Let&#x27;s just forget about the entire ethical argument around breaking an existing policy&#x2F;legal condition of doing business, as important as that is wrt health insurance.<p>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&#x27;t cheating the system for an advantage; you&#x27;re cheating just because you can, because it makes you feel better than others. That&#x27;s some borderline psychopathic behaviour really.<p>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 &#x27;not needing&#x27; 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.<p>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 &quot;fight this battle&quot; 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&#x2F;rewards, regardless of personal ethics.<p>Some things just aren&#x27;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.<p>Lesson learned here: Not every component of your business needs to be disrupted. Some things aren&#x27;t worth disrupting at all, really.