4 ms·

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 adv

by 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.

by jwoah12 15y ago

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.