Why I Got Fired: America's Compliance Nightmare
gweezycapital.com
gweezycapital.com
Then what the hell are you doing working at a call center?
Call center workers have one job: to read from the script. That's it. People who want to be creative do badly in those jobs, because they are not creative jobs.
If you take a job on the grill line at McDonald's, they will not care if you can make the most juicy, succulent cheeseburgers on your backyard grill. They will not be interested in hearing how you do it. If you start trying to do it at work, they will fire you, no matter how good your cheeseburger tastes. Because the goal at McDonald's is consistency. They hire you to make a burger to the McDonald's standard. Not to make the best burger you can.
And that's perfectly reasonable! There's no way to build a business on the scale of McDonald's while depending on the genius of artisanal burger chefs. It only works if you standardize.
The only way to turn out burgers on an industrial scale, in other words, is with an industrial process. And the same is true of turning out information via telephone. You could never find enough people to do it if each one needed to be a financial expert. The only way to do it is to use less expert people and give them a script to read from.
If that's not an environment where you thrive, I can understand. But the problem isn't with the environment; it works for what it needs to do (answer huge volumes of mostly basic and/or stupid questions). The problem is with you for putting yourself there. If you want to be an artisanal burger chef, McDonald's is not where you should be looking for work.
It's the controlling attitude towards off-duty behaviour that strikes me as particularly insidious.
I work as a SQL Server DBA and occassionally publish articles about technical aspects of SQL. But anything that rises above the level of a comment like this one gets vetted by the company before I publish it. I am quite comfortable with this because I agreed to it ahead of time and I understand why the company wants the right to review.
I don't think that this sort of lockdown is a good answer. The answer should be something more like going "what the heck is wrong with our system of lawsuits and liability that the company needs to be this paranoid about its risks?"
In other words, the default should be "the opinions in this post are mine and mine alone..." for anything not explicitly done in the company's name.
But even if it were clear that the employee's actions did not fall into the category, a company is rightly concerned about anything that would create even a colorable cause of action (in otherwords, anything someone could sue for without it being immediately thrown out).
Also, the company might be worried about the appearance in the public's eyes even when lawsuits are entirely off the table.
It would be fairly simple to construct a law that protects companies from liability for things their employees say, but what happens if an employee wants to say... give bad stock advice and pays an employee under the table to do so on his own time?
But, having worked in a couple of call centers, I feel obliged to point out not all of them are that way. I have been in call centers for major products where there were no scripts, the representatives (or "agents") were expected to think and help solve problems for the customers as well as provide feedback to other departments making the products. But I will agree those are a minority and in some call centers they are separated out into "level 2" or something equivalent.
The rant isn't about why he was fired. He got a "final warning" for giving useful information to a savvy client. He got fired because he restarted his blogging, taunting them to fire him.
His rant isn't about why he was unjustly fired - he obviously didn't give a shit at that stage. The rant is about how restrictive the compliance is, and how it hurts everybody.
The compliance rules are there for a reason, but the author clearly doesn't think it's worth the cost. I like eating at McDonalds, but I'd also like the option of going somewhere that's a bit sloppier, and a bit more creative. Yes, I might get food poisoning, but as they say - Caveat Emptor.
Well, they would if the customer could turn around and sue them because they didn't get the right sauce.
He should get an MBA from a top school then get a job as a sell side analyst and get paid for what he wants to do.
> Until compliance departments figure out how to conduct business without micro-managing every aspect about everything, the problem remains.
companies exist to return profits to shareholders, not in the business of fixing the litigious tendencies of Americans (let alone i-bankers!). if a compliance policy is the most efficient way to manage exposure to legal risk, it's a correct move.
edit: i work in pharma
This is absolutely true. One can implement compliance that would drive everyone nuts and distract from business, or one could take a more practical approach.
> companies exist to return profits to shareholders, not in the business of fixing the litigious tendencies of Americans (let alone i-bankers!). if a compliance policy is the most efficient way to manage exposure to legal risk, it's a correct move.
Noone is saying that exposure shall not be managed through compliance framework, policies and procedures. The question is how to do it w/o driving employees insane and hurting business.
