationwide.
  • June 07 Financial background checks, usually referred to as credit history checks, can be an effective way to find out if a candidate is fit to handle accounts, financial data, and other assets at your business.
  • June 06 The Society for Human Resource Management and the Charles Koch Institute recently commissioned a survey to find out how willing employers were to hire people with criminal records. The study indicates that managers, HR professionals, and employees themselves are becoming more comfortable with the idea of hiring and working with ex-offenders.
  • June 04 Are fingerprint background checks the gold standard for employee screening, or are they overhyped? We look at some of the myths and misconceptions surrounding these checks.