Slashdot Mirror


Company Accidentally Fires Entire Staff Via Email

redletterdave writes with an amusing tale of missent email. From the article: "On Friday, more than 1,300 employees of London-based Aviva Investors walked into their offices, strolled over to their desks, booted up their computers and checked their emails, only to learn the shocking news: They would be leaving the company. The email ordered them to hand over company property and security passes before leaving the building, and left the staff with one final line: 'I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and wish you all the best for the future. 'This email was sent to Aviva's worldwide staff of 1,300 people, with bases in the U.S., UK, France, Spain, Sweden, Canada, Italy, Ireland, Germany, Norway, Poland, Switzerland, Belgium, Austria, Finland and the Netherlands. And it was all one giant mistake: The email was intended for only one individual."

333 comments

  1. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It will now be two people leaving the company!

    1. Re:Wrong by Lohrno · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe ...Unless the guy they fired was in charge of sending out dismissals. This was his final (possibly intentional) mistake. :D

    2. Re:Wrong by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It will now be two people leaving the company!

      In the immediate, yes. However I suspect dozens more will follow them upon realizing that the company endorses firing people via e-mail using a form letter. It's a universally bad sign when a company has streamlined it's firing process to that degree. I worked for a company where the phrase "is no longer with the Company" was so common I had to setup an Outlook filter to mark them read and remove them from my inbox. A high turnover rate is an unambiguous indicator of bad management.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How so? It is generally a good thing for a company to be willing to get rid of unproductive employees.

    4. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Good, Let's start from you :D

    5. Re:Wrong by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Man, to be a fly on the wall when HR told him to fire himself via e-mail.

    6. Re:Wrong by Rakishi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it also means the company has no idea who to hire and keeps hiring morons.

    7. Re:Wrong by thereitis · · Score: 1

      I worked for a company where the phrase "is no longer with the Company" was so common I had to setup an Outlook filter to mark them read and remove them from my inbox.

      I've received quite a few salesperson related 'no longer with the company' emails but never so many as want to create a filter. That's unreal!

    8. Re:Wrong by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      If you have a high rate of unproductive employees, that is a bad sign too...

    9. Re:Wrong by bws111 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you read the article, you will see that nobody was fired. Someone was leaving the company, and they got a note reminding of them of contractual obligations, procedures to be followed, and a thanks for years of service. That person would have found nothing odd at all about receiving the note. It was the people who weren't expecting the note who assumed they were fired.

    10. Re:Wrong by Jawnn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And it is, generally, a worse thing to continually hire unproductive employees. In other words, "bad management".

    11. Re:Wrong by emurphy42 · · Score: 1

      firing people via e-mail using a form letter

      I didn't see anything explicitly claiming that the person was fired solely by e-mail (as opposed to being fired in person and getting the e-mail as an addendum), nor that the e-mail was a form letter.

      A high turnover rate is an unambiguous indicator of bad management.

      I work for the software division of a CPA firm, and I'm told the CPA side routinely has a certain proportion of junior employees stick around for a few years to get experience and then leave to go independent, while others stay longer and move up the ladder. It didn't sound particularly high, though, nor is it turnover-by-firing (firings have happened but are pretty uncommon).

    12. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are always unproductive employees. It's just at most companies, they are allowed to fly under the radar. Additionally, unproductive can be replaced by 'less productive than replacements expected productivity', to describe a company continually improving its workforce.

    13. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Among other things.

    14. Re:Wrong by paiute · · Score: 5, Funny

      There are always unproductive employees.

      No lie. At my company, about half of the employees have below average productivity.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    15. Re:Wrong by WillHirsch · · Score: 5, Informative

      Slow down there, champ. Despite TFA being headlined "[FULL TEXT]", the full contents of the email doesn't appear in the article.

      The link to Reuters in the article doesn't either, but contains the following statement from Aviva's spokesman: "An email which was intended for a member of staff who was leaving today was accidentally sent to all Aviva Investors staff worldwide."

      In other words, the intended recipient was well aware he/she was leaving, not even necessarily fired, and a form letter is used to lay out information outgoing staff need to be aware of. Worth a giggle at how for a moment it might have looked like all the staff had received a surprise sacking, but not really an excuse to get out your pet grievance about large organisational structures.

