Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted • Hacker News Board

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#171

Post by majewsky » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:09 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #162

TeMPOraL wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With exception of PayPal, of which I know nothing that would explain them being included in this list, I'd say yes - that's exactly what we want. AirBnB and Uber are burning social trust to make money, they're literally poisoning the society. And to (literally!) add insult to injury, Uber management are also being assholes about the whole process.

It seems like your "poisoning the society" claim is highly subjective, based on how you perceive their actions and what you think is the the "ideal" society. For me, and presumably a bunch of other people, AirBnB and Uber provide really services far superior to their predecessors.

It's probably a case of adding insult to injury. Looking at AirBnB specifically, their most vocal opponents seem to be cities who already have too few apartments left to rent. When a sizable portion of the remaining few apartments is then put on AirBnB rather then rented, rent prices go even higher than they already were.

At least, this is what happened in Berlin (and AFAIR also some other large German cities), which is why Berlin is looking into banning AirBnB (by requiring special permits for vacation homes). Source e.g. http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/bussgelder-ab-mai-berlin...

So, it may not be AirBnB's fault primarily. They're just making bad situations even worse.

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#172

Post by bskap » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:14 PM UTC

Macsenour wrote: post #64

jobu wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breaking rules to set up a sham business that scams and steals is one thing (and often the reason the rules exist). Breaking rules to create a product that most people like and find better than the alternative is completely different. Unfortunately many of the laws created in the name of "consumer protection" do little to protect anything but the entrenched interests that lobbied for the laws.

An example might be Tesla and some states law requiring a dealership in the state. If I am recalling that correctly...

In Tesla's case, the laws were created specifically to block them. They didn't exist when Tesla started. The previous laws on the books were more along the lines of "if you have dealers, you can't sell direct" rather than a general "you must sell through dealers"

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#173

Post by mcguire » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:18 PM UTC

"Zenefits sold its product all over the country, and its managerial chaos seems to have kept it from properly tracking who passed their state exams or got reciprocal licenses."

It's a pity that there is no way to track such things in software.

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#174

Post by majewsky » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:20 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #154

st3v3r wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case, then the company should have been lobbying to have the law changed, instead of brazenly disregarding it and making money from having an unfair competitive advantage.

Personally I don't have any problem with disregarding a bad law. YMMV.

Allowing people to ignore laws that they perceive as bad does not work on the scale of a society. What if, tomorrow, I decide that the Penal Code is a "bad law" and start to kill people because I disregard this law?

We live in a free society and therefore we have the freedom to disregard any law that we consider "bad". But we must also face the consequences of our actions.

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#175

Post by mcguire » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:24 PM UTC

zackya89 wrote: post #169

pkaye wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually this how many successful people do it. It is better to break the rules and profit from it and if caught, pay a small fine and keep your ill gotten gains. I've learned this long time ago (watching coworkers, family, etc) but will probably never do it myself because I'm just not that kind of person.

every sillicon valley investor knows it, the very famous quote "break the rules and ask for forgiveness later" plenty doing it from Zenefits, to Uber and AirBnb...

And yet when Union Carbide does it, they're the bad guys.

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#176

Post by GVIrish » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:38 PM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #91

jobu wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breaking rules to set up a sham business that scams and steals is one thing (and often the reason the rules exist). Breaking rules to create a product that most people like and find better than the alternative is completely different. Unfortunately many of the laws created in the name of "consumer protection" do little to protect anything but the entrenched interests that lobbied for the laws.

How precisely do you determine which rules are breakable for a product/service that is "better than the alternative"? I'd love to stay in a hotel and not pay hotel taxes, as would Marriott, so I use AirBnb instead. I'd also like to present fake receipts for reimbursement to my employer so I can make more money. Both are "alternative products" that are better for me, but someone else suffers. EDIT: Grammar.

I think that's a great question and to me it gets down to, 'What are the negative consequences or externalities created by breaking the rule(s)?'

With a mining company non-compliance could poison water supplies and sicken/kill people. With Uber (and a lot of the sharing companies) they can cheat workers out of the protections they would normally receive with a job.

On the other side with Tesla, selling directly to consumers doesn't hurt consumers at all, but it does create a slightly uneven playing field with incumbent manufacturers who have to sell through dealerships. With Uber, customers tend to get a better service but it creates an unfair playing field with taxi companies, who have to pay an enormous amount of money for medallions while adhering to tightly regulated fares.

From the government's standpoint, there's usually some amount of discretion in enforcement of the law. Laws that protect people from harm should be pursued more vigorously than laws that maybe protect old business models more than they protect actual consumers.

