• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Citigroup puts employee who ran QAnon website on paid leave (1 Viewer)

RAMOSS

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
62,963
Reaction score
27,367
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, it looks like running the qanon website was against the policies of Citigroup , since he didn't disclose an outside business, and the website owner is now on paid leave until they figure out if he did run the website.

Someone who is in his position should have known better.

Citigroup puts employee who ran QAnon website on paid leave | Fortune

Jason Gelinas, an employee at Citigroup Inc., has been placed on paid leave pending an internal investigation after he was identified as the operator of the most prominent website dedicated to the QAnon conspiracy theory, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Gelinas, who lives in New Jersey, was identified Sept. 10 as the operator of the website QMap.pup and its associated mobile apps by the fact-checking site Logically.ai. Since then, the website has shut down and now simply provides links to alternative websites offering information on the QAnon conspiracy.

Gelinas earned over $3,000 a month on a crowd-funded Patreon site dedicated to supporting the QAnon site, which he said helped cover the monthly operating costs.

“As outlined in our Code of Conduct, employees are required to disclose and obtain approvals for outside business activities,” Citigroup said in a statement, declining to comment on Gelinas’s status.
 
Don't know much about this organization, QAnon, but from what I gather it's been alleged that they are heavy into conspiracy theory. Is this just another case of political correctness run amok or was it a money making business? I guess we'll know soon enough. At least they are paying him until they determine if he made an income from running the site and didn't immediately fire him.
 
Don't know much about this organization, QAnon, but from what I gather it's been alleged that they are heavy into conspiracy theory. Is this just another case of political correctness run amok or was it a money making business? I guess we'll know soon enough. At least they are paying him until they determine if he made an income from running the site and didn't immediately fire him.

hmmmm, wondering... Does Citigroup disallow a second income ? if so, how does that work ?
 
hmmmm, wondering... Does Citigroup disallow a second income ? if so, how does that work ?

Typically, large corporations want to be informed of side businesses so that they can confirm there is no conflict of interest. You can't run a secondary business on company time, or use company resources, or compete against the company. You basically have to let the Powers that Be know about it, so it can be shown not to be against the interests of their corporation.
 
hmmmm, wondering... Does Citigroup disallow a second income ? if so, how does that work ?

That's what the O/P article states. The employee needs to "obtain approvals for outside business activities". I would think the website would be okay because it's not a conflict of interests with the employee's employer.
 
Don't know much about this organization, QAnon, but from what I gather it's been alleged that they are heavy into conspiracy theory. Is this just another case of political correctness run amok or was it a money making business? I guess we'll know soon enough. At least they are paying him until they determine if he made an income from running the site and didn't immediately fire him.

I don't know much about them either.

However, I fully support free expression whether I agree with what's being expressed or not.

I do not agree with "cancel culture" in it's most rabid form, i.e. expressing disagreement, okay. Refusing to support or fund, okay. Trying to get someone fired, closed down, or otherwise harmed? NOT okay.

But it seems at first view this had nothing to do with his "political" views, and everything to do with competitive profiteering that might create a conflict of interest with his employer.

Time will tell.
 
I don't know much about them either.

However, I fully support free expression whether I agree with what's being expressed or not.

I do not agree with "cancel culture" in it's most rabid form, i.e. expressing disagreement, okay. Refusing to support or fund, okay. Trying to get someone fired, closed down, or otherwise harmed? NOT okay.

But it seems at first view this had nothing to do with his "political" views, and everything to do with competitive profiteering that might create a conflict of interest with his employer.

Time will tell.
If a company believes that a person's activities reflects badly on them they have every right to fire them or stop doing business with them. People bringing that to their attention is not the issue.
 
That's what the O/P article states. The employee needs to "obtain approvals for outside business activities". I would think the website would be okay because it's not a conflict of interests with the employee's employer.
If those outside activities risk the employers brand and reputation and/or a loss of revenue, they are well within their means to act accordingly to prevent such damage.
 
hmmmm, wondering... Does Citigroup disallow a second income ? if so, how does that work ?

You mean like also having jobs with Citigroup's biggest competitors?
 
Image
 
I don't see anything wrong going on here.

1. An employer has the right to set conditions for employment.
2. An employee has the right to agree to those conditions or not.
3. If an employee violates the conditions, the employer has the right to dismiss the employee.

In this case, nothing has been decided yet. The employer is only investigating whether the employee has violated their conditions.
 
