PWC email scandal

Jimmy444

Somebody should be fired for stupidity if not sexual harassment. If you work for a large company like PWC ,with it’s own mail server, as far as you are concerned they own every mail you send or receive on their system. They can keep it in an archive as long as they like, and can search through it looking for offensive material at any time. Likewise I would not use a PC on a company network to look at dodgy websites, even if you clear your history. If someone in a world-wide consulting company like PWC does not know this they are working in the wrong place.

EL_Loco

working life is not "real" life. There are rules and protections for staff that on paper read as ridiculously sensitive, make no sense, or are just simply stupid. But they're all there to be waved at you should you colour outside the lines.

I commented in the AH thread that it was like the darwin awards but with jobs. If these chaps can't read and comprehend what not to do at work, then out they go and let someone with English reading comprehension be given their nice desk jobs.

I'm in the IT dept at work and if something too "colourful" gets sent around I delete it from my personal mailbox and tell the person who sent it to do the same. It's never been terrible but something that would go outside of acceptable usage. I've only had to do it twice and it wasn't the same person.

Personally I'm playing it from the stupidity angle, too thick to know not to do it, too thick to keep the job.

Mark Hamill

nedtheshed wrote: »

Because they were rated on their looks only.

How is that sexist?

SuperInfinity

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How is that sexist?

It's not sexist, not at all. Good point.

Even if they had a pool of possible people to put up for a rating and specifically decided to only take women out of that pool, it STILL wouldn't be sexist. It is based on looks.... it has nothing to do with being sexist. The same with swimsuit competitions... they're not "sexist".

Maybe people want to argue that they're: "encouraging men to view women as just sex objects", but sexism means to DISCRIMINATE against someone FOR being something. They also aren't discriminating against men in swimsuit competitions.... the reason they don't like them is an honest reason: because they or others don't find them as attractive as they do the women. That's not discrimination or sexism, that's doing things based on looks. Maybe it's discrimination based on looks... that's true, and there may be legitimate issues with that sometimes.... but it's not discrimination based on sex. Sexual harassment is also not sexism. Most people don't think about these things for themselves, they just parrot off what someone else said, usually in the media: Not insulting those people, as I'm sure I'm guilty of that myself sometimes, just saying maybe everyone should be careful on believing everything they hear/read.

Maguined

Imhof Tank wrote: »

If people arent going to be indignant then how is this sort of thing ever going to change.

My firm's employee handbook defines conduct which includes displaying sexually suggestive material, or sending suggestive or sexually explicit correspondence, unwelcome sexual comments or jokes as sexual harassment.

Most of the replies in this thread seem to be along the lines of they were idiots to get caught etc, and I suppose comming from that viewpoint, the whole equality agenda is just political correctness gone mad.

If PWC dont fire these guys then the girls (all of the intake, not just the top 10) would be have a better shot at suing the employer than they would have at suing the newspapers.

Publishing the pics in the paper was purient in the extreme - but they know their target market and they only reflect what the readers want to read about. The Indo may not be popular with Boards.ie posters but isnt it by far the biggest selling daily in the country?

This sort of thing is never going to change, as long as there are men and women working in a company with email there are going to be emails between workers evaluating the looks of the opposite gender.

It just needs to be punished each time it is exposed. Stupid people stupidly sent the emails so they deserve to get fired for such stupidity however I would save the indignation and righteous anger for the creeps that directly sexually harass fellow employers rather than a few gob****es sending a stupid email.

Otis Driftwood

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How is that sexist?

Ok,in retrospect,its probably not sexist however they were singled out for no other reason than they are female,that was the point I tried (badly) to make.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Even if they had a pool of possible people to put up for a rating and specifically decided to only take women out of that pool, it STILL wouldn't be sexist. It is based on looks.... it has nothing to do with being sexist. The same with swimsuit competitions... they're not "sexist".

What does that have to do with anything?They didnt enter a beauty contest,they took a job,they didnt open themselves up to grading by some of the men that work there.

Swimsuit models choose to put themselves in the public eye,these girls did not.

Maguined

nedtheshed wrote: »

Ok,in retrospect,its probably not sexist however they were singled out for no other reason than they are female,that was the point I tried (badly) to make.

What does that have to do with anything?They didnt enter a beauty contest,they took a job,they didnt open themselves up to grading by some of the men that work there.

Swimsuit models choose to put themselves in the public eye,these girls did not.

You can't claim someones sexual preference is sexist, heterosexual men being attracted to women and not men is not sexist it is just a preference so it really is not sexist, you can call it rude, unprofessional, disrepectful and a couple of other things but I would not call it sexist.

