The size of a bank isn’t proof of the legality of its terms and conditions.
If I had a Stutz for every time I caught a large bank having some illegal condition/price, I‘d have a Foifer in my pocket. And saved postage for a report to their financial regulator. And I‘m just an 
with a keyboard, I’m not even doing this for a living.
Rather a case of “The legal system also applies to big banks and even big banks do not always abide by the law (as the past has shown several times)”
Apples and oranges. If it was so bad then it’s likely someone would have fought it. If it hasn’t been done it’s probably because nobody thought it’d be worth it, or it’s really not that bad.
Edit: a contract may arbitrarily stipulate that I never wear purple socks at work (including when WFH), there may be a law saying I can wear whatever I like as long as I am not offending anyone within what’s reasonably known in the land, making the contract technically contradicting that law, but not ILLEGAL per se. It’d be my problem to fight the contract I signed because I wanted to work there.
I can’t see this argument making in a court of law. I am not a lawyer, just hoping that the legal system takes a least restrictive approach as long as it’s within commonly accepted reason. Having signed a contract on free will legally binds both parties to the terms. I’d expect a judge throwing the case out and saying “you had your chance to negotiate the term you didn’t like, but you didn’t, next”.
Edit: food for thought - I asked my dad who happens to be a lawyer, albeit not in Switzerland - his point was that philosophically, the more developed, civilised and cohesive a society is the more the legal system gives guidance as opposed to prescribing and describing every little detail. Arbitration and interpretation is the remit of the judge. The US is an outlier, their legal system has literally tens of thousands of laws, and they are a litigation-obsessed society. In plain English he suggested they need all these laws because they can’t function within reason because everyone defines their own reason. And shoot wherever their “reasons” collide.
Worst case you have to pay it back 
It has nothing to do with “so bad” or “not so bad”. It only has to do with the legality of a specific clause. The fact that there is no court ruling (yet) does not prove the legality of a clause. There may be various reasons for this: 1) The clause (be it T&C or employment contract) is still relatively new. 2) The litigation risk is high (especially for an individual) and the benefit/reward is not in any meaningful proportion. 3) There has been no precedent to date because the parties have previously reached an agreement in a settlement. Banks are always interested in preventing a lawsuit due to the potential precedent effect.
Yes, it would be your problem to contest this clause. However, that does not mean that it is legal. The clause could be completely arbitrary and without justification. It could contradict mandatory law such as personal rights and the prohibition of excessive commitment (Art. 27 of the Swiss Civil Code). A judge could therefore declare it void. The employer’s right to impose dress codes on the employee also has its limits. This applies even when the specific regulation is stated in the employment contract.
You know as well as I do that the argument that the employee or the customer can negotiate the contract terms themselves is completely unrealistic in most cases. As a customer, you cannot negotiate a bank’s general terms and conditions. Likewise, as an employee, you will, in most cases, have no chance to adjust the contract (apart from things like salary). If the employment contract now provides for the enslavement of the employee, would you also say that the employee had the chance to decline the contract? That, of course, would also violate mandatory law. The fact that I signed the contract doesn’t make it legal.
I really don’t see the problem, but also don’t see a point in continuing. We made our points - you admittedly more eloquently - and we won’t come to any agreement.
Like I said, I think UBS employees have better terms/fees than the general plebs, sorry meant public, when investing in UBS funds, there was a post here some time ago talking about it. Perhaps the employee should give that away though, isn’t that illegal too?
Just look at the European Union 
Well, I’d have said “touche”, but I did say “cohesive” 
Fwiw, some contract clauses may not be against the law, but not enforceable in a court of law either. Especially if an alternative is deemed available. For example, the bank may allow you to trade somewhere else as long as it gets copied by your broker on trade confirmations - some banks do that. Hence the Salvatory clause in many contracts.
Case law is by and large the norm in Anglosaxon countries and their colonies. So the European continent is rather less civilized and developed?
What UBS requests is not legal. It is a condition that has simply nothing to do in an employment contract. They can not enforce it but they can very well fire you (no compensation; potentially even for cause) if you proactively fight and dispute the policy. ‘Thou shall never publicly offend nor discredit or materially challenge an employers policy’. This especially as UBS needs it in case you committed to any insider trading.
So the situation is quite simple: do not do anything you shouldnt do anyways when working with a Bank. Further, do not do anything where UBS could later on not credibly claim they didn’t know you had another Bank account. Both will be happy.
