[tyingq]

> Workers being driven by ratings systems pre-dates the popularity of Internet gig economy jobs. By a lot.

Your electronic report card is now more persistent, and there's a much smaller number of companies dominating these gig industries, and they cross areas (food delivery + driving people, for example). It's not as easy to start over.

[pc86]

Is this necessarily a bad thing?

Do we want to make it easy for someone to "start over" when that means instead of driving bags of food around they're now driving around people?

[tyingq]

The scoring system doesn't necessarily reflect reality.

Separately, there is a drive towards a sort of "social credit rating" that I do think is a bad thing.

In the narrower space of having a criminal history, the US is very different in how that affects people that have done their time. Any company can do a dirt-cheap background check, this makes people close to unemployable. In other countries, like Australia, employers can request a "yes/no" answer to "is this person's history suitable for this specific job" from a government agency...but they can't just get history themselves.

The combination of consolidation in the space into a few giants, and dirt cheap sharing of data across employers is, over time, applying the same sort of permanent mark problem to everyone else. I think it's a bad thing.

[nradov]

Some US states have now adopted "ban the box" legislation which prohibits asking job candidates about criminal history (at least for certain jobs). Of course, it's still tough to explain a 10-year employment gap on a CV.

https://www.nelp.org/publication/ban-the-box-fair-chance-hir...

[BobaFloutist]

It's also toothless when the employer's insurance company can require a (post-hire) background check to cover the employee and failing it is grounds for canceling the hire.

I don't see an obvious solution, because compelling commercial insurance to cover someone with repeat duis/reckless driving/addiction issues in a work truck doesn't feel quite fair, but there needs to be a path to gainful employment for ex-cons if we want our supposedly rehabilitative justice system to have even a chance of working, and there's not a lot of options that aren't customer facing, don't involve driving, and don't put you in some sort of security context or in charge of accounts or money.

Basically, any job that pays worth a damn requires a bit of trust, and we simply don't trust ex cons. And they're probably statistically somewhat less trustworthy, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a path out. For our sake as much as theirs.

[lupusreal]

Ideally the insurance company only cares about crimes that are relevant to the job; theft or embezzlement for workers handling cash. DUIs for drivers. Etc. There are certain combinations of crime and job that are sensibly going to be risky, but how do you prevent companies from being overcautious? An insurance company that was more optimally cautious than overcautious won't gain much for it.

[pc86]

Why do you need to "prevent companies from being overcautious?" It's their money they're spending, it's their customer relationships they're putting at risk, it's their liability they're increasing by having someone with multiple DUI convictions driving around the work truck.

Criminal history is not a protected class (nor should it be), there's nothing wrong with a company saying it doesn't want to hire people with criminal histories in the recent past for certain jobs, or any job.

[pc86]

I'd be more than happy having a period of time where these things can't be taken into account (like bankruptcy). But if you have repeat DUIs / reckless driving incidents, you've proven that at least currently you can't be trusted to drive safely. Having a job where operating a vehicle as part of your job isn't a human right so I don't see anything wrong with saying "you're not allowed to have this job." Isn't it much more humane to do that in the application process than firing the candidate in their first week because the insurance will not cover them? Isn't it wrong to force the insurance to cover someone at a loss, or force the employer to pay more to cover this person who probably shouldn't be driving anyway?

[tyingq]

The argument isn't about whether to disqualify someone for a job that involves driving if they have a DUI, at least to me.

I mentioned the Australian system...when the employer sends the candidate name/info and the complete job description, and a government agency replies yes/no. I assume they have some criteria for how long ago the offense was, etc. And that candidates generally know if they apply for a job that's not a good match, they will get a "no".

In the US system, even for a job where driving is not involved, the employer gets the full record and gets to decide what to do with that information with whatever arbitrary opinions they have.