
Why I Got Fired: America's Compliance Nightmare - sfnx
http://www.gweezycapital.com/why-i-got-fired-americas-compliance-nightmare
======
smacktoward
_> I turned out to be everything the company wished they never hired. I had
extensive knowledge of economics, currencies, financial markets, and
investment strategies. I had interned at a former hedge fund manager’s website
and learned to write about financial markets. I had my own financial website,
and I tweeted with financial TV personalities on a regular basis. Worst of
all, I had a YouTube channel chock full of rap videos I made about my favorite
stocks..._

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.

~~~
EvilTerran
McDonald's wouldn't fire you for giving your friends burgers from your
backyard grill, even if they all got food poisoning afterwards; while this
business would fire you for doing anything resembling financial advice in your
own time, even if nothing bad came of it to anyone.

It's the controlling attitude towards off-duty behaviour that strikes me as
particularly insidious.

~~~
timwiseman
A company needs to protect itself from things that could potentially be tied
back to it, even indirectly. This is especially true for employees that are
presented as representing the company even some of the time.

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.

~~~
fennecfoxen
"A company needs to protect itself from things that could potentially be tied
back to it, even indirectly."

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?"

~~~
talmand
While true, a company cannot change the laws it operates under by itself and
must take steps to protect its interests. In the US most of these laws are
created to protect the consumer to the detriment of the company. It is what it
is.

------
dustingetz
OP is an idiot. Clearly he was hired to be a cog in a machine - a repeatable,
bottom-level, commodity. In the current litigious climate of America, a
customer could turn around and sue over some stupid detail, and end up with
legal costs far higher than a call rep is worth. so they fire you. "No, your
honor, the call rep was speaking as an individual, against policy and
training, and we fired him for it."

> 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

~~~
daemon13
>> Until compliance departments figure out how to conduct business without
micro-managing every aspect about everything, the problem remains.

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].

~~~
Kadrith
Presumably the organization has already performed a risk analysis and
determined that the existing compliance program is sufficient to address the
risks and threats while not being too burdensome. The OP and many others may
disagree, but it is not their call to arbitrarily change how things are done.

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.

~~~
daemon13
As is often the case, the people who perform risk analysis and prepare
recommendations are different from people who actually implement & enforce
compliance [management].

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.

~~~
Kadrith
My experience has been very different however I work in a place that does care
about the burden placed on people by compliance. I am also heavily involved
with compliance, drafting policies and the implementation of those policies.
When someone wants a new policy implemented I have a rule that they are the
first ones I hold to the new policy.

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.

------
sswezey
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.

~~~
endersshadow
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
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
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
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
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_Stat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_adviser#United_States)

[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.

------
talmand
What I get from this is the guy was fired because he felt he was so special
that the rules didn't apply to him. He knew the rules going in, he repeated
them several times, and for him to whine about being held to those rules is
the indicator of his huge ego. It seems he was going to describe this huge
bureaucracy of compliance rules he had to constantly go through in his day-to-
day yet the only thing he seemed to do wrong was he gave advice which he was
specifically forbidden to do. Add to this the fact he knew the legal
ramifications of him giving advice and yet he did it anyway. His big ego
doesn't let him understand it wasn't just his job on the line if he gave bad
advice, everybody sitting around him were at risk as well.

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.

~~~
mcguire
_"Those compliance rules may suck but they are there for one purpose, to
protect the company."_

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.

~~~
talmand
In the context of the guy's post the compliance rules he was complaining about
are there to protect the company. Right or wrong, that is why they are there
and he was specifically told this as he admits. Any other example is a
completely different debate.

------
EvilTerran
_"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
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
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
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
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
Don't worry, most of us who live in the US don't understand our liability
laws.

------
eli
I'm not really sure I see how that this is a emblematic of some larger
problem. This sounds like a terrible place to work. But there are lots of
similarly terrible places to work even in industries where compliance is not a
buzzword.

------
doktrin
As just about everyone else has already pointed out, this position was clearly
inappropriate for someone with the skills of the OP.

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.

------
ecspike
I had the same problems in the foray into call center work after graduating in
a down market. Either you become a work horse that assimilates new skills
quickly, easily beating your neighbors and depended on to "help" out the team
or dinged for compliance.

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.

------
th0ma5
I personally feel this is a symptom of underemployment.

------
daemon13
I wonder how the guy lasted so long.

FUCK THEM!

And find a better place.