    16. Re:Wrong by newcastlejon · · Score: 5, Funny

      We apologise again for the fault in the email. Those responsible for sacking the person who has just been sacked have been sacked.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    17. Re:Wrong by Nimloth · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hear they immediately sent out 1,299 apology emails.

    18. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hear they immediately sent out 1,299 apology emails.

      Well, they certainly tried to, but in an ironic twist, the apology email only went to the 1 person they were originally intending to fire.

    19. Re:Wrong by flatt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Morons who, in turn, send form letter emails firing all of the other morons. Where's the problem?

    20. Re:Wrong by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      I have a sudden urge to go watch that movie.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    21. Re:Wrong by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      From TFA, it actually sounds like the person was leaving, not getting fired. So he/she had to turn in whatever stuff before physically leaving. The summary sounds incorrect.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    22. Re:Wrong by Cylix · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dark Helmet: Careful you idiot! I said across her nose, not up it!
      Laser Gunner: Sorry sir! I'm doing my best!
      Dark Helmet: Who made that man a gunner?
      Major Asshole: I did sir. He's my cousin.
      Dark Helmet: Who is he?
      Colonel Sandurz: He's an asshole sir.
      Dark Helmet: I know that! What's his name?
      Colonel Sandurz: That is his name sir. Asshole, Major Asshole!
      Dark Helmet: And his cousin?
      Colonel Sandurz: He's an asshole too sir. Gunner's mate First Class Philip Asshole!
      Dark Helmet: How many asholes do we have on this ship, anyway?
      [Entire bridge crew stands up and raises a hand]
      Entire Bridge Crew: Yo!
      Dark Helmet: I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes!
      [Dark Helmet pulls his face shield down]
      Dark Helmet: Keep firing, assholes!

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    23. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, half have below median productivity. If you have several incredibly, almost equally brilliant people and one utterly incompetent idiot, it's possible for one one person to be below average. /pedant

    24. Re:Wrong by Bomazi · · Score: 0

      average != median. Woosh !

    25. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      At my company we employ one guy to sit around and do nothing. This means we can generally employ above average employees, with a commensurate increase in productivity.

    26. Re:Wrong by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      I've found it's generally closer to 80% below mean productivity.

      But it's only the 10% that are way below the mode that you really need to get rid of.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    27. Re:Wrong by gstrickler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People don't need an excuse to gripe, just an opportunity.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    28. Re:Wrong by Sir_Sri · · Score: 2

      depends a lot on the status of the employee. A high turnover at the 3 month point just means you're trying to only retain the best. A high turnover at the 13 year points means you're trying to dodge paying senior employees senior rates.

    29. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      no no this is Europe - you just can't fire someone - they need a long drawn out review process and improvement programme which they have to fail consistently and even then you have to give them lots of notice.

    30. Re:Wrong by Bobtree · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you mean 1,298.

    31. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a high turnover rate can also be an indicator of a company actually having to do some real work rather than skim over the surface and have the real grunt work done in india/china.

      high turnover rate in polish financial sector = bad management
      high turnover rate in UK building services sector = crap workforce

    32. Re:Wrong by multicoregeneral · · Score: 1

      What movie is that? Oh, and you're right. I'll be voting for King Kong this year.

      --
      This signature intentionally left blank.
    33. Re:Wrong by okooolo · · Score: 1

      or half have above average productivity

    34. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      more like they sent out 1300, then they mailed the original target of the fire notice with a "Just kidding"

    35. Re:Wrong by EdIII · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try dealing with Dell Business.

      They keep reorganizing, firing, and promoting people that by the time the ink is dry on their business cards the extensions no longer work.

      I'm not joking. I can go through any contact more than 6 months old and their phone number in their signature is dead. Emailing them entails a 24 hour turnaround time to get the new person assigned to your account to contact you.

      Nice people, but very weird communication infrastructure.

    36. Re:Wrong by samoanbiscuit · · Score: 4, Informative

      Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The opening credits have an awesome joke where they promise to sack the people responsible, then they promise to sack the people who were supposed to do the previous round of sackings...

