Okay number-crunchers, we realize you don’t have the most exciting jobs in the world and sometimes you need a little distraction from Excel. Totally natch. Checking out ESPN, Perez Hilton, Going Concern, Facebook is even encouraged in some circles.
Some of you might even be so bold to see what the latest uploads on YouPorn, XTube, et al. are. Fine. We get that. It’s just your biology running wild right? We totally understand. What we can’t understand is those of you that are blatantly watching two girls, one guy, and a Clydesdale reenact the Kama Sutra in your cubicle.
Of course, when somebody catches you drooling on your keyboard, you have to act completely dumbfounded about how such a graphic display of human and equine love could have ended up on your screen. Somehow your superiors don’t buy your stammered out explanation and you’re out on your ass. Time to find to new job that’s not so uptight anyway, right?
So when you’re sitting in the interview with the potential new boss and he/she asks you why you left your last job, how do you explain your penchant for bestiality in a way that gets you hired? The Journal seems to think honesty is the best policy. Just admit what you did and swear that you’ll never, never, never do it again. We’re not convinced this would go over well but whatevs.
Anyone been fired for “inappropriate” Internet use? Did you cover it up in your next interview with “management and I had differences”? Or did you do your damnedest to find a workplace with a less stringent web use policy? Discuss.
Getting Fired for Inappropriate Web Use [WSJ]
Related Posts
Grant Thornton’s Survey Elves Are Still at Work
Our only point is that if it wasn’t for the nice little explanation of the survey on the website, we would have assumed they had a huge room filled with survey elves working day and night.
Anyway, today GT issued its latest press release of its “national survey of U.S. CFOs and senior comptrollers”.
This installment shows that CFOs are homers when it comes to who sets their accounting rules (just so long as it isn’t the government). Seventy-one percent of those surveyed said that rules should be set by “A national independent board supervised by a national regulator” while only 24 percent want an international board. This despite the belief of some that Bob Herz is the most dangerous man in the country.
Only 3% thought a “national legislature” should set rules, which is a relief. Plus it probably gives Barney Frank a little vindication but definitely upsets Newt Gingrich.
The survey also states that the respondents are split on how to report debt on their balances sheets, either amortized cost or fair value, which may be why the FASB and IASB are talking contingency plan.
The last bit of interesting information is that CFOs are still scared shitless of eXtensible Business Reporting Language (“XBRL”) because 84% of those surveyed have no plans to start using it. If you assume most of the CFOs were in Big 4 at one time, then this isn’t so surprising.
The elves are off until spring next CFO survey will occur in the spring when another spectacular round of press releases will inform all of us what is on the minds of financial bigwigs.
Earlier: Grant Thornton Survey: Financial Statements Are Still Too Complex for the Average Shmo Investor
Also earlier: Grant Thornton Survey: 40% of CFOs Never Ever Ever Want IFRS to Replace GAAP
Layoff Watch ’09: Catching up with Crowe Horwath
Earlier this month we told you about layoffs that went down at Crowe Horwath in late November.
We’ve now received additional details that indicate that Crowe has had several rounds of layoffs this past year that started with non-client serving personnel late in 2008 and culminating with the November round.
Our source told us that the second round occurred in spring of this year and at that time, firm leadership communicated that no further layoffs would be necessary. Apparently things didn’t goes as plan as a third round occurred in July that consisted of professionals in the risk consulting practice and many in the Financial Institutions practice that were not chargeable were asked to take sabbaticals. This report of “sabbaticals” is consistent with our report earlier from a source that indicated that “there was a lot of forced time off during the summer.”
It sounds as though Crowe has consistently notified their employees about the layoffs, although our sources have indicated that details (i.e. number of professionals) are always scarce for “morale purposes.” One could assume that since anything after the spring round was not supposed to happen, morale was probably all but wiped out anyway.
The second and third rounds were rumored to be in the nabe of 150 each and our source told us that the third round included many “Executives, Senior Managers, and Managers over 40.” and that “Agreeing to not sue Crowe for age discrimination was part of the Severance Package.” So if you’re 40+ at Crowe it sounds like your best years are behind you or maybe you’re just too damn expensive?
Middle-aged dismissal rumors notwithstanding, Crowe has seen its own exodus, which seems to be the natural progression of things when layoffs reach bodily function regularity.
Crowe Horwath has not responded to our repeated requests for comment.
If you’ve been involved in any of these layoffs at Crowe, or have additional details discuss below, or email us and we’ll continue to keep you updated.
Madoff Feeders Getting Some Unwanted Attention
The SEC, feeling confident these days, has filed a complaint against Cohmad Securities Corporation and its Chairman, Chief Operating Officer, and one of the brokers, saying they “actively marketed Madoff investments while ‘knowingly or recklessly disregarding facts indicating that Madoff was operating a fraud.'”
Call us Captain Obv but that sounds like they were either dumb or in on the scam. Either way, they can’t be too psyched about it.
An additional complaint has been filed by the SEC against Stanley Chais, an investment adviser who put all of the assets he oversaw into casa de Madoff.
Irving Picard, who might have the most thankless job in America, also sued both Cohmad and Chais, because, you know, a few people want their money back. The trustee’s complaint against Cohmad spells it out:
The trustee’s lawsuit asserted that fees paid to Cohmad by Mr. Madoff were based on records showing the actual cash status of customer accounts — the amounts invested and withdrawn — without including the fictional profits shown in the statements provided to customers. When a customer’s withdrawals exceeded the cash invested, Cohmad’s employees no longer earned fees from that account — even though the customer’s statements still showed a substantial balance, according to the lawsuit.
This arrangement indicated that Cohmad and its representatives knew about the Ponzi scheme and knew that the profits investors were allegedly earning were bogus, according to the trustee’s complaint.
Good luck explaining that.
Brokerage Firm and 4 Others Sued in Madoff Case [New York Times]