Speaking at a conference – company’s choice?

Situation: I recently submitted an article to a popular investment magazine. Shortly thereafter I was contacted by a well respected conference organizer who wanted me to come speak at an upcoming conference on the subject. The subject is investment related but not directly related to my organization (I work for a medium-sized asset manager). It’s basically just a topic I am interested in. I ran it by all the compliance people here and there is no conflict of interest issues. After feeling everything was a go, I find out Friday that the head of our firm now has an issue with this as he feels that given my level in the organization (an analyst) I am not high enough on the food chain to be representing the organization at a conference. Therefore, I am being told to turn down the offer to speak. I am really disappointed in the decision – any comments on what, if anything, I can say to my employer to convince them to let me go? BTW - I’m a presentable guy, have given many presentations in house and know the subject area I will be talking on.

I understand your frustration. Is the conference in town, or would you have to travel? If you don’t have to travel, you might be able to go as a tag team with a more senior member. The senior member would act as the “face” of the organization, would open your speaking session, introduce you by saying how great your work is and it is a sample of what people at your company can do. You then give your talk. This would solve the seniority issue, and the head of the firm does have an interest in making sure that your public face reflects well on his/her fund. The only real issue is that if you can’t find a senior person to go to the conference with you, you can’t do it. But lots of people enjoy conferences, so see if you can find someone.

Thanks but it’s not in town. Also, I should mention that I will be part of a panel with two others speaking on the subject.

Convince your boss that it’s a good idea. If he thinks otherwise: bad luck but you’ll have to turn it down.

It could be some jealousy at play on the part of your boss? Otherwise, from their angle, they actually might have a valid point as the company probably does only want people to speak on behalf of their company regarding something specifically related to the company. Also, nothing against you, it would seem a risky proposition from a company perspective to have a non-sr. person represent them. They probably have people who speak at such conferences. My advice is to just accept you company’s decision and be gracious about it (trust me, this has garnered you positive attention so you will benefit), or leave the firm and specialize in whatever you spoke about.

No question what I would do - “Eat S^%T and I have a professional life that exists even independently of this company. If I’m not high enough on the food chain in this company to talk at this conference then apparently I’m not high enough on the food chain in this company. CYA”. In CT, firing someone for speaking at a conference would be illegal (employers are not allowed to make any rules that interefere with someone’s constitutional rights which certainly include going to conferences and speaking about finance).

That guy’s a bureaucrat.

At my old job, we had a communications officer whose job it was (in part) to make sure that prospective speakers understood how to portray the organization in a good light. It wasn’t specifically about censoring anything, but more about being aware of things enough not to accidentally stick one’s foot in one’s mouth. Also, Joey’s comment did make me realize I’d overlooked something, which is that there is nothing the company can do about you going and speaking “as an individual with analysis/investment experience,” other than ensure that 1) you don’t do it on company time (i.e. take a vacation day), 2) you don’t let out any company trade secrets, and 3) you don’t claim to represent your company in any way (and make this clear to the audience while you are speaking). There are two ways you can deal with this. A) Just go do it, observing 1, 2, and 3, above, or B) let your supervisors know that you will not be claiming to represent the company in any way and will be careful about the other stuff, just so they don’t feel you are doing this behind your back. Version B is better, unless these people are complete cads.

Practically speaking though, if you do go speak, you will make your company mad as you’re directly defying their wishes. I think that they do have a right for firing you if you are representing the company without their consent. Even if it is illegal to fire for that, and you want to take them to court for firing you, you will be up against power attorneys and spending a lot of money. Then, your next couple of years will be spent as a martyr. As you apply for different jobs, you will have to disclose you are taking your former employer to court. Doesn’t bode well for the prospective employer. So as stated above, if you do go, make certain that you will not represent the company, but know that you will be “ticking off” your supervisor, who probably is in charge of your promotion, no? Or, just accept their decision graciously and move on, as they might respect you for following their wishes. OR, leave the company and go for it!

JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In CT, firing someone for speaking at a conference > would be illegal (employers are not allowed to > make any rules that interefere with someone’s > constitutional rights which certainly include > going to conferences and speaking about finance). Actually, this isn’t completely true. If he is licensed by an NASD firm he has to recieve approval from his employer before speaking in a related capacity regardless of what state he is in. His firm could fire him or punish him, incuding marking up his U-4, for violation of NASD regulations, if he defied them. That CT law sounds fishy anyway and it must have limits. That law as you state it would allow an employee to go on TV and bad-mouth his firm and the firm would be unable to fire him. The employee could make sexually suggestive statements at his desk and be protected because the company couldn’t make rule to prevent it because it could violate his right to free speech.