    37. Re:Wrong by newcastlejon · · Score: 4, Informative

      They say a picture is worth a thousand words, which is patently bunk since this obviously couldn't contain 5 million words... unless you can read really fast.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    38. Re:Wrong by arootbeer · · Score: 1
    39. Re:Wrong by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      However I suspect dozens more will follow them upon realizing that the company endorses firing people via e-mail using a form letter.

      Hmm, although if the company is that dysfunctional, it's not like the people who go there every day haven't already noticed that it sucks.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    40. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At my company, about half of the employees have below average productivity.

      Beyond the joke (and the issue of average != median for skewed distributions) the real issue is employees with _negative_ productivity (typically "suits") who consume the productivity of other employees.

    41. Re:Wrong by psiclops · · Score: 2

      Depending on your data set median may be a more valid average than mean.
      e.g. housing prices or income.

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    42. Re:Wrong by psiclops · · Score: 2

      except for the cases that it is.

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    43. Re:Wrong by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "That person would have found nothing odd at all about receiving the note."

      Let's hope that many people used 'reply all' to vent their anger.

    44. Re:Wrong by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because it would be much better to rewrite from scratch each time the instructions to people whose contract has expired, have resigned, or have been "let go".

      Rather than covering all the bases once and updating when policies change. After all leaving stuff out by mistake is much better than reusing a document.

      And when you employ a new person have the system administrators team just do it from memory too. So what if they miss a step once or twice or put someone in the wrong group much better to be personal than actually follow a well thought out and pre-written procedure.

    45. Re:Wrong by Sulphur · · Score: 4, Funny

      Man, to be a fly on the wall when HR told him to fire himself via e-mail.

      Then you can be fired from HR?

    46. Re:Wrong by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      "That person would have found nothing odd at all about receiving the note."

      Let's hope that many people used 'reply all' to vent their anger.

      That would be intranet spam.

    47. Re:Wrong by TrekkieGod · · Score: 4, Informative

      average != median. Woosh !

      That is incorrect. The median is most certainly a type of average. The mean is another type of average, and the mode is yet another type of average. Most of the time, when people say "average", they are referring to the mean, but all three of those are averages.

      In addition, it's generally a good assumption that productivity at a company will follow a normal distribution, in which case the median and the mean have the same value.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    48. Re:Wrong by FoolishOwl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Among other things, a form letter suggests laziness on the part of managers.

      There is such a thing as competent management, and much of the work of a competent manager is assessing the abilities, potential, and morale of individual members of the team. Firing people by form letter suggests that the managers aren't doing that assessment. They're likely hiring people, then ignoring them, and if they're ignoring them, they can't distinguish between a useless team member and an underutilized team member with great potential.

    49. Re:Wrong by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 1

      I worked for a company where the phrase "is no longer with the Company" was so common

      At one company where I worked, it was common knowledge that the phrase "effective immediately" was HR code for "he was fired", and "we wish (him|her) well in (his|her) future endeavors" was HR code for "he quit".

    50. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's his point. More than one person could get fired over this. I mean the entire company thought they were all fired. Now I must admit I did NOT read the article, so maybe they noticed quick and nothing happened.

      On the other hand, it wouldn't be a major surprise if there was an individual in the 1300 that decided to do some shit he wasn't supposed to due to thinking he was fired, and then he gets fired consequently.

      Then again, firing by email is fairly high on the moron ranking scale, so this probably wouldn't happen in a place where you don't need to fire as many people as quickly.

    51. Re:Wrong by aiken_d · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm sure plenty of people will leave the company to protest the use of an email form letter.

      --
      If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    52. Re:Wrong by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The email did not fire someone. The email was sent to remind an employee that was already leaving what needed to be done on the last day of employment. Maybe people should read more than a summary before jumping to conclusions.

    53. Re:Wrong by kybred · · Score: 2

      In addition, it's generally a good assumption that productivity at a company will follow a normal distribution, in which case the median and the mean have the same value.

      No, not at my company. We're all above average!

    54. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful here... Given the scores 9 ,10, 9, 7 and 1 you get a mean of 5.2

      So you end up in the situation where 80% are above the mean.

    55. Re:Wrong by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      "That person would have found nothing odd at all about receiving the note."

      Let's hope that many people used 'reply all' to vent their anger.

      I've wondered how many mistakes have been made - I mean, practically every company has some sort of mailing list that goes out to employees - usually one for the entire company, another for each regional area and like. And since everyone gets them, the outlook contact list starts getting populated with them to be auto-completed.

