6 ms·

Why would they waste employee time on antitrust training if they were innocent?

by colinmhayes 5y ago

robbedpeter 5y ago
Corporate ass-covering.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
All big corps require you to take this kind of training.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Supermancho 5y ago
  > All big corps require you to take this kind of training. I've worked at a couple "big corps" as an internal developer. JPMC, BestBuy, Experian, etc. Never encountered it. I suspect it's only for those companies in danger (or with a history of being charged with) breeching anti-trust.
  - jamesfinlayson 5y ago
    Maybe it depends on the industry? I've worked in big companies with big interests in goverment-regulated industries and every single person has had to do this sort of training, regardless of role (there'll be a course every month, and big responsibilities like anti-money laundering and corruption get rehashed yearly).
  - mtnygard 5y ago
    Such training programs are often part of a settlement or judgement against a company that transgressed. The guilty individuals are long gone, but everyone after them has to take a mandatory ethics/antitrust/anticorruption/sensitivity class each year.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    I have had the training in companies not in danger of anti-trust, but only when in a leadership position, not as a developer. And not a single-purpose anti-trust class, but as part of a business ethics class or similar.
  - forgotmyoldacc 5y ago
    I've worked at one of the companies you've listed, definitely had to do anti-trust training.
  - ptero 5y ago
    s/all/many/ But the point of the argument is still valid -- it is present often enough and not only for nefarious purposes.
  - tasha0663 5y ago
    It's not unusual for required training for employees to be mandated in the aftermath of, say, a class action lawsuit. So maybe it wasn't the case when you were there, but became that way later.
  - wenc 5y ago
    I worked at two Fortune 250s (both publicly listed) in completely different industries. Both had antitrust training for all corporate employees not just leadership. I believe —but have no data—that this is common among publicly listed companies.
    - Supermancho 5y ago
      The discussion hasn't been circling back to "all big corps have this kind of training" in a more general sense, but in a more specific one. There's antitrust training and there's ANY training that says "never use these words", which are wildly different.
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        Is there any big corp that doesn’t do “never use these words” training? “We are going to crush the competition” has been taboo in emails since the mid 1990s. Not to mention a lot of words that should be avoided for sensitivity reasons.
        Supermancho 5y ago
        > Is there any big corp that doesn’t do “never use these words” training? As I stated I've never seen it, in the context of anti-trust. If your company has to have that in literature, they are already skirting and it's just a matter of time.
        seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        All the companies are buying pretty much the same training units from the same set of providers. If you haven't experienced personally at the American office in the big corp you claim to work out, I'm not sure what to tell you.
        Supermancho 5y ago
        > If you haven't experienced personally at the American office in the big corp you claim to work out, I'm not sure what to tell you. It's disingenuous to continue to move the goalpost out to a more general scenario than what birthed the thread. Re-read the specific issue at hand. You can go to the companies mentioned and there is no anti-trust training, for developers (of any level) that covers what phrases or words you can say. Whatever "generalized training" you are handwaving about does not contradict that fact. GL with whatever.
  - xmcqdpt2 5y ago
    JPMC didn't have antitrust in the onboarding stuff? I find that difficult to believe. The bank I work for tells employees to never discuss products or prices with competitors without going through compliance. It's not really emphasized (it's one bullet point amongst many) but it's there. I just checked and it's in the JPMC code of conduct on page 4, https://www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/jpmorgan-chase-and-co/documents/code-of-conduct.pdf https://www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/jpmorgan-chas...
nickff 5y ago
Because they were trying to correct or prevent it? If they hadn't done the training, you'd be saying that they never even tried to avoid it.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  This isn't about prevention. It's training to avoid recording damning evidence. The bad behavior can continue as long as it isn't written down. Preferably implemented in pieces that lend plausible deniability.
  - nickff 5y ago
    I thought it was generally accepted that changing verbiage/language has a huge impact on the way people think. Do you disagree with that notion?
    - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
      Data retention training is always about limiting liability. These are the sort of companies that delete emails after 18 months no matter how much that kneecaps the employees. No amount of training will change the behavior of the sociopaths calling the shots. They need their underlings to not ruin everything for them with careless mistakes. Any other story is just a cover because they can't state their true intentions.
      - Jiro 5y ago
        Companies tell employees to delete emails after 18 months because there are two alternatives: 1) delete emails after 18 months (or some similar time period), or 2) never delete emails, ever. If your policy is "delete emails based on personal preference", someone can sue you in court and claim that the selective deletions of email is evidence of wrongdoing even if you just happened to have a full hard drive that day. And you don't actually need to be a wrongdoer for someone to claim this.
  - Jiro 5y ago
rat9988 5y ago
So you don't do it by ignorance as it becomes their responsability?
bluGill 5y ago
One of my companies competitors (I'm not told which) was caught red handed bribing a government official someplace. Because of a very close look at all their practices - including the anti bribe training - the courts concluded this was a rouge employee doing something the company didn't want him to do (even though it would have greatly benefited the company) and so the company is still around. Training is a part of a robust process to ensure that your company only does legal things at all levels. It is a given in any large company that somebody will do something immoral/illegal. The real question is it one person and so the company can fire the bad person and be done, or is it the whole company and firing one person is just making a scapegoat.

