5 ms·

This is an article about compliance at a call center - they aren't expecting people with lots of experience to be working there. This guy shouldn't be working a

by sswezey 15y ago

This is an article about compliance at a call center - they aren't expecting people with lots of experience to be working there. This guy shouldn't be working at a call center, he said he was overqualified, it'd be like a gourmet chef working at McDonalds and then complaining that they are forcing him to use their procedures to cook burgers. The procedures aren't written for experts and if you don't know what you are doing there could be severe negative consequences. This article would be more effective if it was in something which requires creative thinking as opposed to something that can be accomplished through rote memorization.

sopooneo 15y ago
Honestly, I agree. It's too bad this guy had a bad experience, but if he's got the mettle for it, then to New York my son. And God speed.
endersshadow 15y ago
An investment firm's call center. Investments and banking are some of the most regulatory-ridden businesses there are. Those compliance rules aren't there because the company said so--those compliance rules are there because the company is legally liable for that financial advice. It's the difference between a programmer and a lawyer telling you to sue somebody--the progammer's not on the block for negligence there. This post is sensationalist, and frankly, pointless. Ironic that one of his recent posts was about McDonald's automating everything so they won't need "chefs" any more.
- darklajid 15y ago
  I'd agree with you, albeit grudgingly, when we talk about work hours, breaks and recorded (and checked) calls. But taking down a private website is already a crap idea, this 'I got a peek on your Facebook site' thing way over the top. At that point they crossed the line and something like 'I overheard you giving financial advice to your wife in your bedroom' is on _this_ side of the fence. While not on call, outside of office hours, the employer has no rights whatsoever to check on his employees in my world.
  - endersshadow 15y ago
    Then either you've never had to deal with regulatory compliance, or you've caused some serious liability risks to your employers (or yourself). It's a 24/7 issue, and there's no boundary between work/life when it comes to liability or complying with the law. It's the exact same reason that your lawyer friends will not dole out legal advice unless you're on the client role. Software is a lovely industry where these things don't matter until you're going public. But in banking, they do. A lot. The company is protecting itself from getting sued based on negligent advice given by one of its agents. This is why unless your job in a bank is to give financial advice, you don't give financial advice. Ever. To anyone outside you and your spouse.
    - darklajid 15y ago
      You are correct. I have never had to deal with regulatory compliance. It's a concept that I read about and, after turning it around in my head for a while, dismiss with a sigh. Are you _payed_ for your services 24/7 in those jobs? Because if someone really likes to invade your life like this, this surely increases your pay-check? My lawyer friends (Here I've to insert the disclaimer that I have few) would certainly talk to me about law issues, if I ask for advice. Funny thought: Did anyone reading this board ever decline an IT support request from friends or family with the 'Yeah, well.. Listen. I'd love to help you, but I cannot provide you with computer related advice. Sorry. Company compliance thing, you know?' outside of office hours, on his/her free and _unpaid_ time? Certainly there are good reasons for regulations of some sectors/jobs. The article fails to mention a serious issue in this case and you couldn't convince me that there's a problem either.
      - endersshadow 15y ago
        It's an impossible task to convince you. The inherent problem is that you dismiss the premise: If you're an agent of an investment firm, you cannot give financial advice in any capacity in the US unless you've passed certain certifications [1][2]. Them's just the breaks. It doesn't matter if it's amateur advice or for profit, the company is put into a very sticky liability situation if you're blogging and posting advice to Facebook. If you are quick to dismiss the law, then I really don't know what to tell you. The law's the law, and the company's trying to minimize its risk and liability. There are a lot of reasons that these laws came into place, but the fact of the matter is that they exist, and it's a world that you, admittedly, know nothing about. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_adviser#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_adviser#United_Stat... [2]: To clarify, there are situations where you could give advice that would not run afoul of the law. However, the line between that and actions that open your employer up to serious liability issues is very blurry, and so companies take the prudent action and make a blanket, "Don't give anyone anywhere financial advice and most certainly don't tell them to buy anything of ours unless you're paid to do that." The author knew what he was getting into, or at least should have known.
chrisdroukas 15y ago
This article would be more effective if it was in something which requires creative thinking as opposed to something that can be accomplished through rote memorization. Great point, but in an industry requiring creative thinking, this issue might never come up. The point has been made in this thread: working in a call center requires strict compliance because it's an unskilled job with severe (legal, financial) consequences for deviating from the provided script. It's likely a generalization, but a company demanding creative work may not exercise the same level of control as a call center or McDonald's, for instance.