S. Goodspeed

Maguined wrote: »

You can't claim someones sexual preference is sexist, heterosexual men being attracted to women and not men is not sexist it is just a preference so it really is not sexist, you can call it rude, unprofessional, disrepectful and a couple of other things but I would not call it sexist.

Of all the posts and articles I've read and radio discussions I've listened to on this media generated "scandal" this is probably the most sensible thing I've read. If girls were to make a similar list (and I know for a fact some do) would that be classed as sexist? My arse it would.

Pepe LeFrits

'clunge' ha ha ha ha!

I thought this story was hilarious. It happens everywhere to be honest, but you really have to be stupid to forward the thing on to someone who'll 'grass'.

Imhof Tank

Eh, bit confused now. It has been demontrated that what happened was not "sexist" in the narrowest meaning of the term, although it may have been sexual harrassment all the same.

Does that mean what went on was ok, and their only crime was getting caught and the only real villian of the piece is the grass?

Maguined

In my opinion yes, people are allowed think whatever they want, you are just not allowed openly display this opinion if it is against the rules, either being the companies rules themselves or the laws of the land them self.

In my opinion many of my colleagues in work are useless incompetent idiots that I dislike very much, I am allowed to think this however I am not allowed express this openly at work, If I wrote an email listing my top 10 retarded employees email and this got sent to those concerned they would be completely within their rights to complain and for me to be punished.

These idiots at PWC are perfectly entitled to think whatever they want, no matter how rude, crude or disrespectful, they are just not allowed openly express these opinion in work, especially not using work email addresses which would of had a disclosure in their contract that it is for work purposes only.

SuperInfinity

Maguined wrote: »

In my opinion yes, people are allowed think whatever they want, you are just not allowed openly display this opinion if it is against the rules, either being the companies rules themselves or the laws of the land them self.

In my opinion many of my colleagues in work are useless incompetent idiots that I dislike very much, I am allowed to think this however I am not allowed express this openly at work, If I wrote an email listing my top 10 retarded employees email and this got sent to those concerned they would be completely within their rights to complain and for me to be punished.

These idiots at PWC are perfectly entitled to think whatever they want, no matter how rude, crude or disrespectful, they are just not allowed openly express these opinion in work, especially not using work email addresses which would of had a disclosure in their contract that it is for work purposes only.

Or anywhere. I don't like this huge distinction between in the workplace and in real life. I think that basically the same rules should apply to both public and corperate life, aside from preventing sexual relationships or propositions in some workplace situations for obvious reasons.

Galvasean

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Or anywhere. I don't like this huge distinction between in the workplace and in real life. I think that basically the same rules should apply to both public and corperate life, aside from preventing sexual relationships or propositions in some workplace situations for obvious reasons.

I'm having trouble deciphering your post. Are you suggesting pub banter along teh lines of "Whose hot and whose not?" should be prohibited in social situations (eg: pubs) or that people should be allowed use work emails to say such things?
I think there is a very big distinction between workplace etiquette and outside of work social etiquette. You go to work to work. Fraternise and discuss Debbie from accounts' boobs on your own time.

SuperInfinity

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm having trouble deciphering your post. Are you suggesting pub banter along teh lines of "Whose hot and whose not?" should be prohibited in social situations (eg: pubs) or that people should be allowed use work emails to say such things?
I think there is a very big distinction between workplace etiquette and outside of work social etiquette. You go to work to work. Fraternise and discuss Debbie from accounts' boobs on your own time.

You have to admit it's very rude to rate girls like that, especially if they find out about it. It's not nice for a girl to find out she's thrown in with the 5s is it? Added to this, there is the fact that they were using their images in an unauthorized way in this instance, you can't do that.

Suppose someone was passing pictures of the women around the pub to rate without their authorization, would it be okay then? No. Or suppose you were at the gym, and publically talking about women that were there and rating them etc.. that wouldn't be okay either.

I'm not going to say that it should be outlawed for people to talk about others or be critical of others behind their backs (and females are probably a lot worse than males for that), however for sensitive issues such as the attractiveness of a person, I think a little decorum is to be expected of people in all walks of life, whether public or in the workplace. You have lots of rights as a citizen in public just as you do in the workplace, to be treated with respect and dignity... so there could be an all-encompassing set of rules for it. In private, people can say pretty much as they like... but it has to be totally private and not ever spoken about in public or let into the open.... public =/= private. If you want to **** someone who doesn't like you that's fine, just don't tell them or anyone else who doesn't want to know or would find it objectionable. In fact that's exactly what happened here... someone found it objectionable.... and I don't blame that person if he thought things were getting too out of hand and these guys were really making a laugh of the young women. Next it might lead on to overt sexual reasons for keeping/selecting the girls, which I think anyone would agree is just wrong.

