Let's just forget about the entire ethical argument around breaking an existing policy/legal condition of doing business, as important as that is wrt health insurance.
Who in their right mind thinks taking the time to design, then publish, a way to defeat a relatively straightforward education requirement is in any way a worthwhile thing to do? There is a level of ego there that goes beyond rational decision making: you aren't cheating the system for an advantage; you're cheating just because you can, because it makes you feel better than others. That's some borderline psychopathic behaviour really.
Did Zenefits employees really gain anything from not having to complete the required 52 hours? Was it really that big of an ordeal? Or was this a matter of just being smug about 'not needing' to do some very basic requirement they felt was beneath them? There is an element of hubris there that is unbecoming in and of itself.
These are (very minimal, really) licencing requirements. There is a minimal amount of effort that an employee should be expected to put in to do their job legally. The assumption is that exposure through time to the subject matter will increase knowledge. That may not be true in every situation, but it likely is in a majority; the rule exists. The exposure generated from choosing to "fight this battle" and losing is miles greater than any particular payoff achieved in victory. That alone indicates to me that the person in charge has a poor grasp of weighing risks/rewards, regardless of personal ethics.
Some things just aren't worth fighting because the risks in losing are so disproportional to any net gain from winning. This is a perfect example. A good CEO needs to know how to pick and choose the hills to fight on.
Lesson learned here: Not every component of your business needs to be disrupted. Some things aren't worth disrupting at all, really.
> Did Zenefits employees really gain anything from not having to complete the required 52 hours? Was it really that big of an ordeal?
That was my first thought as well. I can see the appeal in streamlining (what at first glance seems like) an arbitrary process if the final exam is passed legitimately, but a one-time commitment of 52 hours at the start of employment (a good chunk of which you'd probably need to do anyway for the exam) barely seems worth bothering with. As you say, the risks are disproportionate - it certainly makes me wonder what other corners are being cut.
Well, based on what I read elsewhere it seems like they didn't think licencing was that big of a deal at all really, which is an even larger demonstration of hubris than this.
I do feel bad for their employees who may end up being blacklisted from insurance period for practicing without a licence.
It could easily have been a bottom-up effort - someone got tired of watching the videos, wrote the macro (doesn't require a lot of programming expertise), passed it around to their friends who also used it, passed it up to their manager and eventually it became widespread.
Have you ever had to watch 52 hours of mandatory training videos? I think that could easily be more unpleasant than 104 hours of hard labour.
Who in their right mind thinks taking the time to design, then publish, a way to defeat a relatively straightforward education requirement is in any way a worthwhile thing to do? There is a level of ego there that goes beyond rational decision making: you aren't cheating the system for an advantage; you're cheating just because you can, because it makes you feel better than others. That's some borderline psychopathic behaviour really.
Did Zenefits employees really gain anything from not having to complete the required 52 hours? Was it really that big of an ordeal? Or was this a matter of just being smug about 'not needing' to do some very basic requirement they felt was beneath them? There is an element of hubris there that is unbecoming in and of itself.
These are (very minimal, really) licencing requirements. There is a minimal amount of effort that an employee should be expected to put in to do their job legally. The assumption is that exposure through time to the subject matter will increase knowledge. That may not be true in every situation, but it likely is in a majority; the rule exists. The exposure generated from choosing to "fight this battle" and losing is miles greater than any particular payoff achieved in victory. That alone indicates to me that the person in charge has a poor grasp of weighing risks/rewards, regardless of personal ethics.
Some things just aren't worth fighting because the risks in losing are so disproportional to any net gain from winning. This is a perfect example. A good CEO needs to know how to pick and choose the hills to fight on.
Lesson learned here: Not every component of your business needs to be disrupted. Some things aren't worth disrupting at all, really.