Thousands Fail Background Checks for Uber, Lyft

Adjust Comment Print

State officials say more than 8,000 people who applied to drive for ride-hailing companies, like Uber and Lyft, in MA have failed a required background check.

Brazilian cab drivers have complained that Uber and similar companies are unfair competition because their drivers don't have to pay city fees or undergo official inspections.

The chamber, which includes member companies Uber and Lyft, sued Seattle over the ordinance, claiming it violated federal antitrust laws. "Whether existing state law covers, or was meant to cover, the sort of regulation the city attempts through the ordinance is far from clear". "I think it makes a lot of sense for him to say "hey let's not get the cart before the horse", let's puts a hold on that process until we resolve the issues". The presiding judge stressed that the "Order should not be read as a harbinger of what the ultimate decision in this case will be" when all motions have been fully considered.

3D-sensing camera, September 2017 launch and more
The smartphone might be backed up by a 3,000 mAh battery which will be run on Android 7.0 Nougat operating system. The Android launcher will automatically place the apps on either top or the bottom side of the screen.

The suit was filed just before companies such as Uber and Lyft would have been required to provide information on their most active drivers to Teamsters, which would represent them should the law pass. Critics charge that Uber and Lyft reap a financial windfall by treating its drivers as contractors and thus avoiding higher costs such as paying benefits, overtime and insurance.

Lasnik said the chamber had raised "serious questions that deserve careful, rigorous judicial attention, not a fast-tracked rush to judgment based on a date that has no extrinsic importance". The ruling is a temporary reprieve for Uber, which just a few weeks ago saw its own effort to stymie the law struck down by a Washington state judge.

Gearhart: "We're disappointed with the fact that the companies would rather take the City of Seattle to court than sit down and negotiate with their drivers and start improving their working conditions". He said he felt encouraged by the judge's comments that the city's law was prompted by "reasonable public policy concerns". There's no health-care requirements.