What does it mean? Leave your IBKR Portfolio as-is. Neither buy nor sell. Don‘t transfer any part of your salary from UBS to IBKR; meaning invest any surplus you have with UBS. Leave IBKR as a dead asset. Make sure that none of your assets was in Custody with UBS - so if you hold UBS Shares, Funds or ETF, not a good idea. Further, don‘t declare your account to UBS compliance and never show them your tax declaration and the like. Plus dont tell IBKR you had a new employer.
Unless you are in a high risk position (trading, Investment Bank), … you will be all fine. UBS won‘t send spies to see if you hide money as sticking to these rules keeps them in a situation where they can credibly deny they knew about your outside funds and there is nothing that can go wrong for you. If you however transact individual shares and/ or violate Minimum holding periods or non-trade windows - you may very well end up in legal or potentially even criminal trouble.
Btw: Been there, done that.
Noo, thats not how Swiss law works - luckily. Just because something was written in a contract, doesnt meant it applies and could be enforced.
Well, for a Relationship Manager - that is a fairly big Problem as he could have very well be frontrunning his clients. The second challenge is that a Relationship Manager that uses another Bank was a material reputational risk and lacked credibility in front of his clients (eat your own dog-food).
There is a difference if you are backoffice or in an exposed position. Beyond this, a Bank doesnt need a reason to fire you, they can just do it at any time - so the only thing you know is that they were not happy with an employer and fired him. The fact that he had outsode money didn’t give them any particular reason to fire him, so it is irrelevant as a Bank can any time and without any reason fire you. This is why they are in a constant ‘restructuring mode’ aka where they constantly have social plans.
Not sure what’s the answer as I am not a lawyer.
Not sure. High risk low reward.
@Cortana your Personal situation was probably different as you were in a somewhat exposed position I understand (as you interface clients). If that was not the case, trust me as long as you don’t do anything super stupid - the Bank will not be coming, proactively looking for your funds. As said, just don’t do anything stupid.
I even know people that registered their employers’ shares (held at a third party Bank) and participated the general assembly. Meaning - the employer knew what was happening. In my view, that was borderline risky and could any time go wrong but it worked for years. At the end of the day, the only thing UBS cares about is credible deniability. Given that it was no FINMA Requirement, there is no-one that truly enforces these policies - unless people do crazy things that people just can no longer pretend they didn’t see.
Clearly - if you every month withdraw a few K (be it from the ATM) and the money just disappears from the radar - the Bank will (in hindsight if anything happened) look stupid and they will come after you.
As long as you avoid those scenario where the Bank just can’t do anything else but react - its all down to not making any enemies and not talking about it. Clearly, if half the Bank knows you were not compliant and you end up in a political battle… well then you are in trouble
From a reward point of view. All depends on your Portfolio. When I moved to a Bank, my Portfolio consisted of more than 40 positions. Clearly, the Bank would pay the transfer in but as you leave - the transfer out of the Bank is generally at your own expense (and super expensive). That can easily be 3-5k. Besides, the cost of just holding shares at your Bank can be more expensive than what you had right now. If you are at a somewhat senior position with tax free cash allowance; you can probably argue it yourself that you somewhen reach break even. Had this mental argument with myself all the time but please rest assured that if that was not the case, I would have never been willing to even lose one franc for such a rule unilaterally and illegally imposed by my employer.
I had this issue a few years ago when employed by them so I can feel your pain.
It was a really bad deal compared to IB or TD Ameritrade even with preferential conditions and not making any new investments. From being almost free to being forced to pay a few thousand USDs mainly in custody fees 
I had most of my investments in joint accounts with my wife so what we did was to open single accounts in her name and move the assets using internal transfers.
It was the best solution I found in terms of bureaucracy, costs, etc though I must admit I didn’t check thoroughly with the bank whether it was fully compliant…
Anyway I was not in a position with access to material nonpublic information anyway and my portfolio consisted of ETFs and index funds.
So, you would risk your job because of couple of Swiss Francs in fees? Is it really worth?
On one hand - you don’t risk your job if you stick to the above rules. At the same time, this is not just a couple of Swiss Francs in fees. This can go into the thousands of CHF every year. It is material and unless you are in an exposed position, the bank knows what it means and they will close their eyes as long as they can.
Do you have a resource for this where this is explained further? Am as puzzled as the person you answered to.
Search for DA-1 in the forum, I think there are many threads about this.