      So all you need is some joker with a name very close to it so the mailing list gets autocompleted first, and every email destined to him gets sent to everyone by force of habit... and it'll happen purely because no one realizes they send it to the wrong person or in this case, wrong persons.

      I know I've mis-sent email to people with similar names, surely someone's mis-sent emails intended for one persont oa whole group, just because the group gets autocompleted/auto-suggested first...

    56. Re:Wrong by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 5, Funny

      At my company we employ one guy to sit around and do nothing.

      We do too. We call him the CEO.

      Hold on a second, I just got an email; I'll be right back.

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    57. Re:Wrong by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      One mistake is firing the entire company.
      Another mistake though is doing a firing via email. That's just stupid, there's so many ways for that to go wrong.

    58. Re:Wrong by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, you invite the person into your office and tell them they're fired.

      It's more a matter of basic human decency. They're still people. They're still your employees. Most people will interpret this as a complete lack of respect, and many of them will look for a company that treats them as human beings rather than machines and an email address.

    59. Re:Wrong by bheading · · Score: 2, Funny

      A møøse once bit my sister .. no realli! She was Karving her initials on the moose with the sharpened end of an interspace toothbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian movies: "The Hot Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Molars of Horst Nordfink"...

    60. Re:Wrong by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2

      Here at my company we have underscores in front of the group emailadresses and group names. Haven't seen any trouble with it. If and when you'd like to send a group email you start with an underscore, thus outlook only advises the group emailadresses. If you do not start with an underscore outlook advises only normal emailadresses.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    61. Re:Wrong by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And 60% are above the median.

    62. Re:Wrong by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I worked for a company where HR officially notified the whole company about departures via an email that wished them well on their "future endeavors" and we joked about anyone leaving was joining the "future endeavors club".

    63. Re:Wrong by Tukz · · Score: 1

      oh gawd, I've got to re-watch that movie soon.
      They had inception before it was cool.

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    64. Re:Wrong by Tukz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "read the article..", sorry but what does that mean?
      Do you mean to tell me the summery doesn't show the full picture of this story?

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    65. Re:Wrong by stepho-wrs · · Score: 1

      If you call someone normal they are happy about it.
      If you call someone average they are unhappy about it.
      If you call someone mean they are very unhappy about it.
      if you call someone modal they are either confused or very unhappy about it.

    66. Re:Wrong by repvik · · Score: 1

      It doesn't say that the thousand words are necessarily different from the thousand words contained in the previous picture.

    67. Re:Wrong by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It will now be two people leaving the company!

      In the immediate, yes. However I suspect dozens more will follow them upon realizing that the company endorses firing people via e-mail using a form letter. It's a universally bad sign when a company has streamlined it's firing process to that degree.

      Perhaps you didn't already know this but most companies over 10 people will have a form for terminating people. They'll have a form for hiring people, promoting people, pay rises and what not. You just dont see it because your boss does it all for you.

      I'd be quite concerned if any company didn't have a standardised form for termination, it'll have a long list of things you need to do before that employee leaves the building such as locking his account, collecting company property, keys and security passes as well as client access. Yes amongst this will be a standardised letter informing the now ex-employee his services will no longer be required, why and what his severance package will be. Most companies will use a form letter as it will be phrased to reduce their legal liability (yes, people sue quite often for wrongful termination).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    68. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and then they fired the programmer of the e-mail system for making one too many off-by-one coding errors.

      That message they sent to the 1297 other employees, of course.

    69. Re:Wrong by CProgrammer98 · · Score: 1

      except it wasn't a firing email, it was the normal "As you're leaving us today, remember to hand in your company property, don't tell others about our secret stuff and good luck with the future" kind of admin email for someone who was leaving of their own choice - it just got sent to the entire company making it look like a firing when it was just a normal "dude, you're leaving, here's a final checklist" email

      --
      And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
    70. Re:Wrong by Roger+Lindsjo · · Score: 1

      Who has time to read the whole summary? I can form my opinion from the title alone.

    71. Re:Wrong by Nyder · · Score: 5, Funny

      People don't need an excuse to gripe, just an opportunity.