I am speaking based on my experience of CFO of with 7 years of pharma industry experience [regulated industry].
I'm in charge of IT security and the designated HIPAA Security Officer for a health network. Some of my favorite conversations will typically begin with someone saying that they will follow the rules when they believe the rules make sense.
Agree that there is not much one can do, since the 'in'compliance badge is a one-way ticket.
There is a difference between following the rules at own discretion and actually knowing & understanding the rules, accurately assessing the risk for each specific business case and making the right decision.
Usually typical management types do not take time or are willing to learn the rules. Hence, in the absense of knowledge they prefer to be on a safe side, i.e. err to hitting every moving object.
One example was a change to the password complexity requirements for our organization (health care); since this was approved by senior leadership I changed the passwords for senior leadership first and did not allow any exceptions to the new policy. This ensured that the people who initiated the policy and are in a position to change the policy are the first ones impacted by it. If something was horribly wrong I would only change the policy or provide an exception if anyone who met the same criteria was also to be given the exception. If the exception is by job title or position I would require that they explicitly put that in the policy; that has never been requested though.
When there is a process to communicate issues and a culture that actually cares, compliance isn't as bad. For example we instituted a stricter change management process about a year ago.
We got people together to figure out what we thought a good balance was between the compliance needs, operational needs and the problems we were attempting to solve. As we were using the new process we gathered information from people then reviewed the entire thing at around six months. Based upon the feedback we made changes to the process, loosening somethings and tightening other parts. We have another meeting to review this in a few weeks since there have been some new proposals for how to streamline the process.
As far as management learning the rules, I tend to not have too much issue with that. If they don't follow the rules and are unwilling to comply their access to all systems will be shut off; the IT security group reports to me. :) Once people know you will go so far as to shut off their access for not cooperating it is amazing how quickly they work with you when an issue arises.
For us there is always a process to get exceptions with any policy; but the person performing the action may not be authorized to give themselves an exception arbitrarily.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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_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.
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.
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.
Those compliance rules may suck but they are there for one purpose, to protect the company. As he said, if he gives bad advice then the company can suffer legally. He was not hired to give advice, he was hired to answer questions with answers already printed out for him. Sounds like he really wants a job advising people on investments, why is he getting a job at a call center that is not allowed to give advice?
To stand out is to be fired? If your definition of standing out is to break rules you are clearly aware of that can have serious legal consequences for the company; then yes, your ass will be fired.
Also, if you are fired for breaking compliance rules then you are not the bottomless pit of compliance knowledge you think you are.
Not completely to protect the company. I'm sure the company would love to drop those compliance rules and return to the good-old-days. Unfortunately, they used the "but that was just a call-center guy, why would you listen to his advice?" defense too often, after too many pump-and-dumps.
Plus, his constant assertions that he is god's gift to the financial industry were very off-putting.
... 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.
"You won't work anywhere in the financial industry"
... yes, well. I'm glad of that, personally.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes fair enough, I agree with that completely.
The financial industry probably needs tight regulation; some parts of it are pretty sleazy.
That's an unstated rule in every job, and a stated rule in some jobs.
Why did the OP take the job? He strikes me as both passionate and of above average intelligence. Is the financial sector competitive to the point that the only positions available are at call centers?
While I'm not familiar with the financial industry, this strikes me as odd. I feel as though the OP is either overstating his skill set, or the job market is doing a very poor job of allocating resources.
This is all anecdotal, but the barrier to entry to banking careers has never struck me as insurmountable. While my friends who work in i-banking or PE have all jumped through the appropriate formal hoops to get there, financial advisors (especially retail) tend to run the gamut of educational backgrounds and intellect. Despite the fact that this is essentially a sales job, I would think it would be infinitely more satisfying that being a call center jockey.
edit / anecdotal source : I was approached for recruitment as an FA right out of college. I do not have a finance education or background.
Places that fall into the first category usually run out of new skills for you to learn. Places that fall into the second are like the place were this guy landed.
FUCK THEM!
And find a better place.