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

Millicent

Diapason wrote: »

I'd say if they're sacked they've a reasonable case for wrongful dismissal. It's pretty hard to sack people for one offence in this country.

Misappropriating company property? I'd say that'd be fairly open and shut for dismissal.

df1985

a few misconceptions floating about: the lads involved arent d4, the main guys involved are country lads.

The big 4 dont have a preference for trinity/ucd students.One of the most respected accounting courses is from DCU.

Invisible2

Diapason wrote: »

I'd say if they're sacked they've a reasonable case for wrongful dismissal. It's pretty hard to sack people for one offence in this country.

Oh i doubt it. An email with PwC staff photos circulating to loads of other companies and to the papers is bad anough. I say their email policy would have requlations that allow them to sack people for it

Dr. Zeus

Diapason wrote: »

I'd say if they're sacked they've a reasonable case for wrongful dismissal. It's pretty hard to sack people for one offence in this country.

I don't think so am sure what they did was in violation of the PWC email code. It also could come under sexual harrassment as the women were employees and the language used. I would say PWC are well covered in this case.

I know people who got sacked for forwarding non work related emails with nothing offensive included. Company wanted to get rid of them and because they had an email policy which cleary state no personal emails, they had no case for wrongful dismissal.

Diapason

Their regulations can say whatever they want, but I think I'm correct in saying that the law of the land demands verbal and written warnings and all that malarkey except in extreme circumstances. Whether this is extreme or not I don't know.

Edit: Hey, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm always gobsmacked at the wrongful dismissal cases where the courts find in favour of the worker.

Millicent

Diapason wrote: »

Their regulations can say whatever they want, but I think I'm correct in saying that the law of the land demands verbal and written warnings and all that malarkey except in extreme circumstances. Whether this is extreme or not I don't know.

I'd imagine this would be extreme enough. Grievance procedure doesn't usually apply in gross misconduct cases.

Invisible2

Diapason wrote: »

Their regulations can say whatever they want, but I think I'm correct in saying that the law of the land demands verbal and written warnings and all that malarkey except in extreme circumstances. Whether this is extreme or not I don't know.

Edit: Hey, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm always gobsmacked at the wrongful dismissal cases where the courts find in favour of the worker.

Oh i know people who have been sacked without written warnings. Does anyone know if anyone got the sack yet?

Diapason

Invisible2 wrote: »

Oh i know people who have been sacked without written warnings.

So do I, but it doesn't mean they didn't have recourse if they'd pursued it.

Anyway, I've belaboured the point long enough. Back to hot chicks.

mikemac

Diapason wrote: »

Their regulations can say whatever they want, but I think I'm correct in saying that the law of the land demands verbal and written warnings and all that malarkey except in extreme circumstances. Whether this is extreme or not I don't know.

They have enough in this case.
You can be fired for gross misconduct and that doesn't require warnings

Breached an email policy. In these company's you sign one when you start.
Sexual harassment.
Misuse of company property

And they've dragged their company into the papers, Today FM, the busiest forum on Ireland message board, a daily paper and probably all the papers tomorrow.
At this stage it may have gone above Dublin management and gone higher up.


Won't be rushed though, could be a few week or two before anything is done so procedures are followed.
Few people get sacked on the spot. You get suspended for a few days and then brought to the boardroom so HR can get sorted and checked they've followed all the procedures to avoid claims

Johro

'PricewaterhouseCoopers in Ireland was named as the winner of the Best Company to Work for in Ireland 2008 by the Great Place to Work Institute in their annual list of Ireland's top employers.'

Better hand that trophy back then and exchange it for the 'Pubescent Eejits of Ireland' award. I think it's an Oscar-like statuette with 'boobies 'n' bits' drawn on in felt tip.

Invisible2

feelingstressed wrote: »

They have enough in this case.
You can be fired for gross misconduct and that doesn't require warnings

Breached an email policy. In these company's you sign one when you start.
Sexual harassment.
Misuse of company property

And they've dragged their company into the papers, Today FM, the busiest forum on Ireland message board, a daily paper and probably all the papers tomorrow.
At this stage it may have gone above Dublin management and gone higher up.