Don't know much about this organization, QAnon, but from what I gather it's been alleged that they are heavy into conspiracy theory. Is this just another case of political correctness run amok or was it a money making business? I guess we'll know soon enough. At least they are paying him until they determine if he made an income from running the site and didn't immediately fire him.
it may not matter if he made money from it or not...if it runs contrary to their social media requirements and requirements of disclosing any possible conflict..something like this could be a huge conflict of interest for Citi.
 
it may not matter if he made money from it or not...if it runs contrary to their social media requirements and requirements of disclosing any possible conflict..something like this could be a huge conflict of interest for Citi.

Since we don't know what their actual employee code of conduct requirements are, we'll just have to wait and see how this pans out.
 
Don't know much about this organization, QAnon, but from what I gather it's been alleged that they are heavy into conspiracy theory. Is this just another case of political correctness run amok or was it a money making business? I guess we'll know soon enough. At least they are paying him until they determine if he made an income from running the site and didn't immediately fire him.

It's not like it's in the OP or anything. Oh wait.


Gelinas earned over $3,000 a month on a crowd-funded Patreon site dedicated to supporting the QAnon site, which he said helped cover the monthly operating costs. “As outlined in our Code of Conduct, employees are required to disclose and obtain approvals for outside business activities,” Citigroup said in a statement, declining to comment on Gelinas’s status.


Not as moronic as when you thought a blindingly sarcastic article demonstrating that mail-in ballots are the same as absentee ballots actually argued the opposite because you only read the article's sarcastic title, but still... pretty big fail.
 
It's not like it's in the OP or anything. Oh wait.


Gelinas earned over $3,000 a month on a crowd-funded Patreon site dedicated to supporting the QAnon site, which he said helped cover the monthly operating costs. “As outlined in our Code of Conduct, employees are required to disclose and obtain approvals for outside business activities,” Citigroup said in a statement, declining to comment on Gelinas’s status.


Not as moronic as when you thought a blindingly sarcastic article demonstrating that mail-in ballots are the same as absentee ballots actually argued the opposite because you only read the article's sarcastic title, but still... pretty big fail.

Your childish foot stomping is noted.
Come back to the thread and discuss when you're not so pissed off at the world.
 
It's not like it's in the OP or anything. Oh wait.


Gelinas earned over $3,000 a month on a crowd-funded Patreon site dedicated to supporting the QAnon site, which he said helped cover the monthly operating costs. “As outlined in our Code of Conduct, employees are required to disclose and obtain approvals for outside business activities,” Citigroup said in a statement, declining to comment on Gelinas’s status.


Not as moronic as when you thought a blindingly sarcastic article demonstrating that mail-in ballots are the same as absentee ballots actually argued the opposite because you only read the article's sarcastic title, but still... pretty big fail.

“Whats this “Q” stuff?” ask the same folks that think Barack Obama wasn’t born here.
 
That's what the O/P article states. The employee needs to "obtain approvals for outside business activities". I would think the website would be okay because it's not a conflict of interests with the employee's employer.
I don't know much about them either.

However, I fully support free expression whether I agree with what's being expressed or not.

I do not agree with "cancel culture" in it's most rabid form, i.e. expressing disagreement, okay. Refusing to support or fund, okay. Trying to get someone fired, closed down, or otherwise harmed? NOT okay.

But it seems at first view this had nothing to do with his "political" views, and everything to do with competitive profiteering that might create a conflict of interest with his employer.

Time will tell.
If a company believes that a person's activities reflects badly on them they have every right to fire them or stop doing business with them. People bringing that to their attention is not the issue.
If those outside activities risk the employers brand and reputation and/or a loss of revenue, they are well within their means to act accordingly to prevent such damage.
I don't see anything wrong going on here.

1. An employer has the right to set conditions for employment.
2. An employee has the right to agree to those conditions or not.
3. If an employee violates the conditions, the employer has the right to dismiss the employee.

In this case, nothing has been decided yet. The employer is only investigating whether the employee has violated their conditions.
it may not matter if he made money from it or not...if it runs contrary to their social media requirements and requirements of disclosing any possible conflict..something like this could be a huge conflict of interest for Citi.
Since we don't know what their actual employee code of conduct requirements are, we'll just have to wait and see how this pans out.
It's not like it's in the OP or anything. Oh wait.