Why would they waste employee time on antitrust training if they were innocent?

robbedpeter 5y ago

Corporate ass-covering.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

All big corps require you to take this kind of training.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Supermancho 5y ago
> All big corps require you to take this kind of training. I've worked at a couple "big corps" as an internal developer. JPMC, BestBuy, Experian, etc. Never encountered it. I suspect it's only for those companies in danger (or with a history of being charged with) breeching anti-trust.
- jamesfinlayson 5y ago
  Maybe it depends on the industry? I've worked in big companies with big interests in goverment-regulated industries and every single person has had to do this sort of training, regardless of role (there'll be a course every month, and big responsibilities like anti-money laundering and corruption get rehashed yearly).
- mtnygard 5y ago
  Such training programs are often part of a settlement or judgement against a company that transgressed. The guilty individuals are long gone, but everyone after them has to take a mandatory ethics/antitrust/anticorruption/sensitivity class each year.
- tyingq 5y ago
  I have had the training in companies not in danger of anti-trust, but only when in a leadership position, not as a developer. And not a single-purpose anti-trust class, but as part of a business ethics class or similar.
- forgotmyoldacc 5y ago
  I've worked at one of the companies you've listed, definitely had to do anti-trust training.
- ptero 5y ago
  s/all/many/ But the point of the argument is still valid -- it is present often enough and not only for nefarious purposes.
- tasha0663 5y ago
  It's not unusual for required training for employees to be mandated in the aftermath of, say, a class action lawsuit. So maybe it wasn't the case when you were there, but became that way later.
- wenc 5y ago
  I worked at two Fortune 250s (both publicly listed) in completely different industries. Both had antitrust training for all corporate employees not just leadership. I believe —but have no data—that this is common among publicly listed companies.
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    The discussion hasn't been circling back to "all big corps have this kind of training" in a more general sense, but in a more specific one. There's antitrust training and there's ANY training that says "never use these words", which are wildly different.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      Is there any big corp that doesn’t do “never use these words” training? “We are going to crush the competition” has been taboo in emails since the mid 1990s. Not to mention a lot of words that should be avoided for sensitivity reasons.
      - Supermancho 5y ago
        > Is there any big corp that doesn’t do “never use these words” training? As I stated I've never seen it, in the context of anti-trust. If your company has to have that in literature, they are already skirting and it's just a matter of time.
        seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        All the companies are buying pretty much the same training units from the same set of providers. If you haven't experienced personally at the American office in the big corp you claim to work out, I'm not sure what to tell you.
        Supermancho 5y ago
        > If you haven't experienced personally at the American office in the big corp you claim to work out, I'm not sure what to tell you. It's disingenuous to continue to move the goalpost out to a more general scenario than what birthed the thread. Re-read the specific issue at hand. You can go to the companies mentioned and there is no anti-trust training, for developers (of any level) that covers what phrases or words you can say. Whatever "generalized training" you are handwaving about does not contradict that fact. GL with whatever.
- xmcqdpt2 5y ago
  JPMC didn't have antitrust in the onboarding stuff? I find that difficult to believe. The bank I work for tells employees to never discuss products or prices with competitors without going through compliance. It's not really emphasized (it's one bullet point amongst many) but it's there. I just checked and it's in the JPMC code of conduct on page 4, https://www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/jpmorgan-chase-and-co/documents/code-of-conduct.pdf https://www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/jpmorgan-chas...

nickff 5y ago

Because they were trying to correct or prevent it? If they hadn't done the training, you'd be saying that they never even tried to avoid it.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
This isn't about prevention. It's training to avoid recording damning evidence. The bad behavior can continue as long as it isn't written down. Preferably implemented in pieces that lend plausible deniability.
- nickff 5y ago
  I thought it was generally accepted that changing verbiage/language has a huge impact on the way people think. Do you disagree with that notion?
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    Data retention training is always about limiting liability. These are the sort of companies that delete emails after 18 months no matter how much that kneecaps the employees. No amount of training will change the behavior of the sociopaths calling the shots. They need their underlings to not ruin everything for them with careless mistakes. Any other story is just a cover because they can't state their true intentions.
    - Jiro 5y ago
      Companies tell employees to delete emails after 18 months because there are two alternatives: 1) delete emails after 18 months (or some similar time period), or 2) never delete emails, ever. If your policy is "delete emails based on personal preference", someone can sue you in court and claim that the selective deletions of email is evidence of wrongdoing even if you just happened to have a full hard drive that day. And you don't actually need to be a wrongdoer for someone to claim this.
- Jiro 5y ago

rat9988 5y ago

So you don't do it by ignorance as it becomes their responsability?

bluGill 5y ago

One of my companies competitors (I'm not told which) was caught red handed bribing a government official someplace. Because of a very close look at all their practices - including the anti bribe training - the courts concluded this was a rouge employee doing something the company didn't want him to do (even though it would have greatly benefited the company) and so the company is still around. Training is a part of a robust process to ensure that your company only does legal things at all levels. It is a given in any large company that somebody will do something immoral/illegal. The real question is it one person and so the company can fire the bad person and be done, or is it the whole company and firing one person is just making a scapegoat.