5 ms·

"I was required to shut down my website [...] I was not allowed to make any YouTube videos or write any articles. I was most certainly not allowed to interact w

"I was required to shut down my website [...] I was not allowed to make any YouTube videos or write any articles. I was most certainly not allowed to interact with anybody on the Facebook about investing." ... seriously? If I was told, during a job application, that they'd fire me for what I did in my free time, I'd accuse them of wasting my time, and walk out on the spot. I've seen plenty of blogs etc run by people who're famously employed by big businesses. They all have disclaimers to the effect of "All content is my responsibility, not BigCorp's. Also, any effects of using this website are your responsibility." And if you're worried about being sued for one of your phone jockeys giving a bad tip, tack a recorded message onto the start of any call: "our customer representatives do not give financial advice; we are not liable for the performance of your investments" or whatever. I can't see how liberal use of such disclaimers could be insufficient to cover the business' arse. The "protection from liability" claim in the article seems like just an excuse -- I'd say the intent of their "compliance" policy is to give them an excuse to fire-at-will; no-one can follow all the rules, but you only need enforce them against the peons you don't like. Well, that or to crush their employees' spirits in the hope of Stockholm Syndrome.

jwoah12 15y ago
You won't work anywhere in the financial industry without agreeing not to give investment advice or do anything that could be perceived as giving investment advice on the side. This includes having any side project (paid or unpaid) that remotely involves finance. Having been an employee of one of the big banks, I can say that I haven't seen these companies actually enforce the rules to the extent that the author details, but I suppose that varies firm to firm. I must say, though, that the author's description of the job gives me mental images of a worker at FoxConn. I think being fired was a blessing.
- EvilTerran 15y ago
  Does that apply internationally? I've noticed that US-based businesses seem particularly concerned about what you do when you're not at work. (The uniquely American habit of drug-testing candidates, for example.) "You won't work anywhere in the financial industry" ... yes, well. I'm glad of that, personally.
  - talmand 15y ago
    The reason for the drug-testing is to protect the company from liability. If you show up to work stoned out of your mind and cause some mishap that injures employees the company is most likely liable. Granted the drug screening doesn't necessarily protect against future decisions as it's only testing the past, but it can be a good indicator. Or you can say companies started doing it years ago to get us accustomed to the drug testing so that one day they can start doing DNA screening and we'll just shrug our shoulders. I've held a number of jobs (in the US) over the years and I only had to do a drug screening twice.
    - EvilTerran 15y ago
      Hm... I don't see how drug screening would affect liability in your example. Sure, if someone comes in to work too inebriated to do their job, and you let them carry on anyway, that'd be your fault. But if you can't tell they (say) had a joint last night, then what's the problem? For one thing, if you can't tell, it's unlikely to be materially affecting their work; but regardless of that, you surely can't be held liable for something you can't detect? (As you said yourself, periodic drug tests are not a reliable detection method.) I don't get US liability law. I really don't. ... but don't worry, I'm not in that "they're getting us used to testing!" tinfoil-hat-brigade. It's just, if your private habits don't affect your work, then they're none of your employer's business; if they do affect your work, then your employer shouldn't need a drug test to notice. Trying to regulate your employees' behaviour when it doesn't affect your business is busy-bodied puritanism, nothing more. IMO.
      - talmand 15y ago
        Don't worry, most of us who live in the US don't understand our liability laws.
  - Kadrith 15y ago
    There are some US laws against insider trading and information disclosure for public companies; that is typically the main concern leading to this type of behavior for the financial industry.
DanBC 15y ago
He was employed in a heavily regulated sector. He knew the rules. He chose to break those rules. He suffered the consequences for breaking those rules. The financial industry probably needs tight regulation; some parts of it are pretty sleazy.
- mccoyst 15y ago
  What rule did he break? What advice did he give?
  - DanBC 15y ago
    > I started posting public articles from various financial news websites on my Facebook page, putting my own spin on them. I reached out to friends on the page, asking if they wanted to start a stock advisory group to pool ideas
jellicle 15y ago
> If I was told, during a job application, that they'd fire me for what I did in my free time, I'd accuse them of wasting my time, and walk out on the spot. That's an unstated rule in every job, and a stated rule in some jobs.
chollida1 15y ago
> ... seriously? If I was told, during a job application, that they'd fire me for what I did in my free time, I'd accuse them of wasting my time, and walk out on the spot. The thing is, in a lot of industries doing similar work on your own time is considered a very big no no. Professional athletes aren't usually allowed to play other sports in their own time. Hedge fund employees often have huge restrictions on what they are allowed to trade in their own accounts on the side. Programmers usually can't write software that competes with their employers software. Often what you do on your own time can be very material to your job.
- EvilTerran 15y ago
  Okay, I phrased that a bit strongly, I admit. I appreciate the reasons in the examples you give (atheletes: injury; hedge funds: insider trading/pump-and-dump/etc; programmers: well, your boss is paying you to learn to code better as much as to actually code - competing with him, given that, would not be playing nice), but I still don't get it for the original example in the link. I just don't understand how a business could be held liable for the behaviour of its employees when they're not at work, especially if there's a brief disclaimer appropriately placed. If that's really the case, then liability law is screwed. If not, then the business in question is either being paranoid, or disingenuous about its reasons for these rules.
  - chollida1 15y ago
    > I just don't understand how a business could be held liable for the behaviour of its employees when they're not at work, especially if there's a brief disclaimer appropriately placed. Yes fair enough, I agree with that completely.

