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

Invisible2

Naikon wrote: »

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?

Well at least it wouldnt get to the press if it wasnt written down! and if it did there would be no proof that anyone said anything

Jesus Wept

Government must be delighted that this type of sh1te is making the front page.
Herald reach a new low.
I guess my thinking is naive, but what allows them all the photos in their paper?

Millicent

Naikon wrote: »

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?

To compile it in an email takes time, meditation and planning. So no, it's not really the same thing as random chit-chat between friends.

midlandsmissus

Naikon wrote: »

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?

Are you serious?

Do you think making a comment at the watercooler is the same as sending a COMPANY email that has the potential to spread round the whole country, and defame your company, and possibly affect the women you're talking about professionally?

I really don't get the lighthearted talk about email use on here "it's done in all big comapnies", it's not done in mine!

eoferrall

Millicent wrote: »

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

probably is but its more to do with the quantity that come in rather than any jumping on them. think if you joined a new gym say, you'd look at all the fellow gym goers out of curiosity if nothing else and sub-consciencely you will decide if attractive to you or not. (that is the best analogy i can think of as can't think of many places were 300 people all join at same time!)

Millicent wrote: »

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.

probably is but its more to do with the quantity that come in rather than any jumping on them. think if you joined a new gym say, you'd look at all the fellow gym goers out of curiosity if nothing else and sub-consciencely you will decide if attractive to you or not. (that is the best analogy i can think of as can't think of many places were 300 people all join at same time!)

well I was actually thinking about that, but several women have left that started when I did as they did not like it, decided the work was not for them and so on where as none of the males have quit for that reason. also oddly enough far more women than men (out of the ones i knew as you can't know all 300ish!) failed exams and where let go unfortunately.

and I would say yes vastly more partners than female partners, but below them is much more 50 50 (if not 60-40 to females). the partner issue is that a lot of women leave for maternity etc and lose out that way. (but there are female partners with kids.

the easiest way to explain it (with out going too far off topic) is how it was said to me when chatting about the female domination(!!) was that women on average are more diligent and perform within a narrower band of quality so you know you will get a good worker, but the males are much more irratic & one will be excellent and another atrocious! so the females overall are more employable but when a good guy comes along he goes further in the business than a female generally.

anyway on topic (or has the topic steered to men & women in workplace?!) I don't see it as any more exclusionist or derogatory to women as other awards. for example it was posted that the short list by extension made a comment about all the other women. bit of a stretch, for instance would you or anyone else have issues with this award? does it imply that ALL the other carers in ireland do not do a good job? absolutely not.

mossyc123

Foxtrol wrote: »

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.

An unbelievable piece of journalism

"They are highly trained, bright and sharp graduates making their way in accountancy. They're not going to let some brainless silly act like this ruin all the hard work they've put in over the years"

Brainless silly act.

What about the fact that the rag your writing for decided to put the girls pictures on the front page of the paper!

Un****ingreal!

Naikon

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Are you serious?

Do you think making a comment at the watercooler is the same as sending a COMPANY email that has the potential to spread round the whole country, and defame your company, and possibly affect the women you're talking about professionally?

I really don't get the lighthearted talk about email use on here "it's done in all big comapnies", it's not done in mine!

There is one place where the term privacy applies. It's between your ears. What if someone recorded the watercooler conversation? Email isn't the only source of trouble in a company. I would question how that message got outside the company address space, but just because it's not written down does not make the action any less scummy. And by scummy, I don't mean they are morally corrupt, just that they should no better as 'Uni' graduates.

Chucky the tree

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Are you serious?

Do you think making a comment at the watercooler is the same as sending a COMPANY email that has the potential to spread round the whole country, and defame your company, and possibly affect the women you're talking about professionally?

I really don't get the lighthearted talk about email use on here "it's done in all big comapnies", it's not done in mine!

It probably is, you just don't see it.

Invisible2

mossyc123 wrote: »

An unbelievable piece of journalism

"They are highly trained, bright and sharp graduates making their way in accountancy. They're not going to let some brainless silly act like this ruin all the hard work they've put in over the years"

Brainless silly act.