If they were supposed to be doing work at that time then they're in violation of "slacking", that is an unrelated violation. Maybe we can agree that there could be a general set of rules/laws in place that would fit both public and workplace situations.

Also, how you put "I'm having trouble deciphering your post", came across to me as being a bit patronising, especially as you were being critical of my post. I'm not sure if that was the intention or not, just letting you know my first reaction to that.

Galvasean

I'll get this bit out of the way first:

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Also, how you put "I'm having trouble deciphering your post", came across to me as being a bit patronising, especially as you were being critical of my post. I'm not sure if that was the intention or not, just letting you know my first reaction to that.

No patronisation intended. I found your previous post to be a tad confusing. However, your follow on post (which I am about to respond to) outlines what you meant more clearly.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

You have to admit it's very rude to rate girls like that, especially if they find out about it. It's not nice for a girl to find out she's thrown in with the 5s is it? Added to this, there is the fact that they were using their images in an unauthorized way in this instance, you can't do that.

No disagreements there.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Suppose someone was passing pictures of the women around the pub to rate without their authorization, would it be okay then? No. Or suppose you were at the gym, and publically talking about women that were there and rating them etc.. that wouldn't be okay either.

I've highlighted the word publically here as it's the main point I want to address. I certainly agree with most of your post, particularly in relation to the passing around of photographs which to me sounds like an invasion of privacy or a violation of someone's image rights.
However, I cannot agree fully that people should be barred from talking about other people in public places in the off chance thats someone might overhear and get offended. I do agree that a certain amount of tact/decorum should be observed in such instances to spare people's feelings, but I don't think alaw should be brought in to stop people discussing other people in pubic paces. Chaos would ensue.

Maguined

SuperInfinity wrote: »

You have lots of rights as a citizen in public just as you do in the workplace, to be treated with respect and dignity... so there could be an all-encompassing set of rules for it. In private, people can say pretty much as they like... but it has to be totally private and not ever spoken about in public or let into the open.... public =/= private.

I agree with the rest of your post except this part, I do not think people have a right to be treated with respect and dignity in public, I believe you mostly should do that as it is good manners but I do not think it is an automatic right. If I am walking down the street and accidentally step on someones foot and apologised they can either accept my apology gracefully with respect and dignity or else they could be disrespectful and say something nasty "watch where you are going fatboy" sure the second response is not nice, its not respectful but I also do not feel that it would violate any right of mine.

I do not feel that I have the right to demand that people act nicely to me in public as I believe other people are entitled to their freedom of speech even if that means saying something mean, rude and disrespectful to me. In work you have to sacrifice some of this freedom of speech as you will be dealing with these other people day in and day out so you have to make an effort for the grand scheme of things in a "lets all get along" deal.

stupidusername

I find it odd that this story has become public news. I mean I expect that this type of rating goes on in all sorts of circles professional and other, and although it's not nice to have it confirmed that it's happening, it's hardly that big a story. In my opinion this warranted a slap on the wrists of the people it involved. Are the media just looking to make a scandal here?

Basically the men involved were stupid to have all of this stuff written down. But I mean that in terms of them getting caught. I won't pretend that I'm shocked that they were rating women, as in one way or another I expect most people (of both sexes) do this. As long as the women in the company weren't treated any differently in terms of prospects, entitlements etc then it shouldn't make a difference that this is what was going on behind the scenes.

The only thing that I really have an opinion on in regards to this story is the fact that the women being spoken about in the emails had their pictures published in a newspaper (or several). I have no idea why the people in the newspapers thought they had the right to do this. The only reason they did it was to sell papers. And while I realise this is the reason they do any story, I think this is the most disgusting part to this. No one needed to know who they were, it was probably already known within the company, and it serves no purpose to print their pictures. All this will do is make these womens lives harder.

I think the paper(s) involved should be sued for this. The only pictures that should've been considered to be printed are those of the people that sent the emails (and I don't even agree with that). It's almost like they did it to say 'oh look how pretty they are / aren't, you can rate them too!' It's unbelievable. The women involved must be mortified.

SuperInfinity

Maguined wrote: »

I agree with the rest of your post except this part, I do not think people have a right to be treated with respect and dignity in public, I believe you mostly should do that as it is good manners but I do not think it is an automatic right. If I am walking down the street and accidentally step on someones foot and apologised they can either accept my apology gracefully with respect and dignity or else they could be disrespectful and say something nasty "watch where you are going fatboy" sure the second response is not nice, its not respectful but I also do not feel that it would violate any right of mine.

I do not feel that I have the right to demand that people act nicely to me in public as I believe other people are entitled to their freedom of speech even if that means saying something mean, rude and disrespectful to me. In work you have to sacrifice some of this freedom of speech as you will be dealing with these other people day in and day out so you have to make an effort for the grand scheme of things in a "lets all get along" deal.

