Should the poor guy get fired?

Should the poor guy get fired?


  • Total voters
    101
According to the rumours he was set up by workmates who knew the TV camera was behind him.

He got 2 emails, the first one marked urgent with the pictures and a later one saying turn around, which he did.

Fortunately none of the pictures were too revealing and had already been published in a magazine.
 
That's nothing, at my work a storeman got busted in a random drug test.
He tested positive to marijuana :eek:

I don't know what will happen to him, he's still on suspension
 
pretty unfair if he didnt know what he was opening.

If he did, then let the person/s that sack him sign a stat dec that they have never opened a naughty email or viewed raunchy material
 
i'm inclined to believe the email excuse as it wasn't as tho he stayed on the picture as was intently looking at it - he keep deleting it back to the covering email.

how embarrasing. surely they can confirm his story. he may not have even known it was a raunchy photo before opening.
 
i'm inclined to believe the email excuse as it wasn't as tho he stayed on the picture as was intently looking at it - he keep deleting it back to the covering email.

how embarrasing. surely they can confirm his story. he may not have even known it was a raunchy photo before opening.

Especially if someone was setting him up. Call the attached file something innocent like "rates_chart.jpg" and you wouldn't think twice about opening it. But he took his time in closing it/them! :D
 
Nice to see most of the voters so far have fair attitudes in giving a bloke a second go. Pretty funny, though. :)
 
i agree - lighten up a little.

it's obvious that anyone within camera shot with a computer woudl have NOTHING on their screen but candle charts and DMA charts, NO _ ONE would be that dumb on purpose.

i'd believe he was set up as a little practical joke.
 
There are a few things not going in this guys favour.

He didn't immediately close/delete the email after opening the first attachment. He went through 3 files before someone told him he was on TV.

If Mac don't do anything about it they are making a rod for their back on any future sexual harrassment claim by an employee. There is now a perception of an inappropriate culture.

I hope he doesn't get the sack but who knows.

There's a reason Mens Gallery is located in the financial area of the CBD.
 
Wasn't one of his co-workers at Macquarie also interviewed and quoted in the last issue of the magazine that those pictures came from?




Ahem. So I heard.
 
if that was a set up, it is one of the best I have seen in a decade....and I'll pay the guys who did it as being very sharp.

Gawd, the pics weren't total nudes afaik, so I don't see the big deal at all. Most office receptions have a copy of Cleo or Cosmo with more revealing stuff than that.

What I think is interesting, is Channel 7 is making all the noise, not their competitors.

Maybe MacDonut and 7 conspired to ramp it up, on the basis the publicity would be a net positive.
 
Sack him. Having worked in another bank in very similar surroundings, the rules about what you do when the cameras are on are incredibly strict.
You don't open emails, period. Never know what information is in them that you don't want relayed to your competitors etc.
No waving at the cameras, no smiling for the cameras unless you're the one doing the cross. Look serious, and busy, without actually displaying any information.
 
Gee, he had a pretty long look, didn't he.
I'd say if Macquarie want to lose staff, this would be an easy way to get rid of someone. But if he's performing well and making them money, I can't imagine much happening - I've been in those dealing rooms and they're pretty blokey.
If anything, he should be reprimanded for being a dill.
 
Like WW said, most office receptions have a copy of Cleo or Cosmo with more revealing stuff than that :rolleyes:.

Personally I see it more like a funny blooper.

MB might be a bit embarrassed but I doubt they would sack him if he was a valued and productive empoyee.
 
It seems strange that the commentator is offset in the camera view enough for the camera operator to zoom in on the screen in the background.
 
I think any staff members involved with sending him the emails should be fired.

The prank was way out of line of company procedure, the poor guy is the victim here - he should be getting at least a warning however, for opening an email whilst on live tv, but only if he was actually properly informed of the television airing.
 
Top