Personally, I love the idea but, with disappointment, I can't pragmatically recommend it for all but the most minor of situations.
There are so many workplace rules and laws that violate common sense that you have to adhere to (e.g. many "harassment" laws) that spelling them out is almost the only way to avoid frequent problems (e.g. My wife was formally reprimanded for not inviting certain colleagues to an after work - and not work related - function. This is called "bullying" nowadays and we spent months dealing with the disciplinary case/suspension/etc. They now have a policy where you have to officially disclose who you are friends with or not and why. My wife no longer works.)
Update: I read too quickly. It seems they've realized the above and are distributing a book of policies too. A shame.
I think it depends on the person. Personally, I make it a habit to forget rules as soon as possible. But I know plenty of intelligent people who need the structure of rules (even to the point where they enjoy a certain level of micromanagement). I think those people are masochists, but they usually think of me as a loose cannon, so it evens out. Sometimes I feel like they're the programmer equivalents to the "by the book" partner in cop shows, while I'm the "never read the book" partner. But maybe I really just like imagining myself in a cop show.
It feels like too many laws make people judgement-lazy and eventually stupid. We're all adults and should be able to figure out what's appropriate. If something isn't, we should be able to talk about it. If you spell out everything that's wrong you're implying that everything else is right, and you're speaking in absolutes.
Nordstrom's became famous for having a "no return policy" return policy, which is the major implication of that 75 word card: a clerk at Nordstrom's could process a return with no receipt 7 months after the purchase if that seemed like the right thing to do to satisfy a customer (especially if it was going to get you to spend $500 more on that visit). But then, the cost of failure in handling a return is maybe $40.
In other environments, the cost of failure is much higher. My team works in one. We're paid to punch holes in other people's very important applications. The cost of breaking rules of engagement could be "halt trading". We have more rules.
Generally, it seems like you want to go the "75 word employee handbook" route when the cost of failure is relatively minimal, and then only if you can use it as a differentiator (you also have to pay for and train people who can demonstrate excellent customer service).
(And, obviously, in 2010, you can't be an employer with a 75 word handbook, unless you want to get sued every time you fire someone.)
No law says you need to have an employee handbook, but there are a variety of spurious claims terminated employees can make (from harassment to discrimination and so on), and if you're called to the mat, any reason you had for terminating that person should ideally be traceable back to an employee handbook (including the company disciplinary process, so you can give an employee a "warning" and have that mean something afterwards).
The situation is probably much worse if you're in Montana, where there's a statute that makes employers liable for wrongful discharge.
Meanwhile, in the majority of US states, at-will employment is subject to "implied contracts", meaning that one very important purpose of an employee handbook is to eliminate any "implied contract" that a terminated employee could claim to exist.
I'd like discuss your thoughts on hole punching. What sorts of rules do you apply, ethics, etc? What happens when you're successful and you halt trading? What sort of blowback is expected?
We generally test dev, staging, and cert instances, but on virtually every project there's some set of things that must be spelled out in advance, like, "this message bus is shared by production market data systems so don't do anything intrusive with it".
The situation your wife was in is an example of corporate insanity, it doesn't mean that every company has to operate like that, does it? I'm pretty sure that's going overboard in any country. Also, some countries have saner laws than others.
The problem I see with not having rules is different: it can only work when you have people who actually care about the results of their work, and feel that they can make a difference.
Of course, one way to get people to care about their job and feel like they can make a difference is to not hand them a 3-ring binder of rules, phrases, and duties that they are expected to follow, utter, and carry out like mindless automatons.
Maybe people shouldn't feel comfortable. Maybe feeling comfortable is what leads people to not think critically about their actions. "I want to help you, but it's against the rules."
In my experience, it's the people who don't feel comfortable about what they can do without getting into trouble who most reflexively cite the rules. Think of the teenager who stammers and calls a manager at any mildly out-of-the-ordinary development.
I've done that before too, so it all evens out ;-) Hopefully this will be a thing of the past when the HN iPad app I've heard being released by a couple of HNers comes out!
Personally, I love the idea but, with disappointment, I can't pragmatically recommend it for all but the most minor of situations.
There are so many workplace rules and laws that violate common sense that you have to adhere to (e.g. many "harassment" laws) that spelling them out is almost the only way to avoid frequent problems (e.g. My wife was formally reprimanded for not inviting certain colleagues to an after work - and not work related - function. This is called "bullying" nowadays and we spent months dealing with the disciplinary case/suspension/etc. They now have a policy where you have to officially disclose who you are friends with or not and why. My wife no longer works.)
Update: I read too quickly. It seems they've realized the above and are distributing a book of policies too. A shame.