Bank Apologizes For Firing Staff With Accidental Email (bbc.com)
- Reference: 0178930994
- News link: https://it.slashdot.org/story/25/08/29/1644219/bank-apologizes-for-firing-staff-with-accidental-email
- Source link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c776plg6n8vo
> ANZ's retail banking executive Bruce Rush said it was "not our intention to share such sensitive news with you in this way" as the firm cuts jobs in its retail banking business. The bank said the emails were sent to some staff ahead of schedule in error. It said it has since stopped sending the emails and that staff have been spoken to personally.
>
> The Financial Sector Union said the email caused "panic and distress" and was a result of the company forcing through a "chaotic pace of change." The union's president Wendy Streets said it had not been consulted on the changes the bank was making, adding that "ANZ must do better." "Speed and cost-cutting cannot come at the expense of dignity and respect for workers," Ms Streets said, describing the "botched" episode as "disgusting." Mr Rush wrote in an email to staff: "Unfortunately, these emails indicate an exit date for some of our colleagues before we've been able to share their outcome with them."
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c776plg6n8vo
They didn't blame the AI (Score:4, Insightful)
Which will now be excuse for F*ups in companies.
It's just the latest version of: "I can[t help you the computer did it." That started back in the 1970s.
Welcome to the new world and as the old world.
Re: (Score:2)
Mainframe era adage: "To err is human; to really fuck things up requires a computer."
Could be worse. (Score:3)
Insight Global emailed me an End of Contract Survey... before they told me I was being terminated. Meta had planned on telling me I was leaving when there was guard standing behind me to immediately escort me out the door, but the email ruined the surprise for them!
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was Meta - so their plan was to take you out as part of a "large group lunch", stick you with the bill, and then tell you about your termination as you walked out of the restaurant.
Re: (Score:2)
I was contracting through Insight Global. They were enforcing Meta's policy of "You have access to our trade secrets, so we can't let you know in advance when you will be leaving." Which is stupid, because I had plenty of time in the 17 months I was working there to steal data or program in time bombs. Why would I wait until after I was given notice to do anything unethical?
Re: (Score:2)
> Why would I wait until after I was given notice to do anything unethical?
You are thinking like an ethical, non-vindictive person. Kudos.
A vindictive person who gets fired could decide to retaliate while still on premises with access to systems. That also requires a lack of ethics, or perhaps a level of "ethical fluidity".
This pisses me off. (Score:2)
When a company knows exactly when people are going to be laid off, but their company policy is to keep it a surprise? Common courtesy would be to tell the victim as soon as you know, so that they can start looking for other employment. Instead, companies now prefer to not tell you until they have a guard standing behind you to immediately walk you out the door before you can steal any company data or trigger any dead man's switches. But they still expect you to give 2 weeks notice before leaving... which gi
Re: (Score:2)
Not in Australia. There are rules there. Lots of rules.
So when my former employer was told it was a '6 month project, no problem', someone on the team shared the Australian labor rules.
Make that a 12 month project...
Re: (Score:2)
I feel fortunate, all layoffs at my company as far as I can recall came with one month's notice and then a severence.
No Funny? (Score:2)
So much potential for this story.
That's BS (Score:2)
What they are sorry about is that they got caught doing that.
Translation: (Score:2)
> "Unfortunately, these emails indicate an exit date for some of our colleagues before we've been able to share their outcome with them."
Translation: "We done fuck up good!"
Re: (Score:2)
The email was drafted... so it's quite obvious they did intend to fire these people via email. The only "accident" was sending the emails earlier than they'd planned.
In all likelihood, the only reason they've now reached out "personally" is because they need these people to still do some work before they are terminated, and they're trying to weasel their way around that. Hopefully the quality of that work isn't important to them.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you may be mistaken.
A possible interpretation is that the bank's intent was to do the following:
1. Tell the affected employees that they were being terminated.
then:
2. Send out an email giving them information on returning their laptops.
It appears that the email (2) was sent out too early and employees inferred that they had been laid-off.