      God tell me about it? Give anyone a chance and they start bitching about the crap people do, it's so fucked up. Swear to god people just love to bitch about every fucking thing, no one can keep their stupid mouth shut.

      god damn bitchers...

      --
      Be seeing you...
    72. Re:Wrong by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      If he made one too many off-by-one errors, does that mean he didn't make an error at all?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    73. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that arithmetic mean, geometric mean, or harmonic mean?

    74. Re:Wrong by Roujo · · Score: 1

      What if it's just the same thousand words for every picture?

      Heck, what if it's just ONE word, a thousand times?

      What if that word is "picture"?

    75. Re:Wrong by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      if you call someone modal they are either confused or very unhappy about it.

      I call my girlfriend modal since, when she calls or comes by, I have to stop everything else I'm doing until she's finished with me.

    76. Re:Wrong by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      If you're going to be pedantic, then remember that mean, median, and mode are all forms of average. In common usage, average usually means mean, but interpreting it as mode or median is also valid.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    77. Re:Wrong by deadweight · · Score: 1

      So that's why you kept showing up for weeks after being fired!

    78. Re:Wrong by necro81 · · Score: 1

      What is more, who the hell fires someone by email, and kindly asks them to hand over company property before leaving? Do they not care about the massive security risk of a just-fired employee still at their computer with full access? I've always been taught that if you are going to fire someone in this day and age, you lock out all their accounts the night before and haul their computer away, then intercept them when they come in the following morning, if only so you can escort them off the premises.

    79. Re:Wrong by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      You should have seen the emails shooting back and forth when CompUSA was liquidating, just before they took the exchange servers off-line. Boy was that some colorful commentary.

    80. Re:Wrong by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Yes lets fire everyone who has made a mistake.
      Everybody needs to be perfect an never make a mistake, any mistakes will cause termination, and then a stigma will be attached to you so you can never work again. Who cares that that mistake taught you an important lesson and you will never make the same mistake again, who cares about your previous years of excellent service. You made a mistake and now you are fired, doomed to live off of the streets as an outcast, your crime, emailing the company not the individual.
      While most people would be shocked at first after the dust clears most would be laughing at it, the guy who did it would be the butt of some jokes for a while, however no real damage, unless the employees are litigious bastards.
      I really hate it when ever there is a mistake people go, well that guy is going to get fired for doing it. You never made a mistake in your career before? Now those mistakes that were made, how many of them was something that anyone could have made, due to improper management, or insufficient safeguards and poor infrastructure. It is like firing the person for crashing the company car that day they used it, because the breaks failed because the company never maintained the car.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    81. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you get rid of that top 20%, because they're making everyone else look bad.

    82. Re:Wrong by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      The hypocrisy of such individuals is quite appalling.

      --
      -
    83. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true for Wives as well. Thank you for pointing this out so clearly :)

    84. Re:Wrong by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Mel Brooks made one really funny movie, and it wasn't Spaceballs.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    85. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome comment.

    86. Re:Wrong by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Thanks for explaining that, as I'm sure no one else who reads slashdot has ever studied introductory statistics.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    87. Re:Wrong by hexagonc · · Score: 1

      LOL! (I don't use "LOL" unless I really did laugh out loud but this was the funniest comment I've read today.) Sometimes it seems like you guys have these comments queued up!

    88. Re:Wrong by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Bridgekeeper: Huh? I... I don't know that.
      [he is thrown over]
      Bridgekeeper: Auuuuuuuugh.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    89. Re:Wrong by VIPERsssss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which are you forgetting, "Young Frankenstein" or "Blazing Saddles"? Because both of those are fucking funny.

      --
      We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion.
    90. Re:Wrong by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Who has time to read the whole summary? I can form my opinion from the title alone.

      I just know that if it's passed successfully through the rigorous slashdot selection and editing process, it's worth commenting on anyway, it's basically going to be either (a) something about open source being good or (b) something about the government being bad, so the details of the article, summary or even headline are frankly irrelevant.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    91. Re:Wrong by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      In professional firms like lawyers or CPAs the turnover among fee earning staff is normally very high for non-partner material and very low for potential partners. You generally know within three years or so whether someone is going to make it to the top, and if they're not they might as well leave and get promotion/more money by joining another firm.

