5 ms·

Tech industry, regulators' relationship needs a reboot

13 points by zt 11y ago

Animats 11y ago
This guy is just whining. There's an exam you have to take to sell insurance in California. Signing people up for health insurance at work is selling insurance. There's an online course [1] and an exam. Passing grade is 60%, which is probably why some people were able to pass without taking the training. Because health insurance policies vary so widely (it's a little better since the Affordable Care Act, now that pre-existing conditions are no longer an issue), understanding this, and understanding what HR people can say to employees, is important. Of course, if we had single-payer health care for everyone, this would be unnecessary. [1] http://www.52hours.com/ http://www.52hours.com/
- jcr 11y ago
  The "This Guy" you mention is Zac Townsend, one of the founders of Standard Treasury (YC S13), and the person who submitted this story. When regulations exist as a protection racket for entrenched interests like those providing the 52 hours of supposed training, then yes, the regulations need to be changed. The problem with laws is they aren't self-policing; if unfair regulations get passed (often due to legal but dubious campaign contributions), it usually takes a court challenge to throw the bad laws out. With that said, I'm unsure I agree with Zac on this part: >Regulators can start by being more open to experimentation and alternative business models. For instance, a regulatory sandbox could give companies the opportunity to operate slightly outside the existing rules while being closely monitored by regulators. The problem with flexible rules is there's always someone out there who will intentionally abuse the leniency, and there are even more who will unintentionally abuse the leniency.
  - zt 11y ago
    I am just a guy who sometimes whines, so I wasn't offended. Every system has fraud and abuse. I doubt that most fraudsters would opt to get close regulatory scrutiny, but I take your point.
    - jcr 11y ago
      Though I doubt more flexible regulations and your stated "opportunity to operate slightly outside the existing rules" will work, what about an alternate path to achieve the same basic goal? Do you think something like an improved and expedited (and inexpensive) method for challenging outdated and/or bad regulations would work?
      - Animats 11y ago
        Such things exist. See OSHA's "Voluntary Protection Program". [1] [1] https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/compliance_assistance/index_programs.html https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/compliance_assistance/index_progra...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
god_bless_texas 11y ago
Rabbit hole sidechannel debate: This is also true in the world of "Drones" and the FAA. Rulemaking committee actually references 1961 interpretation of "see and avoid" while making suggestions for drones. Are ya kidding me??!!
dcole2929 11y ago
I agree that protectionist regulation is an issue that states really need to examine. However, I really don't see how you can view the policies violated by Zenefits as one. They are basically in the business of selling one of the critical infrastructures for most peoples life. It's easy to say oh this is just to protect incumbents but realistically these are people who are operating in a stupidly complex system where a mistake can have dire consequences for someones life. 52 hours is in the long run very little. Yeah it may suck if you hire someone and they can't do work for a few days but the alternative is allowing people who aren't actually fully informed to work in an industry where that lack of knowledge can materially affect peoples life. I'm not ok with that. I've seen what a lapse in coverage at an inopportune time can do to a family. It's not pretty. Really I'm more concerned that 60% is considered an acceptable passing grade. Instead of arguing for less regulation we should be condemning this entire company and demanding higher standards for the exam.
ctdean 11y ago
It's hard to see from the outside how much innovation is stifled due to regulators - but from my position it is a substantial amount. Part of the basic problem is that the very large and very successful companies have captured their regulators and have much more freedom to innovate when they are interested. But they are usually not interested in innovating because that are already big and successful. This is in contrast to the growing startup which is under the regulator microscope. The UK has the idea of a "Challenger Bank" for starups in the banking industry. The US should have a similar program. (FWIW, Zac and I have talked about this a lot.)

13 points by zt 11y ago

This guy is just whining. There's an exam you have to take to sell insurance in California. Signing people up for health insurance at work is selling insurance. There's an online course [1] and an exam. Passing grade is 60%, which is probably why some people were able to pass without taking the training. Because health insurance policies vary so widely (it's a little better since the Affordable Care Act, now that pre-existing conditions are no longer an issue), understanding this, and understanding what HR people can say to employees, is important. Of course, if we had single-payer health care for everyone, this would be unnecessary. [1] http://www.52hours.com/ http://www.52hours.com/

jcr 11y ago
The "This Guy" you mention is Zac Townsend, one of the founders of Standard Treasury (YC S13), and the person who submitted this story. When regulations exist as a protection racket for entrenched interests like those providing the 52 hours of supposed training, then yes, the regulations need to be changed. The problem with laws is they aren't self-policing; if unfair regulations get passed (often due to legal but dubious campaign contributions), it usually takes a court challenge to throw the bad laws out. With that said, I'm unsure I agree with Zac on this part: >Regulators can start by being more open to experimentation and alternative business models. For instance, a regulatory sandbox could give companies the opportunity to operate slightly outside the existing rules while being closely monitored by regulators. The problem with flexible rules is there's always someone out there who will intentionally abuse the leniency, and there are even more who will unintentionally abuse the leniency.
- zt 11y ago
  I am just a guy who sometimes whines, so I wasn't offended. Every system has fraud and abuse. I doubt that most fraudsters would opt to get close regulatory scrutiny, but I take your point.
  - jcr 11y ago
    Though I doubt more flexible regulations and your stated "opportunity to operate slightly outside the existing rules" will work, what about an alternate path to achieve the same basic goal? Do you think something like an improved and expedited (and inexpensive) method for challenging outdated and/or bad regulations would work?
    - Animats 11y ago
      Such things exist. See OSHA's "Voluntary Protection Program". [1] [1] https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/compliance_assistance/index_programs.html https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/compliance_assistance/index_progra...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

god_bless_texas 11y ago

Rabbit hole sidechannel debate: This is also true in the world of "Drones" and the FAA. Rulemaking committee actually references 1961 interpretation of "see and avoid" while making suggestions for drones. Are ya kidding me??!!

dcole2929 11y ago

I agree that protectionist regulation is an issue that states really need to examine. However, I really don't see how you can view the policies violated by Zenefits as one. They are basically in the business of selling one of the critical infrastructures for most peoples life. It's easy to say oh this is just to protect incumbents but realistically these are people who are operating in a stupidly complex system where a mistake can have dire consequences for someones life. 52 hours is in the long run very little. Yeah it may suck if you hire someone and they can't do work for a few days but the alternative is allowing people who aren't actually fully informed to work in an industry where that lack of knowledge can materially affect peoples life. I'm not ok with that. I've seen what a lapse in coverage at an inopportune time can do to a family. It's not pretty. Really I'm more concerned that 60% is considered an acceptable passing grade. Instead of arguing for less regulation we should be condemning this entire company and demanding higher standards for the exam.

ctdean 11y ago

It's hard to see from the outside how much innovation is stifled due to regulators - but from my position it is a substantial amount. Part of the basic problem is that the very large and very successful companies have captured their regulators and have much more freedom to innovate when they are interested. But they are usually not interested in innovating because that are already big and successful. This is in contrast to the growing startup which is under the regulator microscope. The UK has the idea of a "Challenger Bank" for starups in the banking industry. The US should have a similar program. (FWIW, Zac and I have talked about this a lot.)