What about the fact that the rag your writing for decided to put the girls pictures on the front page of the paper!

Un****ingreal!

Yeah but thats not brainless! her job is to write what will sell papers and i know loads of ppl who r going to buy the paper just for this. I say this article has a better chance of selling the paper than some recession crap so it may be unreal but she is doing what she is paid to do!!

mossyc123

Invisible2 wrote: »

Yeah but thats not brainless! her job is to write what will sell papers and i know loads of ppl who r going to buy the paper just for this. I say this article has a better chance of selling the paper than some recession crap so it may be unreal but she is doing what she is paid to do!!

Sad but true!

Naikon

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It probably is, you just don't see it.

I would say it's about as common as idiots thinking 'kitty131' can't be brute forced in the time it takes you to sneeze. Too many companies take lax security practices as the norm. Key based authentication or bust.

RoundyMooney

So lemme get this;

A bunch of semi-qualified twats in dunnes stores suits have a cackle session over email about some of their unsuspecting female colleagues, and the sky falls in?

But PWC manage to miss the fact that Anglo and ILP were swapping money about to fool the regulator, and that's just the way it is?

Don't get me wrong, it's right and proper that these chortling bucks are getting the door, but what about the nod and wink brigade further up the ladder?

Millicent

eoferrall wrote: »

probably is but its more to do with the quantity that come in rather than any jumping on them. think if you joined a new gym say, you'd look at all the fellow gym goers out of curiosity if nothing else and sub-consciencely you will decide if attractive to you or not. (that is the best analogy i can think of as can't think of many places were 300 people all join at same time!)

The gym's not comparable though. Sorry for bringing to a crass level, but say you studied for years and became a specialist in your field. How would you feel then if a group of women rated you and your colleagues on size? (Odd example, but it's late and I'm tired!)

eoferrall wrote: »

well I was actually thinking about that, but several women have left that started when I did as they did not like it, decided the work was not for them and so on where as none of the males have quit for that reason. also oddly enough far more women than men (out of the ones i knew as you can't know all 300ish!) failed exams and where let go unfortunately.

and I would say yes vastly more partners than female partners, but below them is much more 50 50 (if not 60-40 to females). the partner issue is that a lot of women leave for maternity etc and lose out that way. (but there are female partners with kids.

the easiest way to explain it (with out going too far off topic) is how it was said to me when chatting about the female domination(!!) was that women on average are more diligent and perform within a narrower band of quality so you know you will get a good worker, but the males are much more irratic & one will be excellent and another atrocious! so the females overall are more employable but when a good guy comes along he goes further in the business than a female generally.

I really wish I could find a really good Irish Times article I read on this. Apparently, despite this erratic behaviour you describe, when results were evened out, there was no great difference between the genders and many of the women's portfolios were longer lasting. If I can find it tomorrow, I'll PM you with it. Was a good read and had some interesting points.

eoferrall wrote: »

anyway on topic (or has the topic steered to men & women in workplace?!) I don't see it as any more exclusionist or derogatory to women as other awards. for example it was posted that the short list by extension made a comment about all the other women. bit of a stretch, for instance would you or anyone else have issues with this award? does it imply that ALL the other carers in ireland do not do a good job? absolutely not.

Those two lists are not comparable. One rates a skill and a devotion by an under-appreciated set of people -- the other rates people purely on physical appearance. They're really not the same thing.

Foxtrol

Millicent wrote: »

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.

There's as much meditation in this as texting your friend who sits across the room from you that you saw the new guy and he's hot. Another example is girls going through facebook to find lads they like or have seen and showing their friends (this happens a lot). I wouldn't see this reducing the lads professional status or relegating them to a bit of fluff so I can't see why its any different when guys do it to women. I don't know if this feeling is flowing from what happened in the past but from every girl I spoke to in work today about this they agreed that women are just as bad at doing it but just wouldn't be stupid enough to stick it in an email and forward it to 17 of the girls.

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?

