Investment Firm has a rule: do not email directly with employees of public companies
employee: emails directly with employee of public company to ask what he believes is a harmless question
investment firm A: now we must restrict trading in the name which can cost us money as we cannot sell out of a position
boss: employee, you are suspended for this action
rutgers has a rule: do not email directly with professors about student athlete grades
coach: email professor about grades
rutgers: this tarnishes our reputation which is not what we want as an institution as actually cares about academics unlike certain southern schools and the media scrutiny here is more than anywhere else
AD or Barchi: coach, you are suspended
how is a suspension a spineless act? do you stick up for the employee regardless of the action simply because he is an employee?
employee: emails directly with employee of public company to ask what he believes is a harmless question
investment firm A: now we must restrict trading in the name which can cost us money as we cannot sell out of a position
boss: employee, you are suspended for this action
rutgers has a rule: do not email directly with professors about student athlete grades
coach: email professor about grades
rutgers: this tarnishes our reputation which is not what we want as an institution as actually cares about academics unlike certain southern schools and the media scrutiny here is more than anywhere else
AD or Barchi: coach, you are suspended
how is a suspension a spineless act? do you stick up for the employee regardless of the action simply because he is an employee?