Won't be rushed though, could be a few week or two before anything is done so procedures are followed.
Few people get sacked on the spot. You get suspended for a few days and then brought to the boardroom so HR can get sorted and checked they've followed all the procedures to avoid claims

Yeah the worst for PwC is dragging them all over the paper with such negative coverage. Anybody that does that to their firm deserves sacking

eoferrall

Millicent wrote: »

Okay, maybe this email is overblown in my head, but was there not a ratings system/pictures attached? That seems a bit too systematic for a casual chat to me. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm basing this on what I've read so far.

Have you seen the email?

there was no rating system at all. just 13 pictures and the re: line saying the shortlist.

ie a guy goes i reckon i like these the best and sends them round to his friends. no thought at all went into a systematic rating system:rolleyes:

the email itself is harmless imo, stupid but harmless. the herald have made it not so harmless and to me are the really stupid ones in this whole saga of stupidity.

Foxtrol

Millicent wrote: »

I'll reserve definitive judgement for the moment but thank you for describing it out for me. In fairness though, if you consider it another way: Would picking the ten ugliest girls have been sexist? Would doing the same based on race or religion be okay? And whether it was numbered, having the ten hottest is a rating system. What sort of derogatory language is used, if it won't get the thread locked or Boards in trouble?

The derogatory/potentially offensive language was "clunge" but I was leaving it open because you could insert any number of words that I've heard used when lads and girls are describing each other that could potentially be seen as offensive but is normally just being used for attention and some level of shock value.

There's a clear difference between a shortlist of the "hottest" and "ugliest". One is generally taken as a complement while the other is generally an insult. Basing a shortlist on race or religion could be seen as discriminatory while a shortlist of guys or girls cant really as men and women are split throughout life by our gender. Take a sports team for example: a ladies rugby team wouldn't be seen as discriminatory while a "whites only" team would.

Invisible2

eoferrall wrote: »

Have you seen the email?

there was no rating system at all. just 13 pictures and the re: line saying the shortlist.

ie a guy goes i reckon i like these the best and sends them round to his friends. no thought at all went into a systematic rating system:rolleyes:

the email itself is harmless imo, stupid but harmless. the herald have made it not so harmless and to me are the really stupid ones in this whole saga of stupidity.

The email is harmless and the Hearld made it look bad but it was still those guys that gave the newspaper the chance to do it by compiling it. Someone has to take the blame and everyone knows that newspapers will write anything.

eoferrall

Invisible2 wrote: »

The email is harmless and the Hearld made it look bad but it was still those guys that gave the newspaper the chance to do it by compiling it. Someone has to take the blame and everyone knows that newspapers will write anything.

oh i agree that once it went into the papers it was game over for the lads in question, but the amount of times this happens (male and female) that doesn't make it out is huge.

I am interested in what happens re the pictures in the herald, that will be one to watch.

Invisible2

eoferrall wrote: »

oh i agree that once it went into the papers it was game over for the lads in question, but the amount of times this happens (male and female) that doesn't make it out is huge.

I am interested in what happens re the pictures in the herald, that will be one to watch.

Oh i know. They were unfortunate to be caught. I still wonder who sent it to the papers. Maybe in the good times the papers wouldnt have printed it. Who would have cared

I dont think the Hearld should have published the pics. They didnt have to do that, they could have just wrote an article. A lawyer was on the Matt Cooper show as was the editor of the hearld and the lawyer said nothing would happened about the pictures when asked by Matt.

mikemac

Invisible2 wrote: »

I still wonder who sent it to the papers.

Those pictures have been doing the rounds in offices all over Ireland earlier this week.

The Irish Independent had the story yesterday , probably handed it over to the Evening Herald and let them do the pictures. Same owner of both papers I believe.

Though the Indo is a much of a rag as the Herald!