This feels quite off topic but I feel that we're judged everyday on every facet of ourselves, from intelligence, humour, generosity, sporting skills... up to and including our beauty. I believe that men and women have a right to enter beauty contests if they wish and shouldn't be ridiculed or looked down upon for competing in an area which they choose, just as much as an intelligent person should not be ridiculed for trying to further themselves in education.

If one of these girls was someone close to me I'd obviously feel protective but if I stepped back an looked at it objectively the email itself is harmless. I would however feel that the actions of the rag that is the Herald in printing their photo's was outrageous.

BraziliaNZ

Saw them in the Herald, lot of talent in that office, gotta send my CV over there

Blowfish

eoferrall wrote: »

well I was actually thinking about that, but several women have left that started when I did as they did not like it, decided the work was not for them and so on where as none of the males have quit for that reason. also oddly enough far more women than men (out of the ones i knew as you can't know all 300ish!) failed exams and where let go unfortunately.

and I would say yes vastly more partners than female partners, but below them is much more 50 50 (if not 60-40 to females). the partner issue is that a lot of women leave for maternity etc and lose out that way. (but there are female partners with kids.

the easiest way to explain it (with out going too far off topic) is how it was said to me when chatting about the female domination(!!) was that women on average are more diligent and perform within a narrower band of quality so you know you will get a good worker, but the males are much more irratic & one will be excellent and another atrocious! so the females overall are more employable but when a good guy comes along he goes further in the business than a female generally.

Actually I'd say that aspect is more to do with the fact that historically accounting and business were always seen as a 'male' professions. 30 years ago I'd be willing to bet there was a much larger proportion of male than female graduates. It's not really suprising that 30 years on that the ratio at senior level is still heavily male. Somewhere along the line though the ratio changed. If in another 30 years time this isn't reflected in higher ranks, then we really should be wondering why.

Naikon

Millicent wrote: »

To compile it in an email takes time, meditation and planning. So no, it's not really the same thing as random chit-chat between friends.

So does the water cooler talk. Granted, not as much, but the intention is the same logically speaking. Defamation usually applies to the action, not the method of propogation. Again, your brain is the only place where privacy applies. Don't forget that.

midlandsmissus

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It probably is, you just don't see it.

I can tell you for a fact that it is not.

Though alright we are a small/medium company with all female employees except for one male staff.

I'm included on all the group emails going around the girls, we're all very close, and the height of the non-work emails that would go between us would be those cheesy inspirational ones, you know "if you know a friend who's always been there"...etc. and that would be once in a blue moon, "Don't use work email for anything other than work" has always been drummed into us. And I would like to think I would have more sense anyway.

So yes, it doesn't go on in my company!

Millicent

Foxtrol wrote: »

There's as much meditation in this as texting your friend who sits across the room from you that you saw the new guy and he's hot. Another example is girls going through facebook to find lads they like or have seen and showing their friends (this happens a lot). I wouldn't see this reducing the lads professional status or relegating them to a bit of fluff so I can't see why its any different when guys do it to women. I don't know if this feeling is flowing from what happened in the past but from every girl I spoke to in work today about this they agreed that women are just as bad at doing it but just wouldn't be stupid enough to stick it in an email and forward it to 17 of the girls.

I see what you're saying and God, I'm not saying it's acceptable from either gender but I think what is really getting me is how a group of lads, no matter what age, at that level of education or professional stage could have that little gumption. It's baffling. And I would see it as relegating them to a bit of fluff. If it were me in that situation, that's what it would feel like.

Foxtrol wrote: »

This feels quite off topic but I feel that we're judged everyday on every facet of ourselves, from intelligence, humour, generosity, sporting skills... up to and including our beauty. I believe that men and women have a right to enter beauty contests if they wish and shouldn't be ridiculed or looked down upon for competing in an area which they choose, just as much as an intelligent person should not be ridiculed for trying to further themselves in education.

Do you think beauty should be a defining basis for judgement? As in a sole basis? I think we might differ on this. Without meaning to soapbox or start a gender disagreement, I've been in the situation where, much as I might prove myself elsewhere -- education wise or intelligence wise -- it's meaningless to some people. I know how it feels to be objectified in that manner and it hurts. It might seem like harmless chit-chat, but it gets to your self-esteem. It's really not a nice feeling.