Is this part of a pattern on the part of your employer as far as undervaluing you? If so, you might turn down the invite but find another job ASAP. If this is just a one-off insult, then maybe you just suck it up. It’s also possible that, even though you find the conference respectable, your employer thinks it’s silly. Could that also be driving this?

Agree RA, Constitutionally protected rights go out the window between private parties. If he were working for the Government, that would be a different story, but hey, let’s thank heaven the government isn’t managing money :slight_smile:

BosyBillups Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agree RA, Constitutionally protected rights go out > the window between private parties. If he were > working for the Government, that would be a > different story, but hey, let’s thank heaven the > government isn’t managing money :slight_smile: What? Local, state and federal governments might combine to be the largest money manager out there.

Most likely the employer will be ok if you assure them you will not be speaking as a representative of the company and you point out that you will do it on your own time. It is very likely that the boss who objected has an image of your role at the event being different than yours.

HoldSideAnalyst Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BosyBillups Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Agree RA, Constitutionally protected rights go > out > > the window between private parties. If he were > > working for the Government, that would be a > > different story, but hey, let’s thank heaven > the > > government isn’t managing money :slight_smile: > > What? Local, state and federal governments might > combine to be the largest money manager out there. Good point. I meant acting more as a private AM firm taking on private clients, not in a CALPERs sense.

It is placism. Your boss wants to make sure you know your place in the company. By telling you “No” he is in affect saying, “Little guys like you don’t get to sit at the big boy table like me and do things like talk at conferences ect.” So you have a couple choices: A. Live with it and stay at your job without creating drama B. Go do it anyway and try to keep it on the QT and if you get caught reap the whirlwind C. Quit and do it

Thanks for the responses. The conference and other speakers are definitely legit. I am going to speak with my firm’s head tomorrow and try to convince him of the benefits to letting me speak. I have until Wednesday to make my decision.

RAwannabeCFA Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeyDVivre Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > In CT, firing someone for speaking at a > conference > > would be illegal (employers are not allowed to > > make any rules that interefere with someone’s > > constitutional rights which certainly include > > going to conferences and speaking about > finance). > > > Actually, this isn’t completely true. If he is > licensed by an NASD firm he has to recieve > approval from his employer before speaking in a > related capacity regardless of what state he is > in. His firm could fire him or punish him, > incuding marking up his U-4, for violation of NASD > regulations, if he defied them. Show me. He can’t go recommend securities, advertise for his company, or disclose data that belongs to his company. > > That CT law sounds fishy anyway and it must have > limits. That law as you state it would allow an > employee to go on TV and bad-mouth his firm and > the firm would be unable to fire him. The > employee could make sexually suggestive statements > at his desk and be protected because the company > couldn’t make rule to prevent it because it could > violate his right to free speech. The CT law has all kinds of limits as does the Constitutional right to free speech. Of course the limits of the law are not exactly defined - for example, nobody has ever tested rules that forbid employees from dating each other or from dating someone from a competitor. BTW - depending on the kind of bad-mouthing he is doing there might very well be protections to firing him. The mothers of all unlawful termination cases are about that kind of behavior - the Lockheed case I think is the biggest. Edit: Employment at will essentially gives an employer the right to fire anyone for just about any reason. If they fired you for bad-mouthing them on TV you would have to pursue it as an unlawful termination and show that they did it in response to your bad-mouthing them on TV. Of course, the bad-mouthing them on TV would be really good evidence that you weren’t much of a team player which is plenty reason to fire someone so you wouldn’t win the case.

And, of course, any boss I would enjoy working for would either say “Great - I don’t care, go speak” or, even better, “Yeah, we got a conference paper out of it. I’ll check with my husband/wife to see if I can go”

JoeyDVivre Wrote: > Edit: Employment at will essentially gives an > employer the right to fire anyone for just about > any reason. If they fired you for bad-mouthing > them on TV you would have to pursue it as an > unlawful termination and show that they did it in > response to your bad-mouthing them on TV. Of > course, the bad-mouthing them on TV would be > really good evidence that you weren’t much of a > team player which is plenty reason to fire someone > so you wouldn’t win the case. Exactly correct. You are presumed at-will unless stipulated otherwise in the employment contract. Which means that they can fire you for Good Cause or No Cause. However, not Bad Cause (i.e., bad faith, such as refusing to lie on the stand). Bad-Mouthing the firm is good cause, IMO. Them firing you for doing a good job but out of jealousy is bad cause, IMO. But, it’s hard to prove. Don’t think litigation is in the cards for the poster, so he has to make his mind up based on sound career decisions.