Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

PWC - Accountants brought to book over raunchy emails - See mod note post 7.

Options
18910111214»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭marxcoo


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Youre missing the point.

    Why the photos ? Do they serve any function and if so is it important enough to outweigh the rather high risk of such photos being misused ?

    I'd imagine after this incident, their function may not be considered important enough.
    Whatever about the incident itself, it will be how PWC deal with it that will be the true reflection of thier culture. If they are wise, they won't sweep it under the carpet and let 'the lads' off lightly


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭Darlughda


    ... no business will go to the extensive trouble of changing their auditors/advisors over something so trivial.

    But it is not something trivial. That why we have basic laws in this country to protect people from sexual harrasment.

    I have posted this in LL already, but it seems some of the posters here could do with reading up about what is and is not acceptable behaviour in the workplace by law.

    This behaviour is sexual harrasment pure and simple. Check out http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?docID=342

    The definition of sexual harassment includes any:
    act of physical intimacy


    request for sexual favours


    other act or conduct including spoken words, gestures or
    the production, display or circulation of written words,
    pictures or other material that is unwelcome and could
    reasonably be regarded as sexually offensive,
    humiliating or intimidating
    .
    Many forms of behaviour can constitute sexual harassment. It
    includes examples like those contained in the following list
    although it must be emphasised that the list is illustrative rather
    than exhaustive. A single incident may constitute sexual
    harassment.


    If I had started work in that place, you can bet your ass I would be in the HR office right now submitting my complaints.

    Yes, I would want everyone of those scumbag neanderthals fired.
    Nobody should have to put up with that kind of shít in a workplace.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    marxcoo wrote: »
    I'd imagine after this incident, their function may not be considered important enough.
    Whatever about the incident itself, it will be how PWC deal with it .....

    When it comes to reviewing their policy regarding privicy of employees photos I would envisage a stable door being heavily involved in the process ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭marxcoo


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    When it comes to their policy regarding photos I would imagine a stable door will be involved in the process ?

    Indeed... they should probably have foreseen something like this happening. If it's the case that this goes on in all the large accounting firms, as someone has argued, surely there is someone with a tad of maturity and cop-on working in HR who could have suggested not having headshots available to all staff.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,013 ✭✭✭kincsem


    When I was doing my five years hard labour as a chartered accountancy articled clerk there were no women. It was a man's world, pipes, tweed jackets, and such. Women were typists. Happy days. Six pints for a pound but no one had a pound.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭Ectoplasm


    kincsem wrote: »
    When I was doing my five years hard labour as a chartered accountancy articled clerk there were no women. It was a man's world, pipes, tweed jackets, and such. Women were typists. Happy days. Six pints for a pound but no one had a pound.

    Sounds fairly shíte to be honest. :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,191 ✭✭✭The_Hustler


    df1985 wrote: »

    There's a reason they say "pertaining to be KPMG employees" and allegedly etc.

    It's a made up email by one of the lads trying to embarrass the other lad.

    The newspaper knows it's forged but publishes the ****e anyway.


Advertisement