jwoah12 15y ago

You won't work anywhere in the financial industry without agreeing not to give investment advice or do anything that could be perceived as giving investment advice on the side. This includes having any side project (paid or unpaid) that remotely involves finance. Having been an employee of one of the big banks, I can say that I haven't seen these companies actually enforce the rules to the extent that the author details, but I suppose that varies firm to firm. I must say, though, that the author's description of the job gives me mental images of a worker at FoxConn. I think being fired was a blessing.

EvilTerran 15y ago
Does that apply internationally? I've noticed that US-based businesses seem particularly concerned about what you do when you're not at work. (The uniquely American habit of drug-testing candidates, for example.) "You won't work anywhere in the financial industry" ... yes, well. I'm glad of that, personally.
- talmand 15y ago
  The reason for the drug-testing is to protect the company from liability. If you show up to work stoned out of your mind and cause some mishap that injures employees the company is most likely liable. Granted the drug screening doesn't necessarily protect against future decisions as it's only testing the past, but it can be a good indicator. Or you can say companies started doing it years ago to get us accustomed to the drug testing so that one day they can start doing DNA screening and we'll just shrug our shoulders. I've held a number of jobs (in the US) over the years and I only had to do a drug screening twice.
  - EvilTerran 15y ago
    Hm... I don't see how drug screening would affect liability in your example. Sure, if someone comes in to work too inebriated to do their job, and you let them carry on anyway, that'd be your fault. But if you can't tell they (say) had a joint last night, then what's the problem? For one thing, if you can't tell, it's unlikely to be materially affecting their work; but regardless of that, you surely can't be held liable for something you can't detect? (As you said yourself, periodic drug tests are not a reliable detection method.) I don't get US liability law. I really don't. ... but don't worry, I'm not in that "they're getting us used to testing!" tinfoil-hat-brigade. It's just, if your private habits don't affect your work, then they're none of your employer's business; if they do affect your work, then your employer shouldn't need a drug test to notice. Trying to regulate your employees' behaviour when it doesn't affect your business is busy-bodied puritanism, nothing more. IMO.
    - talmand 15y ago
      Don't worry, most of us who live in the US don't understand our liability laws.
- Kadrith 15y ago
  There are some US laws against insider trading and information disclosure for public companies; that is typically the main concern leading to this type of behavior for the financial industry.

DanBC 15y ago

He was employed in a heavily regulated sector. He knew the rules. He chose to break those rules. He suffered the consequences for breaking those rules. The financial industry probably needs tight regulation; some parts of it are pretty sleazy.

mccoyst 15y ago
What rule did he break? What advice did he give?
- DanBC 15y ago
  > I started posting public articles from various financial news websites on my Facebook page, putting my own spin on them. I reached out to friends on the page, asking if they wanted to start a stock advisory group to pool ideas

jellicle 15y ago

> If I was told, during a job application, that they'd fire me for what I did in my free time, I'd accuse them of wasting my time, and walk out on the spot. That's an unstated rule in every job, and a stated rule in some jobs.

chollida1 15y ago

> ... seriously? If I was told, during a job application, that they'd fire me for what I did in my free time, I'd accuse them of wasting my time, and walk out on the spot. The thing is, in a lot of industries doing similar work on your own time is considered a very big no no. Professional athletes aren't usually allowed to play other sports in their own time. Hedge fund employees often have huge restrictions on what they are allowed to trade in their own accounts on the side. Programmers usually can't write software that competes with their employers software. Often what you do on your own time can be very material to your job.

EvilTerran 15y ago
Okay, I phrased that a bit strongly, I admit. I appreciate the reasons in the examples you give (atheletes: injury; hedge funds: insider trading/pump-and-dump/etc; programmers: well, your boss is paying you to learn to code better as much as to actually code - competing with him, given that, would not be playing nice), but I still don't get it for the original example in the link. I just don't understand how a business could be held liable for the behaviour of its employees when they're not at work, especially if there's a brief disclaimer appropriately placed. If that's really the case, then liability law is screwed. If not, then the business in question is either being paranoid, or disingenuous about its reasons for these rules.
- chollida1 15y ago
  > I just don't understand how a business could be held liable for the behaviour of its employees when they're not at work, especially if there's a brief disclaimer appropriately placed. Yes fair enough, I agree with that completely.