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

DualFrontDiscs

Millicent wrote: »

I would in me f.uck feel bad for them. How dare they debase any colleague or professional equal/peer like that? Those women are graduates (and highly intelligent ones to be with PWC -- they are known for being extremely selective). They deserve whatever backlash they get.

The fact that those wronged are 'highly intelligent' makes the behaviour all the more reprehensible?

Millicent

DualFrontDiscs wrote: »

The fact that those wronged are 'highly intelligent' makes the behaviour all the more reprehensible?

The fact that they have pursued further education to attain a highly sought after job and are being graded by asshats based on their looks is reprehensible. Not saying more reprehensible than other situations, more speaking in regards to the "ah, sure it's only a bit of craic"/ "what's the big deal" attitude a lot of posters have. If it were me in the same situation, I would be majorly pissed off.

DualFrontDiscs

Millicent wrote: »

Not saying more reprehensible than other situations, <snip>

So....

Millicent wrote: »

How dare they debase anyone colleague or professional equal/peer like that?

Otherwise you sound elitist; grading and ranking individuals' indignation inappropriately.

Millicent

DualFrontDiscs wrote: »

So....



Otherwise you sound elitist; grading and ranking individuals' indignation inappropriately.

No, I only sound that way if you twist my words, thanks. To quote myself:

Not saying more reprehensible than other situations, more speaking in regards to the "ah, sure it's only a bit of craic"/ "what's the big deal" attitude a lot of posters have.

It's a sh.itty thing to do to anyone. I was illustrating the impropriety in this particular situation, in response to those who couldn't see what the big deal was in a corporate situation.

ucd.1985

stepbar wrote: »

In my experience, the majority of newbies to the "big 4", wouldn't know their arse from their elbow. Their employers also have a fierce biased opinion towards the UCD / Trinners students which IMO is rediculus. It's not suprising that yet again we have another of the big 4 in the news for the wrong reasons.

Ridiculous comment, in my intake there were just as many from UCD as DCU and there were none from Trinity.

mossyc123

The Herald is one helluva rag... what sort of apes work in that ****hole?! They've no regard for anything, very disrespectful to the young ones involved. Could any law experts shed some light on whether they could have a case to answer?

DualFrontDiscs

Millicent wrote: »

No, I only sound that way if you twist my words, thanks. To quote myself:

It's a sh.itty thing to do to anyone. I was illustrating the impropriety in this particular situation, in response to those who couldn't see what the big deal was in a corporate situation.

I agree. And I don't think I was twisting your words, rather clarifying your sentiment. As originally articulated, it read as being an inappropriate course of action regarding colleagues/ peers/ graduates, leaving it open to the interpretation that it might be appropriate for non-colleagues/ non-peers/ non-graduates.

The plonkers at the centre of this would be foolish to be using internal email to compose top ten lists of classic cars, Disney movies, Page 3 girls, etc, never mind the double (triple?) whammy of doing it regarding individuals in their own building.

oppenheimer1

stepbar wrote: »

In my experience, the majority of newbies to the "big 4", wouldn't know their arse from their elbow. Their employers also have a fierce biased opinion towards the UCD / Trinners students which IMO is rediculus. It's not suprising that yet again we have another of the big 4 in the news for the wrong reasons.

So what is your experience exactly? Afaik TCD don't offer degrees in accounting. So would is this just displaying your own prejudices against graduates from UCD and TCD?

Cyrus

Millicent wrote: »

Those women are graduates (and highly intelligent ones to be with PWC -- they are known for being extremely selective). .

Pwc aren't that selective at least not any more so than the rest of the big 4

And 95% of the employees bar admin staff are graduates what's your point?

cson

This is gonna cost The Herald more than the papers it'll sell off its back.

Bad business decision.

/accountant

Millicent

DualFrontDiscs wrote: »

I agree. And I don't think I was twisting your words, rather clarifying your sentiment. As originally articulated, it read as being an inappropriate course of action regarding colleagues/ peers/ graduates, leaving it open to the interpretation that it might be appropriate for non-colleagues/ non-peers/ non-graduates.

The plonkers at the centre of this would be foolish to be using internal email to compose top ten lists of classic cars, Disney movies, Page 3 girls, etc, never mind the double (triple?) whammy of doing it regarding individuals in their own building.

