>OP feels going to the conference is a must, "a given", a "constitutional right", and that the manager "wronged" him by not letting him go. It's a very childish way of viewing the world.

OP's employer does not own them - they have a right to a private life.

While they certainly could not want OP identifying themselves as an agent of their employer when giving a talk, OP is entitled to use their free time / vacation days as they see fit.

For professional jobs which I suspect 99% of us on here have responsibility for your CPD (Professional Development) is down to you as much as it is to your employer.

The IEEE and similar bodies would not look very kindly on an employer that barred its members from CPD.

The only time an employer reasonably might not want to have the attendee use his employers name are TLA's or some companies at Blackhat conferences (if you work for a phone company for example)

That's true as long as they're not talking about their work at the conference. I assume they would be?

I've seen a very good QA engineer leave a company in exactly the same circumstances.

She wanted to do an external presentation on cutting edge security testing (nothing proprietary, just cutting edge) and the idiot manager wouldn't let her.

She asked why and was given bullshit reasons and so she asked her manager's manager which esentially let her do the presentation and agreed with her she was given bullshit reasons.

Nevertheless her direct manager kept a grudge and she eventually had to leave the company, I'm sure she went to a much better place after that.

She sure didn’t go to a worse place...

What does talking "about their work" actually entail?. I use Cython to do parts of my job. I've given talks about using Cython, drawing on experiences and knowledge gained while doing my job. Was that talking about work?

The most interesting talks in conferences usually are case studies or explain how X was successfully used in a pratical project. It might be hard for OP to give such a talk unless he talked about his personal projects only.

If he is just giving a generic talk about lessons learned without explaining the intricate war stories, thats a dull talk. Those are commodities.

Oh please, unless he developed something patent-worthy or something specific that could be used by direct competition then it's stupid not to let an employee talk about his (technical) work.

In 99.99% the cases where a manager would be so impertinent as to decide upon how the personal time of an employee be used, it's because the manager is a shitty manager and the employee is completely worthless in the eyes of the manager.

It would be a great insult if a manager treated me like that, because it would either imply that I'm too stupid not to know what I can and what I cannot reveal about my work or (the most likely reason) that even though the risk of my presentation hurting the company is minute, I'm so worthless that he thinks he can just tell me what I can and can't do in my free time.

You're arguing against a strawman. In most cases, yes the manager probably is using wrong judgement, but there are valid cases where an employee would be disclosing information that could be used by competitors.

And I'd argue, the employee is tremendously valuable if that is the case, and probably should ask for a huge raise :)

Agree 100%.

OP can go to conference, in his/her "own time". OP is an adult and does not need an OK from manager to go to the conference in his/her private life.

But, OP cannot expect the manager to give the OK. OP is not "entitled" to an automatic OK. The manager does not owe OP an OK.

The manager isn't owed the option of declining OP's plans. The manager can decline to give leave, but if it's simply to prevent OP from attending something that the manager disapproves of, then it's sheer inappropriate cattiness.

Unless OP is at risk of exposing privileged information about their company, the manager has no business trying to interfere with OP.

True. Agree. I did not think of that possibility.

My employer claims ownership over all IP I produce. I can't give a talk on anything without clearing it first (though my manager would generally not be involved if it was not related to anything we do or use at work).

OP isn't perfectly unambiguous on the subject, but it's an industry conference, and since asking the manager is a thing, I think it's fair to assume that it's a work conference and that the manager actually has a legitimate say in this - participants in industry conferences are typically identified as representing their company.

Exactly my thoughts. If this to be done during normal work hours when this person would normally be in the office and working (almost certainly the case), then the manager would definitely need to approve this, especially since there is usually a cost associated with attending. If the employee is willing to pay themselves, that still leaves the issue of that time being utilized for non-approved activity during work hours. If the employee decides to take that day off and use their personal time they can certainly attend on their own dime, but the employer can still stipulate that they are explicitly not to represent the company at that event and not introduce themselves as an employee of the company. I don't know what the employer's reasons would be for this, but if that was their desire they are certainly allowed to choose who represents them and when.

Exactly. And I think it's safe to stop after the first statement. OP made no mention of offering to go on their own time and dime, and being rejected.

I use vacation days to attend conferences. It doesn't feel ethical for me to attend a conference during a workday.

It's complicate when I go to a conference, I am connecting with other people in my industry and representing my company, so it's worth it to them. I can actually learn things that are useful there.