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#177

Post by philovivero » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:40 PM UTC

tyre wrote: post #161

untilHellbanned wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zenpayroll's hands aren't clean either. I have a friend who helped build out one of their offices. There was an absurdly long courtship of literally backbreaking labor (she was going for an administrative role) mixed with dinners with executives only to be told that she wasn't a fit. Her follow up emails to figure out what could have possibly went wrong weren't returned. Oh the irony of a HR startup treating other hu…

I won't argue with you there. The interview process is quite involved and oftentimes far too many cooks in the kitchen. It comes from a good place (a bad hire is much worse than missing out on a good one), but not giving feedback is inexcusable. As for the irony, I could not agree more.

Considering my viewpoint on hires being almost the opposite of that (an occasional bad hire is acceptable risk to get a good one) I'd be interested in the rationale.

But then, I've never been one to beat around the bush when it comes to parting ways with an employee who's clearly not working out on the team.

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#178

Post by TeMPOraL » Mon, May 09, 2016, 9:48 PM UTC

saint_fiasco wrote: post #164

TeMPOraL wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With exception of PayPal, of which I know nothing that would explain them being included in this list, I'd say yes - that's exactly what we want. AirBnB and Uber are burning social trust to make money, they're literally poisoning the society. And to (literally!) add insult to injury, Uber management are also being assholes about the whole process.

In what way are they burning trust? I wouldn't have trusted my AirBnB host if it weren't for AirBnB. Now I say to other people "don't worry, AirBnB hosts won't harvest your organs or anything" and they may begin trusting AirBnB hosts (or hosts in general) more.

It's not about your trust in the service, it's about the trust that's present between various members of society. AirBnB is setting tenants against landlords (by encouraging former to do subletting, which leads latter to add terms to the agreements that otherwise wouldn't be needed), neighbours against neighbours (c.f. all the complains from people who'd like to be asked before having their apartment building turned into cheap-ass hotel) and people against cities (by encouraging violations of zoning laws).

Trust on a social level is something that keeps civilization together. It's what lets you do business and deal with people without constantly looking over your shoulder worrying that everyone is out there to fuck you over. AirBnB makes a lot of their money by eroding this trust.

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#179

Post by TeMPOraL » Mon, May 09, 2016, 10:01 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #162

TeMPOraL wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With exception of PayPal, of which I know nothing that would explain them being included in this list, I'd say yes - that's exactly what we want. AirBnB and Uber are burning social trust to make money, they're literally poisoning the society. And to (literally!) add insult to injury, Uber management are also being assholes about the whole process.

It seems like your "poisoning the society" claim is highly subjective, based on how you perceive their actions and what you think is the the "ideal" society. For me, and presumably a bunch of other people, AirBnB and Uber provide really services far superior to their predecessors.

I don't think it's that highly a subjective viewpoint, if you don't ignore the social aspects of their business altogether. I do agree that the level of service of Uber (and probably AirBnB) is superior; I may also agree that a lot of regulations they're working around should be revisited.

But the idea that when you don't like a law, you're free to ignore it is not something acceptable in a civilized society. There are ways and means to affect the legal situation (and numerous companies in Europe managed to use them successfully when it comes to taxis - so much that on the old continent, Uber is not really an innovative service), but you have to play by the rules. Breaking them should - and usually does - result in you getting fined or imprisoned.

Uber is exploiting the high inertia of local government bodies; their strategy is to gain enough popularity fast enough that they can play the local population against lawmakers - not unlike a fast-spreading virus that overwhelms the host before their immune system can mount a defense.

What I don't want is to see this blatant, unilateral defiance against the law to spread. Today it's a taxi company with a silly app and a big marketing budget; tomorrow it will be the next hot e-commerce site that plays fast and loose with customer protection laws; the next week it will be a biotech startup that thinks biosafety regulations are optional and otherwise a nuisance.

Re: Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

#180

Post by kafkaesq » Mon, May 09, 2016, 10:02 PM UTC

carsongross wrote: post #79

GavinB wrote: post #3

So a company that blatantly cheated will pay some fines and still be worth billions. The founders and early employees will all be rich, or richer than they were when they started. The investors will get a very healthy return. The lesson: break the rules and grow so fast that by the time regulators catch up, you can put on a show of reforming and still keep most of the value that you created. Admirable disruption or h…

You know how to feel about it. But you rightly recognize that there is a prisoners dilemma when it comes to moral behavior. Your stomach is tempting you to defect. Your heart is telling you not to. And your head is wondering how the game could be structured to favor your heart over your stomach.

Your stomach is tempting you to defect. Your heart is telling you not to.

And then, thankfully, your brain chimes in, and reminds you that while short-term PD-like scenarios seem to reward defection, in iterative scenarios -- more comparable to PD-like situations we encounter in real life -- it is cooperation (or at least, not fucking your neighbor over for the sake of short-term gain) that is very strongly incentivized.