Apologies then. I tend to have to defend a certain viewpoint of mine sometimes here so I'm sorry if I was a bit defensive. Doing this sort of thing to individuals is an escalation way off the scale though. While it's one thing compiling a list of page 3 models (which would be still exceptionally stupid on company time/email), having such little respect for people you work with is jaw-droppingly stupid and I can't understand how some would feel it's not all that big a deal.

ixus

There were 13 in the original email, a "shortlist for the top ten". Actually know one of the birds.

You'd think these dopes would have learned after the Merrill Lynch saga back in 2006.

Millicent

Cyrus wrote: »

Pwc aren't that selective at least not any more so than the rest of the big 4

And 95% of the employees bar admin staff are graduates what's your point?

That these women hadn't set themselves up as eye-candy and it's insulting that that's all their colleagues who forwarded appear to view them as all the same.

Foxtrol

Millicent wrote: »

I would in me f.uck feel bad for them. How dare they debase any colleague or professional equal/peer like that? Those women are graduates (and highly intelligent ones to be with PWC -- they are known for being extremely selective). They deserve whatever backlash they get.

Ah get off your high horse. So you've never made a comment to a friend about the attractiveness of colleague? It happens everyday in every office and for the rag that is the Herald to call it sexism is ridiculous.

Some of these lads will probably be used as scapegoats due to the media sh1t-storm surrounding this now. Their crime is however not sexism but for being stupid enough to a) write it on a work email and b) send it to such a large group of people which heightened to risk of it being forwarded.

amdublin

ixus wrote: »

You'd think these dopes would have learned after the Merrill Lynch saga back in 2006.

Yes and the Eagle Star "legends" case back in aprox 2002
http://www.simonmcaleese.com/asp/index.asp?objectid=1061&Mode=0&RecordID=90

midlandsmissus

No pics on the front page of the herald here? Just "Sexism scandal" headline and article. Is there 2 editions?

Millicent

Foxtrol wrote: »

Ah get off your high horse. So you've never made a comment to a friend about the attractiveness of colleague? It happens everyday in every office and for the rag that is the Herald to call it sexism is ridiculous.

Some of these lads will probably be used as scapegoats due to the media sh1t-storm surrounding this now. Their crime is however not sexism but for being stupid enough to a) write it on a work email and b) send it to such a large group of people which heightened to risk of it being forwarded.

I will not and regardless of what you think, it is sexism. It is pretty much the standard of sexism. If you can't see it, I'm not going to explain it to you. I might feel differently if it happened outside of work, but in the work place it is sexist and staggeringly unprofessional.

copacetic

as much as the Herald is a rag, I was actually surprised that they would stoop so low as to run that story on the front page about 'sexism' while also printing all the pictures. Absolute gutter press stuff. The whole independent group is just going lower and lower and lower, who would have thought that was possible?

Herald contact emails...

Editorial

News: hnews@independent.ie

Head of news: foleary@independent.ie

Features: hfeat@independent.ie

Head of features: ddiebold@independent.ie

Sport: hsport@independent.ie

Head of sport: pkeane@independent.ie

Letters: letters@herald.ie

BaZmO*

mossyc123 wrote: »

The Herald is one helluva rag... what sort of apes work in that ****hole?

The type of ape that knows their target Market perhaps?

I betcha it'll be one of their biggest selling editions too.

mossyc123 wrote: »

Could any law experts shed some light on whether they could have a case to answer?

I'm no law expert but they were talking about it on the Matt Cooper Show and they had some guy on, may have even worked for the Herald, and he was saying that nobody has copyright on their own image so they weren't breaking any laws.
I suppose once the lads sent it out into the ether they gave up any privacy the girls may have had.

midlandsmissus

Foxtrol wrote: »

Ah get off your high horse. So you've never made a comment to a friend about the attractiveness of colleague? It happens everyday in every office and for the rag that is the Herald to call it sexism is ridiculous.

Some of these lads will probably be used as scapegoats due to the media sh1t-storm surrounding this now. Their crime is however not sexism but for being stupid enough to a) write it on a work email and b) send it to such a large group of people which heightened to risk of it being forwarded.

I agree somewhat. We all do it - I just said to one of the girls at work today how I fancy our work placement guy. It's human nature.

It's the work email thing and the language they used that I'm shocked at - I wouldn't even conceive of doing anthing with my work email! With their signatures all over it??!!

It's the very crude language they used that will get them no favours:

"New clunge". It's as disgusting as you can get.

