The Crucible

[peterbirks]

I am loath to talk about "rights guaranteed by the Constitution". This phrase is normally used by slimeball lawyers trying to get their client off the hook for something that he is quite clearly guilty of. "Rights" have a quid pro quo. With privilege comes reponsibility. If you are a fuckwit who has screwed people, then, well, those rights don't apply to you.

However, even I, the arch anti-liberal, felt a pang of concern at this news item this morning.

WellPoint Inc. fired Vice Chairman David C. Colby, named the best health-insurance chief financial officer for each of the past four years by Institutional Investor magazine, over violations of company rules.

The unspecified breaches of a conduct code were "of a non-business nature" and didn't involve illegality, WellPoint, the second-biggest U.S. provider of medical coverage, said today in a statement.

The important phrase here is that the breaches were not illegal and were of a non-business nature.

By my way of thinking, if what I am doing is legal, and if it doesn't relate to business, I don't see how a company should be allowed to fire me, no matter what some so-called "conduct code" states. There is a place where conformity to societial codes is enfored. It's called the law. Companies should not be allowed to put themselves "above the law"/ But this is preceisely what such "conduct codes" do. In effect they say "Sure, this might be perfectly legal, and it might have nothing to do with business, but we don't like it, so, if you do it, you are fired".

A disgrace.

__________


(Later).

Strolled through a few new blogs (to me) to see if there was anything interesting out there. I found this one which, while it isn't "funny", does provide a nice example of how the over-confidence of so many young American poker players gets battered when variance rears its ugly head.

http://malfairepoker.blogspot.com/

I'll be honest, I really feel kind of sorry for the guy. But if you set yourself public targets....

Comments

Company Policy

[miserable-git.livejournal.com]

Pete, I ahd a colleague who was dismissed from Fujitsu for breach of company policy - accessing internet adult sites in company time and repeatedly doing so despite warnings. Despite being of liberal tendencies myself, I felt he got what he deserved, he was stupid. We all knew that the company had this line - if we didn't like it we could have formally complained or left! The person did not break any laws, but surely a company cannot only use 'legal breaches' as a justification for dismissal?
I suspect that at his level he was 'suitably rewarded' for being dismissed.

Re: Company Policy

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

No,

the comparison is not valid. The comparison would only be valid if he were sacked for accessing internet adult sites in his own time. In this (Fujitsu) case the guy got what he deserved because he was breaching the contract of employment. "We pay you to do this. You were not doing this". That's fair enough because, in the Fujitsu case, the breach of the conduct code was of a business nature. In the Wellpoint example, it is specifically stated that the breach was of a non-business nature.

The difference is not only plain, it is vital.

PJ

[(Anonymous)]

If he broke company rules then why can't they fire him? He was the CFO and on the board so can reasonably be assumed to be aware of what the company rules were. I feel there are more deserving people in the world to feel outraged for.

I would assume he was shagging his secretary or sexually harassing exployees ... something of that nature.

matt

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Well, of course, I could always take up "popular causes", but where would be the fun in that? That's what all the other blogs do. :-)

Of the two you mention, sexual harrassment -- fire. Shagging secretary. Do not fire. I wouldn't call sexual harrassment an offence of a "non-business neture", but it's possible that the company's press release was badly worded.

The point here is, I feel, can companies impose rules according to their own social mores? Suppose the company rules forbad homosexual relations? Would that be okay? ("You can be a homosexual, but you can't be an active homosexual") I don't think so. I really feel that when it comes to moral judgements, companies have no right to impose these standards, and it's no excuse to say "he knew what the rules were". What if the rules get changed while you are working there? I don't think that it's a valid response to say "you can always leave". Life is more complex than that.

As you say, Matt, it's quite possible that the offence was utterly heinous and the company has simply declined to mention it. But if the guy hasn't broken the law, and if he hasn't done aything which affects the business, it would seem that he is being sacked for an action which the company doesn't like, not one which the law doesn't like or one which is related to his position as a CFO.

If it turns out that this is not the case, then the company should work out how to phrase its press releases better.

PJ

[andy-ward-uk.livejournal.com]

Are you sure you feel sorry for the blogger there Pete ? His response to a car salesman phoning him every two months wasn't to politely call back and ask him to stop. It was to phone him and tell him that he (the blogger) had lost both his legs and so wouldn't be needing a car (to the great hilarity of his room mate).

Now OK, the salesman is no better because he immediately started talking about "converted cars" but even so, wtf is wrong with people. I suppose this is what "Jackass" has done to a generation.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

I'll try to remember to pm you on this Andy, when we aren't both multi-tabling.

As the high court judge might ask: What's Jackass?

PJ

Re: Company Policy

[(Anonymous)]

how about accessing porn in his lunch hour: that would seem a suitably grey area.

Consitution? What constitution?

[(Anonymous)]

Hi Peter,

I didn't think you Brits really had a constitution. Sure an "unwritten" one, but not like we have across the pond. Just because you now have a supreme court instead of the law lords wouldn't seem to change that, i.e. the situation where parliament can by a simple majority change virtually anything.


As to the young american hotshots, yes they don't know how to deal with negative variance when they have run hot for so long. All the more reason they need to rethink what amount consitutes a proper bankroll for a given stakes in a given form of poker. Sure it *could* be 20 buyins, or even less. But that presumes dropping down immediately upon losing 2-4 buyins, which they don't want to do. Instead they want to "get even", which is just a form of meta-tilt.

BluffTHIS!

Re: Consitution? What constitution?

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Hi Bluff:

I was actually referring to the US (Wellpoint being a US company) and its constitution (and US lawyers), although I agree that, having read it, I thought that I ought to have made this clear. This is quite an internationalist blog.... :-)

Gryko and I were talking on Thursday about the "move back down" and how hard this is for some people. The problem is, once you are on the wavelength of one level (but get unlucky, and are thus inadequately bankrolled) it takes a certain skill to readjust to the mentality of the average player at the lower level. This is one reason why I am not such a great fan of moving up in stakes quickly. Not because I, (or whoever) hasn't the ability to cope at the higher level, but because, once you hit a bad run at the higher level, I (or whoever) would then find it diffficult to beat the lower level, until I (or whoever) readjusted. This can take some time.

Badly phrased, I want to get some piano practice in. But I think you know what I mean.

PJ

Re: Consitution? What constitution?

[(Anonymous)]

I didn't realize you meant the US re the constiutional thing. Yes you've got quite the global following :).

As I have mentioned a couple times here, I keep a playing diary, including a separate part where I list things about how a given stakes plays on a certain site. If players would do something like this, then they would have a "road map" as it were, to review when dropping down. I have only played a narrow range of 600 to 2K buyin tables for quite some time (and the 600 is only occasionally when it looks real good), so if I were to have to drop down further which isn't likely given my roll, the old notes I have probably wouldn't help me as things have changed. But for most players who moved up more recently, such notes could be a big asset in properly adjusting to a movedown. The biggest adjustment of course is mental. All the more reason as I mentioned for players to up their estimates of how many buyins/big bets that they need for a given stakes level.

Bluff