
Tech industry, regulators' relationship needs a reboot - zt
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_29591871/zac-townsend-tech-industry-regulators-relationship-needs-reboot?source=infinite-up
======
Animats
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
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
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
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improved and expedited (and inexpensive) method for challenging outdated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
Such things exist. See OSHA's "Voluntary Protection Program". [1]

[1]
[https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/compliance_assistance/index_progra...](https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/compliance_assistance/index_programs.html)

------
dcole2929
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
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.)

------
god_bless_texas
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??!!