Foxtrol wrote: »

If one of these girls was someone close to me I'd obviously feel protective but if I stepped back an looked at it objectively the email itself is harmless. I would however feel that the actions of the rag that is the Herald in printing their photo's was outrageous.

Agreed completely on the Herald's actions. It's disgraceful and is just voyeuristic, crap media.

As to if it was someone close to you, perhaps you might see it as harmless, but what if she doesn't?

Foxtrol

Blowfish wrote: »

Actually I'd say that aspect is more to do with the fact that historically accounting and business were always seen as a 'male' professions. 30 years ago I'd be willing to bet there was a much larger proportion of male than female graduates. It's not really suprising that 30 years on that the ratio at senior level is still heavily male. Somewhere along the line though the ratio changed. If in another 30 years time this isn't reflected in higher ranks, then we really should be wondering why.

From my experience audit just isn't suitable if you're looking to have a family, especially for women. This is down to the ridiculous hours that need to be consistently worked to get to the level of senior manager, director and eventually partner. From what I've seen most female partners seem to have held off having kids until they reached the level of partner when they have more control of their hours and no longer need to worry about being overtaken by a guy with no ties (or a very understanding wife/partner).

Millicent

Naikon wrote: »

So does the water cooler talk. Granted, not as much, but the intention is the same logically speaking. Defamation usually applies to the action, not the method of propogation. Again, your brain is the only place where privacy applies. Don't forget that.

Hasn't the defamation act changed to printed method though or am I completely spacing on that? And absolutely, I'd never say anything in print or otherwise I wouldn't want publicised, but there is a greater degree involved in compiling an email. While your brain mightn't engage by the time something left your mouth, writing an email allows that time for reflection that is missing from a verbal exchange.

Naikon

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I can tell you for a fact that it is not.
So yes, it doesn't go on in my company!

Unless you are the sysadmin for the company, you can't actually tell. I bet you are on the company designated "No trouble" VLAN:p Honestly, you really can't say it's not going on unless you have a detailed knowledge of the companies network infrastructure.

Naikon

Millicent wrote: »

Hasn't the defamation act changed to printed method though or am I completely spacing on that? And absolutely, I'd never say anything in print or otherwise I wouldn't want publicised, but there is a greater degree involved in compiling an email. While your brain mightn't engage by the time something left your mouth, writing an email allows that time for reflection that is missing from a verbal exchange.

It's much easier to propogate a message by electronic means, that is a given. All I am saying that in terms of the act of Defamation, it's actual means of propogation does not really mitigate the act. Speaking of the act in question, conversation or email, they are the same.

eoferrall

Millicent wrote: »

The gym's not comparable though. Sorry for bringing to a crass level, but say you studied for years and became a specialist in your field. How would you feel then if a group of women rated you and your colleagues on size? (Odd example, but it's late and I'm tired!)

I don't walk around with it all hanging out tho!:D The point I was trying to make was somewhere where there would be a lot of new people to you.

Millicent wrote: »

I really wish I could find a really good Irish Times article I read on this. Apparently, despite this erratic behaviour you describe, when results were evened out, there was no great difference between the genders and many of the women's portfolios were longer lasting. If I can find it tomorrow, I'll PM you with it. Was a good read and had some interesting points.

please do, I would like to read it as i studied things like this in college in labour economics. as was said below the higher levels are older and thus remnants of an older time. (like when women had to reitre from public service jobs upon marriage?! wtf!?) I would expect within another 10/20 years as the top turns over it will become more equitable at the top levels.

Millicent wrote: »

Those two lists are not comparable. One rates a skill and a devotion by an under-appreciated set of people -- the other rates people purely on physical appearance. They're really not the same thing.

I know its not the same, i was jsut using it as a point that because the girls didn't make the list doesn't automatically degrade them to unattractive. I had friends in rosanna davidsons course when she won, tbh i could have pointed at dozens of better looking women than her in the arts block. yet she won ms world.