by sswezey 15y ago

sopooneo 15y ago

Honestly, I agree. It's too bad this guy had a bad experience, but if he's got the mettle for it, then to New York my son. And God speed.

endersshadow 15y ago

An investment firm's call center. Investments and banking are some of the most regulatory-ridden businesses there are. Those compliance rules aren't there because the company said so--those compliance rules are there because the company is legally liable for that financial advice. It's the difference between a programmer and a lawyer telling you to sue somebody--the progammer's not on the block for negligence there. This post is sensationalist, and frankly, pointless. Ironic that one of his recent posts was about McDonald's automating everything so they won't need "chefs" any more.

darklajid 15y ago
I'd agree with you, albeit grudgingly, when we talk about work hours, breaks and recorded (and checked) calls. But taking down a private website is already a crap idea, this 'I got a peek on your Facebook site' thing way over the top. At that point they crossed the line and something like 'I overheard you giving financial advice to your wife in your bedroom' is on _this_ side of the fence. While not on call, outside of office hours, the employer has no rights whatsoever to check on his employees in my world.
- endersshadow 15y ago
  Then either you've never had to deal with regulatory compliance, or you've caused some serious liability risks to your employers (or yourself). It's a 24/7 issue, and there's no boundary between work/life when it comes to liability or complying with the law. It's the exact same reason that your lawyer friends will not dole out legal advice unless you're on the client role. Software is a lovely industry where these things don't matter until you're going public. But in banking, they do. A lot. The company is protecting itself from getting sued based on negligent advice given by one of its agents. This is why unless your job in a bank is to give financial advice, you don't give financial advice. Ever. To anyone outside you and your spouse.
  - darklajid 15y ago
    You are correct. I have never had to deal with regulatory compliance. It's a concept that I read about and, after turning it around in my head for a while, dismiss with a sigh. Are you _payed_ for your services 24/7 in those jobs? Because if someone really likes to invade your life like this, this surely increases your pay-check? My lawyer friends (Here I've to insert the disclaimer that I have few) would certainly talk to me about law issues, if I ask for advice. Funny thought: Did anyone reading this board ever decline an IT support request from friends or family with the 'Yeah, well.. Listen. I'd love to help you, but I cannot provide you with computer related advice. Sorry. Company compliance thing, you know?' outside of office hours, on his/her free and _unpaid_ time? Certainly there are good reasons for regulations of some sectors/jobs. The article fails to mention a serious issue in this case and you couldn't convince me that there's a problem either.
    - endersshadow 15y ago
      It's an impossible task to convince you. The inherent problem is that you dismiss the premise: If you're an agent of an investment firm, you cannot give financial advice in any capacity in the US unless you've passed certain certifications [1][2]. Them's just the breaks. It doesn't matter if it's amateur advice or for profit, the company is put into a very sticky liability situation if you're blogging and posting advice to Facebook. If you are quick to dismiss the law, then I really don't know what to tell you. The law's the law, and the company's trying to minimize its risk and liability. There are a lot of reasons that these laws came into place, but the fact of the matter is that they exist, and it's a world that you, admittedly, know nothing about. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_adviser#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_adviser#United_Stat... [2]: To clarify, there are situations where you could give advice that would not run afoul of the law. However, the line between that and actions that open your employer up to serious liability issues is very blurry, and so companies take the prudent action and make a blanket, "Don't give anyone anywhere financial advice and most certainly don't tell them to buy anything of ours unless you're paid to do that." The author knew what he was getting into, or at least should have known.

chrisdroukas 15y ago

This article would be more effective if it was in something which requires creative thinking as opposed to something that can be accomplished through rote memorization. Great point, but in an industry requiring creative thinking, this issue might never come up. The point has been made in this thread: working in a call center requires strict compliance because it's an unskilled job with severe (legal, financial) consequences for deviating from the provided script. It's likely a generalization, but a company demanding creative work may not exercise the same level of control as a call center or McDonald's, for instance.