Maguined, I'm all for freedom of speech, I think that it should be the same at work. I think people should be able to ask you to watch where you're going fatboy at work if they want to as well. I hate all this PC stuff with a passion, so I'm not in that boat at all, I'm talking about a very small degree of respect. I am glad people have the ability to call me what they want.... after all, if they don't have that freedom, then I can't know if maybe I really am an idiot or am a tosser. People who are "abusive" with language are often right, and if not, then you can ignore them.

I don't mean respect and dignity at that level, I mean a right not to be shouted at and screamed at as you're walking down the street for no reason. For example a black person by a racist, or a person who was wanted to be taken out of the area by their competition. A person is entitled to walk in public in peace because they are one of the owners of the public place. If they make a mistake on the road and end up in a minor accident, they can accept a person might be angry at them and to be screamed abuse at, I would be all for that.... so I think we have a little bit of a different idea of respect and dignity.

Hayte

How is this even news? It should be an internal disciplinary matter where the identities of all persons involved are kept confidential.

I saw this on the front page of the Mail this week complete with mugshots and everything and the only thing I could think of was: 'what happened to the 4th estate?'

Dudess

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Much ado about nothing doesn't quite do it justice.
The only interesting thing about this story is the stupidity of those involved in allowing these emails to go viral.
The media are having a field day with the sexist slant, who'd have thunk it?
The truth is that it is no more sexist than a group of female associates sitting in the canteen and agreeing that one of the male associates is a dreamboat!

Yes, because they're teenagers in a diner in 1950s middle America. :pac:

Bit of a difference between "dreamboat" and "clunge" (lol) to be fair, but I agree it's not sexist.

Galvasean

Some of the women I have worked with use more 'colourful' words than 'dreamboat' when describing the object of their affection.

CDfm

I thought the whole thing at PWC was fairly cringeworthy.

It was so juvenile.

Dudess

Yeah, a ratings system? Stoopid if done by men about women OR by women about men.

CDfm

They should be made go to work in short pants with notes from their mothers.

These are grown men.

Handsome Bob

Galvasean wrote: »

Some of the women I have worked with use more 'colourful' words than 'dreamboat' when describing the object of their affection.

Well you DO work in showbusiness afterall, I'ma right?

parker kent

Galvasean wrote: »

Some of the women I have worked with use more 'colourful' words than 'dreamboat' when describing the object of their affection.

Too right. I worked in a 3 person team with 2 women in my first job and I remember one of the girls there getting a bit of a crush on a delivery man. How did I notice she may have a mild crush? Well maybe when she told me she would "love to sit on his face"

This is not really a male/female issue, it is more an issue of ridiculously stupid people making a mistake. A mistake that has no doubt led to some new employees feeling extremely embarrassed about how the entire country is now rating them on their looks thanks to "helpful" newspapers publishing their pictures.

Jimmy444

Let’s look at a suitable punishment we can offer these muppets as an alternative to firing them.

I suggest PWC hire out the National Convention Centre, get a catwalk set up, kit out the e-mail guys in Borat bathing suits, and have them parade up and down while the female staff and customers of PWC hold up boards with their score. Anyone getting an average of less than 5 is brought out to the Samuel Beckett Bridge and chucked in the Liffey. See how they like being publicly rated!

CDfm

Jimmy444 wrote: »

Let’s look at a suitable punishment we can offer these muppets as an alternative to firing them.

I suggest PWC hire out the National Convention Centre, get a catwalk set up, kit out the e-mail guys in Borat bathing suits, and have them parade up and down while the female staff and customers of PWC hold up boards with their score. Anyone getting an average of less than 5 is brought out to the James Joyce bridge and chucked in the Liffey. See how they like being publicly rated!

+1 - has any newspaper published their pics yet :rolleyes:

patrickpc

Jimmy444 wrote: »

Let’s look at a suitable punishment we can offer these muppets as an alternative to firing them.

I suggest PWC hire out the National Convention Centre, get a catwalk set up, kit out the e-mail guys in Borat bathing suits, and have them parade up and down while the female staff and customers of PWC hold up boards with their score. Anyone getting an average of less than 5 is brought out to the James Joyce bridge and chucked in the Liffey. See how they like being publicly rated!

If this had happened in Ryanair O'Leary would have put the girls pictures in a calendar and flogged it for charity!!

All under the usual PR guise of turning a negative into a positive.

parker kent

CDfm wrote: »

+1 - has any newspaper published their pics yet :rolleyes:

I actually saw some of their pictures on Saturday. Looked like they went out of their way to find pictures of the lads looking as idiotic as possible. Which is only fair