We really have to hand it to some of the creative minds at E&Y. The quality of what they produce is overwhelming. All this and they ban Pandora? We’ll never understand accounting firm reasoning.
Anyhoo, the offbeat clapping is one thing, Zitor is quite another, but now we present you with the following:
Related Posts
Social Media Finds Its Place in KPMG’s Ethics and Compliance Training
- Caleb Newquist
- July 26, 2010
As you’re well aware, the excitement around social media has infested our lives to the point of nausea. It may have taken awhile but it appears that the largest accounting firms have come to grips with this and are attempting to embrace it – albeit in an awkward hug where your bodies finds itself in .
As a result of this warming up to all things social media, at least one firm – KPMG – has decided that some explicit reminders were appropriate as part of their annual ethics and compliance training. A Kamper submitted the following query:
There’s a new section this year on social media in the KPMG annual ethics and compliance training. I’m in process of going through it right now, but the summary asks:
Do you ‘friend’ your clients or vendors?
Do you Twitter about the engagement you’re on?
Do you blog about your work environmentYou may want to think twice and make sure you are following the applicable firm policies and exercising good judgment before you post that next entry.
Was wondering if you had heard of any of the other firms integrating this type of training into their programs? I guess some people need remedial training in common sense — I’d hope that at least the younger people at KPMG aren’t clueless enough in this day and age to think that their online habits won’t impact their work/career.
Cluelessness may have been a good excuse circa 2004 when Facebook was new, but there really is no excuse in 2010 for a Gen Y’er to be similarly clueless
Our source brings up a good point – Gen Y types should be aware that anything they Tweet, post to FB or to a blog could easily seen by their firm’s Internet reputation teams (these are real, aren’t they?) so the message here could fall into the “common sense” bucket, akin to the three martini lunch. Perhaps these instructions are for the older Klynveldians that aren’t so social media savvy that have discovered a new outlet for venting but aren’t yet familiar with the potential repercussions.
We asked DWB – our resident friendly human resources professional – about this new development in ethics and compliance training to get a little more perspective:
Caleb, why wasn’t Going Concern mentioned as a social media platform? Statistics show you’re popular with the 35 – 50 female admin demographic.
Like the submitter, I too am interested in knowing if the other firms are approaching social media and the inherent risks associated with it. Barring a severe breach in independence or security, the firms will not block the likes of Twitter and Facebook; can you imagine the upheaval among the ranks? That said, incorporating different social media platforms in the Ethics and Compliance training will make some individuals stop and think about what they’ve posted in the past. It is a gentle reminder that bashing your clients and coworkers isn’t the best practice (common sense, like the submitter noted). More importantly, this is an crucial move from an HR and legal perspective – now HR and Compliance has a “we told you so” leg to stand on should disciplinary action need to be taken.
While we can neither confirm nor deny the admin statistics, it is clear that KPMG has put everyone on notice that firing you for your idiotic workplace-related status updates is fair game.
Whether or not other firms have gone to the lengths to explicitly include social media in similar trainings is unknown to us but if you’re in the know, kindly elaborate. For the rest of you, we suggest keeping those Tweets and status updates to trite observations and boring descriptions of your kids’ activities. But you will be unfriended/unfollowed/hidden from view by many.
Share this:
Plaintiffs File Brief in Big 4 Overtime Lawsuit
- Caleb Newquist
- February 5, 2010
Last summer we initiated our coverage on the wage and hour lawsuits against the Big 4 and other firms that have been filed in California. As you may remember, the case that is currently before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, is the key case as it may decide how the rest of the cases proceed.
Just a quick refresheramicus (i.e. friend of court) briefs following in early November.
The plaintiffs’ amicus briefs are scheduled to be filed tomorrow and while Mr. Kershaw would not share any names with us, he did inform us that there were some notable supporters that will be filing briefs. Parties claiming support via web (though it is not clear whether they are expected to file as amicus) include among others, labor union UNITE HERE.
The briefs are under seal at the request of the defendants who are claiming proprietary privilege.
In the past, the 9th Circuit has been accused of having a liberal bias which could be perceived as an advantage to the plaintiffs. While Mr. Kershaw agreed that the 9th Circuit was more “worker friendly” in the past, he told us, “After eight years under the Bush administration, the court has considerably more conservative justices.”
According to the 9th Circuit’s website, former President George W. Bush appointed seven justices while in office. Of the 47 justices currently serving, 21 were appointed by Republican Presidents and 26 by Democratic Presidents.
Despite the political makeup, Mr. Kershaw believes, as he did when we last spoke with him on the matter, that the evolution of the law of the exemptions (i.e. who, among other things, is and is not eligible for overtime) will demonstrate that the plaintiffs were not “learned professionals,” and will prevail in case.
Lead counsel for PricewaterhouseCoopers, Norman Hile of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP did not respond to our request for an interview.
We reached out to all the firms; receiving responses from only BDO, who provide the following statement: “We believe that the employee in this case was properly classified as exempt. This case has been stayed pending resolution of the PwC appeal. As is our policy on matters of litigation, BDO does not intend to comment further until this case is resolved.” We were also informed that in the BDO case that the class certification was denied by the trial court and the appeal was also denied.
In the case of Hood & Strong, LLP, we were referred to their attorney, Jonathan R. Bass of Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, who we spoke with briefly about his case, Kathleen McFarland v. Hood & Strong LLP.
Mr. Bass indicated to us that the lawsuit against his client is only one of four that is being tried in state court and would not necessarily be affected by the ruling in Campbell. He further indicated that these lawsuits are something that his client, and most likely all the defendants, did not anticipate, “it is not likely that any of these firms considered the possibility of their employees being treated as anything other than exempt.”
No other firms listed as defendants responded to our request to comment.
Ultimately a decision in Campbell may not be known until 2011 at which point the litigation could actually proceed or be settled. We’ll continue to follow these cases as they progress.
Share this:
KPMG Poaches Someone From PwC and Issues a Press Release, Part XVI
- Jason Bramwell
- September 21, 2021
It looks like the hot spots for Big 4-on-Big 4 poaching lately are the U.K. […]