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

Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–229 of 229 posts

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

#221

Post by mindcrime »

majewsky wrote: post #174
mindcrime wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a pretty simple standard for dealing with what is a good law, versus a bad law, that we should just adhere to. But instead of restating what has been said before (and better), I'll just leave this link here.

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

and this quote:

* What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

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

#222

Post by mateo411 »

Bombthecat wrote: post #216
majewsky wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yep, and there is no incentive to create new homes. Except for airbnb. Why would you create a new home when you just can increase the rent?

Usually there is a monetary incentive for developers to build new homes.

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

#223

Post by Macsenour »

bskap wrote: post #172
Macsenour wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Thanks for the clarification.

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

#224

Post by jsprogrammer »

reality_czech wrote: post #215
majewsky wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This may surprise you, but humans aren't computer programs. They generally come with individual consciences and can decide what is right and wrong. It is insulting (almost a Godwin's law violation) to compare murder with the "crime" of disregarding arcane taxi regulations. It's very clear to everyone involved that the taxi regulations in question are designed mostly to protect the profits of a few fat cats who own li…

I think you may have found yourself in the wrong thread. This one us about Zenefits creating a computer program to cheat a licensing scheme.

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

#225

Post by tedmiston »

Geekette wrote: post #123
tedmiston wrote: post #113

Does Conrad's resignation mean forfeiting his own equity?

Probably not: He owns whatever portion is vested, subject to dilution in event of future fundraising. Some of his equity will already be vested based on his tenure and vesting schedule used. Plus, if his agreement has any kind of vesting acceleration clause that ignites upon material event (company sale, key personnel replacement including his position, etc), he may well be fully vested.

I found this in the BuzzFeed article:

> After Zenefits investigated the macro in late 2015 and early 2016, Conrad agreed to resign from the company at an emergency board meeting on Feb. 1, according to the Cooley report. But Conrad controlled three of the company's four board seats, giving him significant leverage in the negotiation over his ouster.

> This allowed him to secure a $130,000 severance payment from Zenefits, the people said. Conrad also kept his Zenefits shares and was permitted to keep unvested stock that would vest over the subsequent six months, according to the people.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/williamalden/zenefits-co-founder-so...

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

#226

Post by TeMPOraL »

pbreit wrote: post #190
baddox wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even forgetting if the services are superior or whatever, is it all that crazy to be able to let people spend the night in your house or drive someone around for money?

This isn't. But people are using this to turn their apartments into cheap-ass hotels instead.

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

#227

Post by TeMPOraL »

baddox wrote: post #206
TeMPOraL wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I fundamentally disagree with your belief that disobeying bad laws is an undesirable way to get bad laws to change. I think it is a very valid way to change bad laws, and in many cases the only remotely viable way. Do you honestly believe there was a viable way to get taxi regulations changed other than the general approach taken by Uber and Lyft? Granted, some of Uber's reported specific actions are slimy even to me…

Europe had its own taxi revolution going on for more than a decade. From personal experience in my city, the companies trying to change the status quo did exploit loopholes they could find, but they did not went and blatantly disregarded the laws. Ultimately the case of taxis vs. "people transport" companies got solved in court, proper adjustments to the law were made, and everyone is happy. That's how things should be done in a civilized society.

The superiority of Uber's service over regular taxi is true (a bit smaller advantage over "people transport" companies we have in Europe, but Uber brought some "innovative" solutions to the continent too, like controlling taxi radio via Spotify...), but I absolutely disagree with the approach they take and even more I dislike the way this particular company behaves. There's also some blame to be put on the governments too, for not reacting quickly and decisively enough (kudos to Germany for doing it right) - there's little that can undermine the trust in the rule of law more than seeing people getting rich by ignoring the rules.

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

#228

Post by TeMPOraL »

gnaritas wrote: post #209
TeMPOraL wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

> 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. Civil disobedience is very much a part of civilized society, your premise is flawed.

This particular case is not civil disobedience, it's a company getting rich off illegal activity.

As for civil disobedience itself - it may be necessary sometimes, but this should be something rare, not a business model.

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

#229

Post by gnaritas »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #228
gnaritas wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Civil disobedience is very much a part of civilized society, your premise is flawed.

This particular case is not civil disobedience, it's a company getting rich off illegal activity. As for civil disobedience itself - it may be necessary sometimes, but this should be something rare, not a business model.

When a company ignores what they consider bad laws, it most certainly is civil disobedience.
Post reply on HN