The whole post is really about understanding what the boss wants, but #3 is something more specific so I want to iterate more on it:

A lot of people want to help their boss and have a reciprocal relationship. But the mere desire is not enough - you have to have the "street smarts" to be trusted. If you don't know what sort of things will get your boss into trouble with their boss then even if you have a good relationship its unlikely you'll get significant leeway. You are likely to cause problems out of ignorance and a tight leash is to protect you from that.

- The manager and you have an equal relationship if you are any good at your job as you can replace the manager if you want to.

- This whole "you must submit to your boss" attitude beyond performing the assigned tasks is absurd.

From the manager's POV, OP wants an exception to some policy (written or unwritten). If you want to get away with exceptions you need more than the normal adversarial relationship.

There is a larger argument about whether you should even need an exception for this case, but the remedy for that is to find another job if you can't live with it. However your working life will be a lot easier if you learn to work around inadequacies in your chain of management - no place of work will ever be perfect.

I think the thing that’s missing from this advice is a degree of compromise. Particularly if the policy is ‘unwritten’ aka the managers personal preference. Even with official policy many should be open to exceptions for good reason.

As an employee you won’t get latitude without pushing for it and often for minor things forgiveness can be better than permission. Which isn’t to say it’s a good idea to be adversarial or sneaky but that there is really no need to be walked on either.

I didn't focus on OP because he already knows what he wants. Most people need help emphasizing with the other person not with their own wants/desires and compromise requires empathy. There are situations where someone is being over-accommodating and getting walked over but I didn't get that from the tone of the question.

Asking forgiveness later is another advanced level topic but it generally goes hand in hand with a good working relationship that has already been established. Without that its a quick way to get reprimanded or fired.

Remember, at the end of the day you are spending time on this specifically to get what you want. Its not an altruistic act for your manager.

Asking for forgiveness implies that there’s no formal rule or communicated informal rule. If you already asked you’re not asking for forgiveness. You can’t reprimand or fire someone for breaking a non-existent rule without looking like a total asshole which is going to destroy morale.

No that's not what "ask for forgiveness later" means in this context. It means you are breaking the rules and know you are doing so - however you think the net outcome is worth it. Doing this consistently and not getting fired is really an art.

> From the manager's POV, OP wants an exception to some policy (written or unwritten). If you want to get away with exceptions you need more than the normal adversarial relationship.

No workplace is ever perfect but there is a difference between a manager who understands the reality of the situation and a manager who is a problem that needs to be removed.

The fact you feel ignoring unwritten policies is "special treatment" likely puts you in the latter camp.

> However your working life will be a lot easier if you learn to work around inadequacies in your chain of management

Usually, it is easier to find another job than endure poor management for extended periods of time.

I've only ever been an IC. It's interesting you assumed I was a manager. I've learned the tricks to get almost total freedom at work and wanted to share. Quid pro quo is the name of the game in business. You have to give something to get something and trust is everything.

Cynicism will hold you back.

You basically quoted word for word multiple times what a petty and vindictive manager I worked for about a year said repeatedly in almost all your posts.

Sorry you had that experience. There are certainly cases where this advice is not appropriate and moving on is the right thing.

However accusing people you don't know of being a bad manager (especially when they aren't even a manager at all) is unnecessarily combative.

The only people I have seen give your advice are bad managers. :)

We aren't going to agree.

> As in, OP feels going to the conference is a must, "a given", a "constitutional right", and that the manager "wronged" him by not letting him go.

Well, free assembly and association are in fact corrolary to "free speech."

If an employee wants to go speak at a conference and the manager says, "Don't" then one of two things are happening:

0. The employer is abusive and undeserving.

1. The manager is attempting to take credit for the employee's work and should be called out.

There really aren't other scenarios; there's no valid reason to attempt to sabotage someone's career arc.

> OP focuses on himself, on what he wants. There is no mention in the question of what the manager wants. It screams "me me me"

Well evidently the manager in question isn't going to help the OP with their career, so someone's gotta do that. When a company aligns its interests with the career growth of their employees, then its a win-win. If it's pitched as an adversarial relationship, then there will be a winner and a loser. I cannot imagine why a good manager or intelligently run company would encourage such an adversarial relationship; it'll cause massive turnover.

If the OP really wants to give a talk is because they are seeking for some kind of recognition or ego booster. This sounds very self centered and narcisistic.

There is often a positive career boost from presenting at a conference, which I guess you could so weirdly and pejoratively spin as "recognition" or even "self-centered". But not looking out for oneself is stupid and managers who don't look out for their employees' career development are bad managers.

Being weird and shitty and making claims of "narcissism" should come with evidence, or at least an argument.