I'm off now - it has been interesting discussion this (i haven't been picking on you its jsut you had a coherent argument put forward to debate back if you follow:))

i am in the middle on this, the thought behind it was harmless enough, it was the execution that was stupid and then the breakout exponentially increased their stupidity levels. should have used private emails if they really wanted to do it. company email = trouble with any non work email unless it is just general conversation with friends about holidays etc. is how i look at it. Idiotic behaviour which from rumours I have heard has cost the initiator his job & i am sure more to follow.

S. Goodspeed

Would I care if some sad fecker made a list of the "hot" new joiners and sent it around to his mates with my gf/daughter/son on it? Honestly no, not at all. When you put a group of 200 recent college graduates together I'd expect that type of messing regardless of the company/profession.

Would I be p*ssed if some rag of a newspaper put my gf/daughter/son's face on the front of their scumbag publication? I'd be absolutely livid. And then they have the cheek to get on their high horse and criticise a few young lads for what could well be a once off mistake they will dearly pay for??? Unbelievable.

Millicent

Naikon wrote: »

It's much easier to propogate a message by electronic means, that is a given. All I am saying that in terms of the act of Defamation, it's actual means of propogation does not really mitigate the act. Speaking of the act in question, conversation or email, they are the same.

But did the traditional spoken aspect of the Defamation Bill not get removed or am I imagining that? Could be -- tired! And I'm aware of the point you're making here, but intent *could* be argued differently in each medium.

Millicent

eoferrall wrote: »

I don't walk around with it all hanging out tho!:D The point I was trying to make was somewhere where there would be a lot of new people to you.

Ah no, I understand that and my point was a bit flippant, but there's more of an expectation of respect in the workplace than you can reasonably expect from the general public. That's what I'm driving at.

eoferrall wrote: »

please do, I would like to read it as i studied things like this in college in labour economics. as was said below the higher levels are older and thus remnants of an older time. (like when women had to reitre from public service jobs upon marriage?! wtf!?) I would expect within another 10/20 years as the top turns over it will become more equitable at the top levels.

And I will indeed. It's driving me mad trying to thinking of its title/author but I'll do my best. Really was well-balanced and though provoking. If you don't hear from me, send me a reminder cos I've a sieve-head! :pac:

eoferrall wrote: »

I know its not the same, i was jsut using it as a point that because the girls didn't make the list doesn't automatically degrade them to unattractive. I had friends in rosanna davidsons course when she won, tbh i could have pointed at dozens of better looking women than her in the arts block. yet she won ms world.

I'm off now - it has been interesting discussion this (i haven't been picking on you its jsut you had a coherent argument put forward to debate back if you follow:))

i am in the middle on this, the thought behind it was harmless enough, it was the execution that was stupid and then the breakout exponentially increased their stupidity levels. should have used private emails if they really wanted to do it. company email = trouble with any non work email unless it is just general conversation with friends about holidays etc. is how i look at it. Idiotic behaviour which from rumours I have heard has cost the initiator his job & i am sure more to follow.

Again, I see where you're coming from but I doubt it makes a difference to those girls who weren't on the list whether it's a subjective opinion or not. And the difference with the Rosanna thing is she put herself up for a competition like that -- these girls were just doing their jobs, where their looks should not be a basis for more than a passing judgement.

And I haven't thought you were picking on me. It was nice to debate it with you too. Goodnight.

Naikon

Millicent wrote: »

But did the traditional spoken aspect of the Defamation Bill not get removed or am I imagining that? Could be -- tired! And I'm aware of the point you're making here, but intent *could* be argued differently in each medium.

Fair enough. It depends on case cirumstances. I am not going to make this into a silly argument. It's late. I dunno about the spoken aspect. I would imagine it's documented in one of the acts on the gov website though. Law isn't my area I am afraid.

Millicent

Naikon wrote: »

Fair enough. I am not going to make this into a silly argument. It's late. I dunno about the spoken aspect. Law isn't my area I am afraid.

Ah, I wasn't trying to make it into a silly argument, honestly. As you say it's late and I sincerely can't remember. Just figured it would be pertinent if true.

johnn

to be fair KPMG hired mostly the bustiest chicks from my class to work there, so they're not innocent in all this either.