Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After Zenefits, Will VCs Rein in Their Unicorns?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 128 posts

Re: After Zenefits, Will VCs Rein in Their Unicorns?

#101

Post by sandworm101 »

nostrademons wrote: post #98
sandworm101 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A successful startup is one that has grown rapidly in recent years. No growth = not successful, and not recent = not a startup. Any tech company that grows quickly starts bumping up against any number of compliance issues, both legal (ie HIPAA) and private (ie PCI). Today's growth curves don't keep pace with many of these regulations. As you expand laterally into new markets you constantly run into new obligations. A…

Isn't that why many companies are using Stripe and similar payment processors now? https://support.stripe.com/questions/do-i-need-to-be-pci-com...

>> "Just go to your security settings and click on “View completed document”. We have pre-filled the documents for you."

Services like these are part of the problem. They can verify that the service they provide is compliant, but nobody can determine remotely whether or not you are compliant with something like PCI. You cannot outsource compliance. It is something you have to actually do.

And fyi these "iframe" services that allows a merchant to opt for SAQ-EP rather than the longer SAQ-D, that might be going away in the next couple years. Merchants may have to go with a full redirect, not a frame, if they want to wash their hands of chd.

Re: After Zenefits, Will VCs Rein in Their Unicorns?

#102

Post by ryptophan »

mikeryan wrote: post #92
Pyxl101 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What regulation are Lyft and Uber allegedly skirting?

Its different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but basically running an unlicensed taxi or livery service.

Another issue that seems to be a major hangup in my jurisdiction (which has banned Uber from operating) is the lack of "proper insurance" for Uber drivers/cars.

Re: After Zenefits, Will VCs Rein in Their Unicorns?

#103

Post by grahamburger »

throwaway479384 wrote: post #83

My company used Zenefits for a while, mainly because one of our execs is friends with one of theirs. We had many, many problems with payroll. When you have employees repeatedly coming to you because their paychecks are screwed up, you've got to do something. We ended up switching away, and now use ADP for payroll instead. We've had no problems since. (This was before the big public slap fight between Zenefits and ADP…

I'll bet your employees hate ADP. I know I do. Would it kill them to make a useable web interface? It's not like we've been doing this for 20 years or anything.

Re: After Zenefits, Will VCs Rein in Their Unicorns?

#104

Post by techsupporter »

skewart wrote: post #62

A number of commenters here have compared Zenefits' questionable compliance with Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb. What Zenefits was doing is fundamentally different, and much more problematic. Lyft and Uber skirt similar kinds of seemingly useless regulation but they're completely up front about it. They don't pretend that their drivers are licensed or get any benefit from having licensed drivers in any way. They're simply of…

> Lyft, Uber, and Airbnb are 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.

Like Zenefits, the government regulation that Lyft, Uber, and Airbnb are skirting has one important consequence: It protects the rest of us who are not their customers from them. If a Yellow Cab driver does something dumb, malicious, or against the rules, I can complain to the city regulatory authority and that agency can take action. If it fails to take action, I can pressure my elected leaders to correct that stance. If it takes action in an open way that is transparent to the populace and finds that I am not correct in my complaint, so be it. I need not be a customer of Yellow Cab to complain about the actions of one of its drivers.

Replacing public rules enforcement with "reputation systems" is completely useless if I never enter into a business arrangement with those companies. As it stands, the only way I can complain about any of them--especially with Zenefits actively working to hide its bypass activities from the relevant authorities--is to be a customer and poorly rank some allegedly-independent-contractor. Or I can use Twitter and complain publicly but get drowned out by the noise.

That's no substitute, in my opinion.

Re: After Zenefits, Will VCs Rein in Their Unicorns?

#105

Post by jacalata »

skewart wrote: post #62

A number of commenters here have compared Zenefits' questionable compliance with Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb. What Zenefits was doing is fundamentally different, and much more problematic. Lyft and Uber skirt similar kinds of seemingly useless regulation but they're completely up front about it. They don't pretend that their drivers are licensed or get any benefit from having licensed drivers in any way. They're simply of…

Lyft and Uber both spent years pretending that their drivers were insured while carrying passengers despite very clear evidence to the contrary. Even today they pretend to prospective drivers that they won't end up screwed if they have an accident while 'on the app' but without a passenger. Airbnb did the same thing.

Re: After Zenefits, Will VCs Rein in Their Unicorns?

#107

Post by [deleted] »

ryptophan wrote: post #102
mikeryan wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but basically running an unlicensed taxi or livery service.

Another issue that seems to be a major hangup in my jurisdiction (which has banned Uber from operating) is the lack of "proper insurance" for Uber drivers/cars.

[deleted]

Re: After Zenefits, Will VCs Rein in Their Unicorns?

#108

Post by VeejayRampay »

discodave wrote: post #82
themagician wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lyft, Uber, and Airbnb can't avoid regulation forever. They've just been lucky so far. Eventually there will be a high profile incident—someone important will get raped or murdered. The political response will be 1000x what their lobbyists can handle. It is inevitable. The reality is that this is how a lot of regulation starts. It doesn't always come from an anticompetitive place. We just forget that we actually aske…

And by important you don't mean the women who have already been raped or assaulted by Uber drivers right?

Serious question: what is Uber/Lyft specific about a customer being assaulted? Is that inherently different than rapes or assaults by taxi drivers? Cause I'm sure there's been plenty of cases. Don't get me wrong, those are horrific, but I guess I'm failing to see what in Uber or Lyft makes it easier to happen or why it might require special regulation.

Maybe the fact that cab drivers need a licence and are thus screened more thoroughly?

Re: After Zenefits, Will VCs Rein in Their Unicorns?

#109

Post by lmm »

JonFish85 wrote: post #18

Considering Airbnb and Uber, two of the largest and considered most-successful startups are carefully dodging the law, the upside is worth the risk. I disagree with it, but I think VCs don't care much about following legal frameworks until it's too late.

The limited-liability corporation is fundamentally flawed when it comes to massive negative externalities. Even if regulators take AirBnB and Uber for every cent they have (and I hope they do, both have shown themselves to be fundamentally inimical to the rule of law), the people and organizations that funded their criminality will get away with nothing worse than losing their investment.

Re: After Zenefits, Will VCs Rein in Their Unicorns?

#110

Post by nindalf »

VeejayRampay wrote: post #108
discodave wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And by important you don't mean the women who have already been raped or assaulted by Uber drivers right?

Serious question: what is Uber/Lyft specific about a customer being assaulted? Is that inherently different than rapes or assaults by taxi drivers? Cause I'm sure there's been plenty of cases. Don't get me wrong, those are horrific, but I guess I'm failing to see what in Uber or Lyft makes it easier to happen or why it might require special regulation. Maybe the fact that cab drivers need a licence and are thus scree…

I think the reason Uber/Lyft are especially vulnerable to this is because they present an easy target for politicians who are being held responsible for a crime in the area. Its much easier for politicians to respond to such a crime with "we're banning taxi apps" rather than identifying and tackling root causes.

Case in point - when an Uber driver raped a woman in Delhi, this is exactly what the Delhi government did.

Post reply on HN