DISQUS

John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises) · 1 month ago

While I guess the rationale for your being written up makes sense, the whole "quiet period" thing is admittedly baffling to me. I have worked for a small public company which was eventually taken over by a Fortune 500 company, and while I really worried about quiet periods when we were small, they became a non-issue when we became part of the Fortune 500 company (our business was a very very small part of that company, which was primarily known for a completely different product line). I'll grant that HP's printer group is a significant business, but it's still a little mystifying.

That, of course, doesn't negate your basic point that companies should explain their rationale for things, rather than just saying "no." And, at this point, that's all that I'm going to say about THAT.

tacanderson · 1 month ago

Thanks John. I admit that I still don't think it was that big of a deal but I've learned that large corporations sometimes have to be very black and white about some issues. If it was something that became a real problem I always had the choice to leave.

But yes, if companies provide context and intent behind their explanations I think they'd see a much greater level of adherence both on explicit and vague applications of the rules.

@steveplunkett · 1 month ago

I know a person at a company who started a blog for that company, then found out the corporate insurance was cancelled due to liability issues that the insurance company had instituted for blogs, etc.. once the proper addendum to insurance was made, policy was re-instated.

tacanderson · 1 month ago

Thanks Steve, that has to be the most ridiculous example I've ever heard. Wow. Companies (especially insurance companies) do the stupidest things because of the fear of loss of money.

@steveplunkett · 1 month ago

Well it was 2004... the insurance industry wasn't sure how to deal with blogs.