Millicent

eoferrall wrote: »

Have you seen the email?

there was no rating system at all. just 13 pictures and the re: line saying the shortlist.

ie a guy goes i reckon i like these the best and sends them round to his friends. no thought at all went into a systematic rating system:rolleyes:

the email itself is harmless imo, stupid but harmless. the herald have made it not so harmless and to me are the really stupid ones in this whole saga of stupidity.

That's a rating : here are the 13 best looking girls. Whether it's rated one to 13 or not is not the point. That's a list. It's juvenilely derogatory.

Foxtrol wrote: »

The derogatory/potentially offensive language was "clunge" but I was leaving it open because you could insert any number of words that I've heard used when lads and girls are describing each other that could potentially be seen as offensive but is normally just being used for attention and some level of shock value.

There's a clear difference between a shortlist of the "hottest" and "ugliest". One is generally taken as a complement while the other is generally an insult. Basing a shortlist on race or religion could be seen as discriminatory while a shortlist of guys or girls cant really as men and women are split throughout life by our gender. Take a sports team for example: a ladies rugby team wouldn't be seen as discriminatory while a "whites only" team would.

Speaking for myself, I would not take inclusion or exclusion from a "hot" list in the workplace as a compliment. There are different standards at play in that environment. By the exclusion of the "less attractive" girls, it is in its own way a comment on their looks too.

I see your point about sports teams but I'll put it another way. If this was "the hottest black girls in the office" list, or the most "stereotypically Jewish" or similar (I'm not saying they're the best examples but all I can think of for now), would you considered it a prejudiced list?

aca101

They won't be sacked...take my word for it. PwC will possibly suspend them...wait for the story to die down and issue them with warnings. Fire 17 employees and this suddenly becomes global news = major negative publicity.

This kind of thing is rampant - not only in pwc or the big 4 but invariably in every big business.

You can be sure that people have violated the firm's IT policy in more serious ways and have avoided the sack...

If ever there was ever any doubt that the Herald is a rag this is it...

Invisible2

aca101 wrote: »

They won't be sacked...take my word for it. PwC will possibly suspend them...wait for the story to die down and issue them with warnings. Fire 17 employees and this suddenly becomes global news = major negative publicity.

This kind of thing is rampant - not only in pwc or the big 4 but invariably in every big business.

You can be sure that people have violated the firm's IT policy in more serious ways and have avoided the sack...

If ever there was ever any doubt that the Herald is a rag this is it...

Oh they wont sack them all maybe none of them but they could sack the 1st person who sent the email and the person with the klunge comment

Chucky the tree

aca101 wrote: »

They won't be sacked...take my word for it. PwC will possibly suspend them...wait for the story to die down and issue them with warnings. Fire 17 employees and this suddenly becomes global news = major negative publicity.

This kind of thing is rampant - not only in pwc or the big 4 but invariably in every big business.

You can be sure that people have violated the firm's IT policy in more serious ways and have avoided the sack...

If ever there was ever any doubt that the Herald is a rag this is it...

I think the first 4 or so who started it will be sacked. There's no way they won't be. It's hit a few big forums in the US already so it will only grow.

eoferrall

Millicent wrote: »

That's a rating : here are the 13 best looking girls. Whether it's rated one to 13 or not is not the point. That's a list. It's juvenilely derogatory.

it may be juvenile, derogatory i doubt but your opinion, but it happens all day everyday in every office. its human nature to assess whose the best looking, most intelligent funniest etc.

and on a side note in the herald the one in the opinion piece going on about the male dominated accountancy firms, interesting that its about 70-30 in favour of females in most of the big 4, made me laugh that piece did!

johnn

I only saw the pics now, fairly disappointing tbf, last time i was in the PWC building there was some cracking totty.

Foxtrol

Millicent wrote: »

Speaking for myself, I would not take inclusion or exclusion from a "hot" list in the workplace as a compliment. There are different standards at play in that environment. By the exclusion of the "less attractive" girls, it is in its own way a comment on their looks too.

