Speaking at a conference – company’s choice?

That sucks, I’d be pissed. I do see the head of firm’s point of view though. I don’t know how well he knows you, but it seems like he doesn’t trust an analyst to represent the firm. He doesn’t want to you to “mess up” or “misrepresent” them. Good luck talking to him and let us know how it goes.

I agree with that (edit: BosyBillups reply). They would probably fire him and get away with it even if he went after it in the most employee friendly state. That’s why I ended my suggested speech with “CYA”. Who wants to work for a place that is not proud of their junior employees getting invited to a discussion panel at a finance conference? I’d put out a company e-mail and make him/her a hero.

BosyBillups Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Bad-mouthing is a fine reason to fire someone until it crosses the line into whistle-blowing. For example, it seems to me I remember someone winning an expensive whistleblower lawsuit after being terminated by pointing out some yield-burning violation a few years ago. The guys from Lockheed were fired for bad-mouthing Lockheed and the safety problems on some cargo plane and won tens of millions (the exact details would probably surrender to a Google search pretty easily).

JoeyDVivre Wrote: > Bad-mouthing is a fine reason to fire someone > until it crosses the line into whistle-blowing. > For example, it seems to me I remember someone > winning an expensive whistleblower lawsuit after > being terminated by pointing out some > yield-burning violation a few years ago. The guys > from Lockheed were fired for bad-mouthing Lockheed > and the safety problems on some cargo plane and > won tens of millions (the exact details would > probably surrender to a Google search pretty > easily). Correct. And it’s not the badmouthing that is protected, but the Whistleblowing that is. Usually whistleblowers are fired for airing out the company’s dirty laundry. However, most states have enacted statutes so that the blowers will have recourse should they be wrongfully terminated.

That is bull. Ive been to my share of talks at NYSSA and the like. I couldnt even tell you where most of these people work. You more so represent yourself. Hope it works out.

Update: I pointed out that all the work I did was on my own time and I would disclose to the audience this is solely my opinion not my firms - still no change. This is the last he wants to hear about it.

fullyfunded Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Update: I pointed out that all the work I did was > on my own time and I would disclose to the > audience this is solely my opinion not my firms - > still no change. This is the last he wants to > hear about it. what a dick

fullyfunded Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Update: I pointed out that all the work I did was > on my own time and I would disclose to the > audience this is solely my opinion not my firms - > still no change. This is the last he wants to > hear about it. Not cool at all. I would have thought that you’d be completely fine doing something on your own time, if you wrote the article on your own time, and didn’t represent your company at all but only represented yourself. ie: “I’m currently employed as an analyst in such and such industry” vs “I’m currently employed as an analyst at company XYZ”. I don’t think there needs to be any mention of where you work at all, unless the magazine thinks it adds credibility to your presentation and don’t want you presenting otherwise. I don’t see why/how your boss would reject that. If that’s something you’ve already discussed with him (ie: making no mention of the company whatsoever) and he still said no, he either a) is a complete idiot or b) power tripping.