Now that is bad. To write in your work email. About your female colleagues.

what were they thinking???

Millicent

midlandsmissus wrote: »

A rating system would have been fairly mild. It's the very crude language they used that will get them no favours

Really? You would rate your male colleagues between one and ten and feel it was okay? Not snarking, just genuinely surprised.

tommyboy2222

I don't know whether to feel sorry for the girls on that email or the ones who didn't make it.

amdublin

midlandsmissus wrote: »

It's the very crude language they used that will get them no favours:

"New clunge". It's as disgusting as you can get.

Now that is bad. To write in your work email. About your female colleagues.

what were they thinking???

What does clunge/klunge actually mean I've never heard this word before in my life! (Or am I being naive??)

midlandsmissus

Millicent wrote: »

Really? You would rate your male colleagues between one and ten and feel it was okay? Not snarking, just genuinely surprised.

No does anyone use a rating system outside immature teenage/young twenties lads in the first place? :DIt's kinda funny it's so childish :D "

But I would talk about hot my male colleagues are when I'm with my female collegaues out at lunch. You know? Everyone says that kinda thing in private.

It's more the awful language they used and the fact that they used their work email that is shocking me!

EVERYONE knows you don't use your work email for s*it like that! It just horrifies the professional in me!

Millicent

midlandsmissus wrote: »

No does anyone use a rating system outside immature teenage/young twenties lads in the first place? :DIt's kinda funny it's so childish :D "

But I would talk about hot my male colleagues are when I'm with my female collegaues out at lunch. You know? Everyone says that kinda thing in private.

It's more the awful language they used and the fact that they used their work email that is shocking me!

EVERYONE knows you don't use your work email for s*it like that! It just horrifies the professional in me!

But you might talk about him with one colleague -- not group email a bunch of people with a ratings list and attached photographs. There's a line between sexual interest/personalised and private discussion and outright debasement and this is waaaaaaayy over it.

midlandsmissus

Millicent wrote: »

But you might talk about him with one colleague -- not group email a bunch of people with a ratings list and attached photographs. There's a line between sexual interest/personalised and private discussion and outright debasement and this is waaaaaaayy over it.

Yeah I agree, you should do it privately, not in a way that could potentially embarass yourself, the people you're talking about, and the company you work for. Writing anything down can always come back and bite you on the ass.

Judging by some accountants who posted on here, there seems to be a bit of a jock culture going on in these firms where this is tradition, and they have become desensitised to what is actually quite serious(using company email for derogoratory comments (clunge)), I'm guessing this jock culture will end today.

Foxtrol

Millicent wrote: »

But you might talk about him with one colleague -- not group email a bunch of people with a ratings list and attached photographs. There's a line between sexual interest/personalised and private discussion and outright debasement and this is waaaaaaayy over it.

You talk to one colleague but it could be overheard by someone else. Thats exactly what happened here. These lads were having what they naively thought was a private chat but it was forwarded on.

Ormus

Millicent wrote: »

But you might talk about him with one colleague -- not group email a bunch of people with a ratings list and attached photographs. There's a line between sexual interest/personalised and private discussion and outright debasement and this is waaaaaaayy over it.

i think the point is that in reality that line is crossed every day in countless conversations by countless office workers.....the level of the sexism/unprofessionalism is not shocking at all.....whats shocking is that they put it in a work email and never stopped to think that it could go viral

Millicent

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Yeah I agree, you should do it privately, not in a way that could potentially embarass yourself, the people you're talking about, and the company you work for. Writing anything down can always come back and bite you on the ass.

Judging by some accountants who posted on here, there seems to be a bit of a jock culture going on in these firms where this is tradition, and they have become desensitised to what is actually quite serious(using company email for derogoratory comments (clunge)), I'm guessing this jock culture will end today.

But besides the whole point of not leaving a trail, would you not agree that this sort of jock culture appears to be inherently sexist? Having a private chat with a friend is not sexist -- it's perfectly normal and natural. But going to the lengths of devising a score system to share with colleagues? That's sexist in the same way Miss World/Universe is.

midlandsmissus

Foxtrol wrote: »

You talk to one colleague but it could be overheard by someone else. Thats exactly what happened here. These lads were having what they naively thought was a private chat but it was forwarded on.

I disagree Foxtrol.

It is different talking to using your company email.

company email is never a private chat.