My point was that the term hot is generally used as a compliment. Inclusion or exclusion from this list is just the same as overhearing two girls by the water cooler talking about the hot new guys and having your name included or not included in the list. Again it happens every day and no one has an issue with it.

I see your point about sports teams but I'll put it another way. If this was "the hottest black girls in the office" list, or the most "stereotypically Jewish" or similar (I'm not saying they're the best examples but all I can think of for now), would you considered it a prejudiced list?

Yes I would because they're being segregated by a means which I would take as being discriminatory if it was done under the majority of circumstances. If there was a "blacks only" toilet I'd see it as being prejudiced or if a "Jews only" medal in a marathon I'd see prejudice. When it comes to splits on the grounds of gender for the above I don't see an issue just like I wouldn't with a "hot list".

Millicent

eoferrall wrote: »

it may be juvenile, derogatory i doubt but your opinion, but it happens all day everyday in every office. its human nature to assess whose the best looking, most intelligent funniest etc.

Not in a work environment, is what I mean. It's also a bit predatory to leap on the "fresh meat" in this way.

eoferrall wrote: »

and on a side note in the herald the one in the opinion piece going on about the male dominated accountancy firms, interesting that its about 70-30 in favour of females in most of the big 4, made me laugh that piece did!

70-30 for all? Aren't the higher echelons mostly male, despite a higher influx of women to begin with, iirc? Not saying there's necessarily correlation but it's a possibility.

Catari Jaguar

chrisp2281 wrote: »

Just saw the email.

Couple of points.

1. It is harmless
2. I bet every girl on the list is delighted they are on the list
3. Maybe the company should not post their pictures on the office intranet if they don't want stuff like this to happen
4. boys will be boys

Wow. Are you for real?? That glass ceiling sure exists.

Naikon

I suspect they will all get the sack. PWC is a major corporation after all. The faceless panel that will investigate this case will not have any regard for their employees, only how the company can be protected at all costs. Corporations exist as a sort of veil for people to hide behind when it comes to decision making. For example, It's not a case of "Pat" coming into work hungover and the bossman telling him off. No, they are facing an entity, not a human being here. This will cost them their jobs at a minimum I am afraid. Worst case, libel/slander could come into the mix. Hopefully not.

Foxtrol

eoferrall wrote: »

and on a side note in the herald the one in the opinion piece going on about the male dominated accountancy firms, interesting that its about 70-30 in favour of females in most of the big 4, made me laugh that piece did!

The woman who wrote the piece where she claimed to have worked in Financial Services for 15 years should really see someone about the chip on her shoulder.

Millicent

Foxtrol wrote: »

My point was that the term hot is generally used as a compliment. Inclusion or exclusion from this list is just the same as overhearing two girls by the water cooler talking about the hot new guys and having your name included or not included in the list. Again it happens every day and no one has an issue with it.

It is not a compliment when in a professional work environment, no more than all those secretaries in the 50s who got their asses slapped by the boss were being complimented. This is not a water cooler situation. This act implies meditation, planning and disregard for those girls' professional status, relegating them to a bit of fluff.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Yes I would because they're being segregated by a means which I would take as being discriminatory if it was done under the majority of circumstances. If there was a "blacks only" toilet I'd see it as being prejudiced or if a "Jews only" medal in a marathon I'd see prejudice. When it comes to splits on the grounds of gender for the above I don't see an issue just like I wouldn't with a "hot list".

This is still a discriminatory segregation. Just to clarify your overall thought process, how do you feel about beauty contests? (Genuine question -- I'm not trying to trip you up or anything) And secondary to that question, how would you feel if it was your mother/little sister/girlfriend who had just started a new job and found this out?

Naikon

Millicent wrote: »

This is not a water cooler situation. This act implies meditation, planning and disregard for those girls' professional status, relegating them to a bit of fluff.

I fail to understand how you think that these acts are not equivalent? Are you saying it's acceptable as long as it's not written down in an email?