Uber Vows to Devise a More Thorough Background Check Process to Protect Passengers

By Michael Klazema on 1/2/2015

The ridesharing chauffer service Uber really took off this year, achieving high valuations and expanding to most major metropolitan markets in the United States (and some outside of it). However, the company has also consistently come under fire for not being thorough enough in its driver background checks. That criticism hit a fever pitch early in December, when an Uber driver was accused of raping a female passenger in India. Now, Uber has made a vow to tighten its background check policies, once and for all.

Remarkably, Uber isn't just talking about widening the scope of jurisdictional criminal checks. On the contrary, the company's head of global safety recently said in a blog post that Uber will be looking at systems as diverse as "biometrics and voice verification" as a means of enhancing driver screenings. The company's research and development department will be tackling those futuristic screening methods. There is, of course, little clue of when such systems could be implemented in the company's driver checks, but suffice to say that they could change the landscape of background screenings when they do arrive.

In addition to biometric screening and voice verification, Uber is looking at bringing polygraph tests into background checks as well. Particularly outside of the United States, Uber says it is challenging to collect full driver data through background checks. The company thinks that polygraph tests might be the solution to solve this problem and to "fill gaps in available data." After all, if Uber could detect dishonesty during job interviews, then they could feasibly root out dangerous applicants even without a satisfactory background check at their disposal.

"No background check can predict future behavior and no technology can yet fully prevent bad actions," the Uber blog post stated. With this conversation in mind, Uber also wants to provide failsafe options in case their background checks and pre-screenings don't spot safety risks. Specifically, the company wants to build a network of Safety Response Teams in the cities where it does business. Then, in case of an emergency, an Uber passenger can quickly communicate with company officials to ask for help or assistance.

All of these items are thought provoking, and prove that Uber is willing to improve its safety policies. After so many empty statements throughout 2014, where the company argued that its background check policies were fine, seeing the company exploring new ways of checking prospective employees is refreshing. Even more refreshing is that several of the new policies proposed by Uber's latest blog go beyond the scope of traditional background checks and could change the game for employment screening if their trial runs prove to be successful.

From the sounds of the proposed checks and safety measures, Uber will have to invest a fair amount of capital funding into developing and implementing new background check methods. But if the result of that spending is superior customer safety, then it's certainly a worthy investment.


Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 20 Employers who use E-Verify must follow the proper steps and procedures when they receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” from either the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security. Failure to follow the proper procedures can cost employers both time and money. 
  • March 20

    Four Department of Commerce employees are out after their background checks resulted in security clearance denials. All four had worked high-ranking positions for months despite incomplete background checks.

  • March 15 As more states legalize the recreational use of cannabis, they contend with the emergence of new industries surrounding marijuana cultivation and production. 
  • March 14 In most cases, it is easy to determine where an issue might show up on a pre-employment background check. Citations for traffic violations or reckless driving charges will appear on a motor vehicle record check. Verdicts in a civil court case will show on a civil court background check. And criminal convictions—from petty theft to violent felonies—show up on criminal background checks.
  • March 13 How many years back do employment background checks go? This question can have multiple different answers depending on the situation.
  • March 13 A new bill in Florida would require landlords of apartment complexes to present tenants with verifications of employee background checks to give them peace of mind the people working in and around their homes are trustworthy.
  • March 08 Police officers working with the University of Texas at Arlington recently arrested a man who had avoided police capture on a warrant out of Oregon for nearly two decades. The man, whose real name is Daniel Charles Ray Hanson, spent those 17 years using a variety of fake names and identification documents to move around the country, often engaging with educational institutions under false pretenses. Police say Hanson regularly went by at least three different aliases. He sports a rap sheet that stretches back to an arson conviction in 1995. 
  • March 07

    The Future of EEOC Guidance in Texas Is Up in the Air

    The EEOC issued guidance in 2012 warning employers about the dangers of enforcing categorical policies to bar candidates with criminal histories. That guidance is not enforceable in Texas thanks to a recent court ruling.

  • March 05 Vermont is the latest state to restrict employers’ access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants. 
  • March 01 In an age of "industry disruptors" turning established business models on their heads, companies such as Uber and Lyft rely on a unique workforce of individuals outside the traditional employer-employee context. Uber calls them "partners" while other businesses refer to them as "independent contractors," the official classification these individuals use for tax purposes. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) revealed they had warned a business, Postmates, for misclassifying their staff as independent contractors. In the NLRB's determination, these individuals were employees.