Gelinas earned over $3,000 a month on a crowd-funded Patreon site dedicated to supporting the QAnon site, which he said helped cover the monthly operating costs. “As outlined in our Code of Conduct, employees are required to disclose and obtain approvals for outside business activities,” Citigroup said in a statement, declining to comment on Gelinas’s status.


Not as moronic as when you thought a blindingly sarcastic article demonstrating that mail-in ballots are the same as absentee ballots actually argued the opposite because you only read the article's sarcastic title, but still... pretty big fail.
Your childish foot stomping is noted.
Come back to the thread and discuss when you're not so pissed off at the world.

Everyone is missing that this is a legal and compliance requirement for institutions regulated by FINRA.

" FINRA Rules 3270 and 3280 require registered representatives to notify their firms of proposed outside business activities (OBAs), and all associated persons to notify their firms of proposed private securities transactions (PSTs), so firms can determine whether to limit or allow those activities to proceed. Certain OBAs and PSTs could potentially involve misconduct or create conflicts of interest that may expose both firms and customers to potential risks. The notifications required in the rules assist firms in identifying and determining how to mitigate those risks, including by placing conditions on, or prohibiting, participation in the proposed OBA or PST.5 "

Employees are required to report outside business activities on an annual basis to maintain compliance checks. This is a requirement that all banks have in order to prevent hidden conflicts of interest. It has absolutely nothing to do with "political correctness". This guy violated the firm's compliance procedures.
 
Everyone is missing that this is a legal and compliance requirement for institutions regulated by FINRA.

" FINRA Rules 3270 and 3280 require registered representatives to notify their firms of proposed outside business activities (OBAs), and all associated persons to notify their firms of proposed private securities transactions (PSTs), so firms can determine whether to limit or allow those activities to proceed. Certain OBAs and PSTs could potentially involve misconduct or create conflicts of interest that may expose both firms and customers to potential risks. The notifications required in the rules assist firms in identifying and determining how to mitigate those risks, including by placing conditions on, or prohibiting, participation in the proposed OBA or PST.5 "

Employees are required to report outside business activities on an annual basis to maintain compliance checks. This is a requirement that all banks have in order to prevent hidden conflicts of interest. It has absolutely nothing to do with "political correctness". This guy violated the firm's compliance procedures.
Yes, but even if he isn't violating that and Citi thinks this association could harm them, they have every right to fire him anyways.
 
Everyone is missing that this is a legal and compliance requirement for institutions regulated by FINRA.

" FINRA Rules 3270 and 3280 require registered representatives to notify their firms of proposed outside business activities (OBAs), and all associated persons to notify their firms of proposed private securities transactions (PSTs), so firms can determine whether to limit or allow those activities to proceed. Certain OBAs and PSTs could potentially involve misconduct or create conflicts of interest that may expose both firms and customers to potential risks. The notifications required in the rules assist firms in identifying and determining how to mitigate those risks, including by placing conditions on, or prohibiting, participation in the proposed OBA or PST.5 "

Employees are required to report outside business activities on an annual basis to maintain compliance checks. This is a requirement that all banks have in order to prevent hidden conflicts of interest. It has absolutely nothing to do with "political correctness". This guy violated the firm's compliance procedures.

Eh? I didn't say otherwise. I was responding to trix's suggestion that it was political correctness and that we don't really know why they fired him. The text OP quoted didn't mention the legal requirement, but did quote the company as saying the guy violated their policy in that regard.
 
Eh? I didn't say otherwise. I was responding to trix's suggestion that it was political correctness and that we don't really know why they fired him. The text OP quoted didn't mention the legal requirement, but did quote the company as saying the guy violated their policy in that regard.
I didn't suggest that it was political correctness. You are so blatantly dishonest that it's astoundingly pathetic.

I asked above, "Is this just another case of political correctness run amok or was it a money making business? I guess we'll know soon enough."
 
I didn't suggest that it was political correctness. You are so blatantly dishonest that it's astoundingly pathetic.

I asked above, "Is this just another case of political correctness run amok or was it a money making business? I guess we'll know soon enough."

Now you know.
 
If a company believes that a person's activities reflects badly on them they have every right to fire them or stop doing business with them. People bringing that to their attention is not the issue.

^^ This.

Like it or not, in the 21st century, when so-called “personal” communication can negatively impact the employer’s bottom line, the employer has the right to protect it’s interests.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom