If everyone agrees it is a "silly" requirement (especially because it was circumvented so "easily"), why are we so mad at Zenefits?
We certainly don't want giant companies influencing policy changes (though, that happens frequently). I think a good indicator of whether a policy can justifiably be circumvented is if it actually hurt anybody. Has the "macro" hurt anybody yet? The articles have been vague.
The employees who used it and then signed a false declaration are at risk of jail.
That was their choice, but they were seemingly under pressure from their CEO, so it seems fairly evident (to me) that Parker created a real problem for his team, even if the customers are OK.
I still don't see how the macro allowed them to do anything different from just scrolling to the end of a list of terms and conditions. AFAIK, they still had to pass an exam?
Some of the compliance training I've had to take didn't have an exam. But the software tracked how quickly you went through the training. If you went through too quickly, you didn't get credit.
The problem is that they were getting the advantages of being licensed while not actually following proper procedure for licensing. They were effectively lying to everyone. Sure, it's a pretty harmless lie, but I can see how people in the industry would be pissed.
Lyft and Uber skirt similar kinds of regulation but they're completely up front about it. They don't pretend that their drivers are licensed or claim any benefit for having licensed drivers in any way. They're simply offering a different product than what taxis offer - getting a ride with a random unlicensed stranger. They're not trying to get the best of both worlds - the legitimacy of being licensed and the cost saving of not bothering with it.
Lyft and Uber, and Airbnb too, are simply offering a new product that doesn't come with any reassurance for consumers from regulatory compliance. They're betting that reputation systems (ratings, reviews, etc.) will provide assurance for consumers just as well if not better than government regulation. So far the market is showing they just might be right.
I suspect that if Zenefits had offered a platform where anyone can sell insurance to anyone from the beginning then people would be less pissed about it. Of course offering an unlicensed insurance brokerage product would probably be a lot harder to pull off than offering an unlicensed taxi product.
Hmm? I'm not sure I care if the "industry" is pissed if said industry accepts regulations that we all agree are silly
P.S: I'm totally for sensible regulations. However, sensible regulations usually require wide amounts of nepotism, cronyism and backstabbing to break. If a regulation is important enough that people could be hurt by it, then it should not be circumventable by a web script.
The solution to silly regulations is to change them, not to ignore them or subvert them. Think what a can of worms would be opened if regulatory compliance was contingent on some ephemeral, arbitrary, socially defined notion of "silliness."
Nope. I don't want monied corporations anywhere near my regulations. Let's just have the pertinent regulatory agencies realize that making someone stare at a screen for 'X' minutes doesn't make a training program. You are asking for someone to side step that stuff.
I would actually rather have companies like Zenefits sidestep regulations like that to show the regulators where they screwed up than Zenefits pump money into skeevy Lobby groups.
So you don't want the government to change regulations because it would give rich corporations an opportunity to leverage their lobbying dollars. Instead, you want rich corporations to cheat their way around regulations at leisure. (Note that what Zenefits did was not a legal loophole, it was a method of falsifying compliance documentation.)
In any case, what's the point of "show[ing] the regulators where they screwed up" if you don't want them to change anything anyway? What's the point of having regulations at all if you're going to let them be a joke?
I think we are arguing for the same thing. I just don't want agencies to change regulations because a large company wants them too. Id rather an agency be smart enough to find out that companies are using a loophole, and then close that loophole. A company will always use all loopholes available to it, to not do so would be silly
'Making trainees watch a video' seems like silly regulations asking to be circumvented. Why not make the exams more stringent so people are forced to actually pay attention.
We certainly don't want giant companies influencing policy changes (though, that happens frequently). I think a good indicator of whether a policy can justifiably be circumvented is if it actually hurt anybody. Has the "macro" hurt anybody yet? The articles have been vague.