      Different firms have different cultures, it's not just about your professional expertise or money-making ability, as these are taken as given.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    92. Re:Wrong by dave420 · · Score: 2

      Unless you're firing someone for something illegal, such as being gay or a woman, there are no requirements beyond the notice period, which is usually just paid off to the employee. I don't know what you're smoking, but it seems awesome.

    93. Re:Wrong by operagost · · Score: 1

      And then took the printer outside to exact vengeance, like the "Office Space" shot next to the article.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    94. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they weren't kidding. Check out the very end of the movie.

    95. Re:Wrong by usuallylost · · Score: 1

      I don't think the issue is that they fire people. Rather it is how they fire people. Firing somebody via email is just low in my view. Basically means the company doesn't think enough of their employees to have a reasonable procedure for firing people in place. In my experience companies that think like that when letting people go tend to think like that with all employee interactions. Which is usually a bad sign for your work environment. So if I worked at this company I think I'd be polishing up my resume after this.

    96. Re:Wrong by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      I'm still wondering who would send those 1299 emails...

    97. Re:Wrong by Herr+Brush · · Score: 1

      In population statistics for a large workforce, the mean and median are likely to be the same thing.

    98. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy crap, someone on /. who hasn't seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Now that is news!

    99. Re:Wrong by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      i thought the main reason you invite them into your office to tell them they are fired because you already stripped all their network/computer access, so they would be unable to read the email...and so they can't do anything malicious on the network after finding out they were fired.

    100. Re:Wrong by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Better question - if they consider sending the email to be sufficient notice, do they have to re-hire all the other staff? (After all, if sending email to Bob is sufficient for him to be fired, the other incorrect emails also have to be sufficient.)

      Depending on how much I like my boss, I'd be inquiring about getting my vacation paid out, severence, etc. And then ask for a raise before getting hired back.

    101. Re:Wrong by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Don't forget "Men in Tights"

    102. Re:Wrong by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      I call my girlfriend modal since, when she calls or comes by, I have to stop everything else I'm doing until she's finished with me.
      In that case, shouldn't you call her "horny" ?

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    103. Re:Wrong by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      There are always unproductive employees. It's just at most companies, they are allowed to fly under the radar. Additionally, unproductive can be replaced by 'less productive than replacements expected productivity', to describe a company continually improving its workforce.

      Sigh....
      With ignorance like this, is it any wonder so many businesses flounder and die?
      If you are turning over your workforce to "improve" it, you are doing it wrong. It costs money to recruit, vet, hire, and train new employees. Every time you "improve" your workforce by canning one those employees, you are throwing away that investment. Are there cases where that's an acceptable loss? Of course, but as a standard practice it's just insane. What you should have is a workforce that is selected for and dealt with as a valuable resource. In other words, a good investment, one which is valued and cared for as such.

    104. Re:Wrong by xclr8r · · Score: 1

      Wrong they are resources. [sarcasm]

      --
      Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
    105. Re:Wrong by MattBD · · Score: 1

      I used to work there until September last year, and unless something has changed radically in the meantime, they don't actually fire people using a form letter. When I left they sent me a form email confirming my resignation and linking to an intranet checklist, and it sounds like this was the kind of thing that went out. Believe me, their HR department is far too risk-averse to risk looking bad by firing people by email. Everyone I knew who was let go while working there was given the news by a line manager.

      Agreed on the high turnover rate though, which I can confirm they have, although that's mainly because most of the jobs there are shit. The place was also full of silly management philosophies and bureaucratic nonsense, and it seemed to favour toadying and sycophancy as ways to get ahead. Also, I had to deal with financial advisers, many of whom are very nasty pieces of work.

    106. Re:Wrong by cyberhooligan77 · · Score: 1

      Had the same problem with H.P. & I.B.M. as a networking related provider, each 6 months a different technical person, was in charge of the job.

    107. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is genius. Next time I make contact lists for my company, I am so doing this. Thank you for the advice!

    108. Re:Wrong by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      If only...

      She's a month away from her PhD defense. So it usually involves a lot of binary arithmetic in my head while she rants about academia and black womens'[0] history.

      [0] Okay, how the HELL does one do a plural possessive on an irregular plural like that?!

  2. Tacky by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Those responsible should be sacked!

    1. Re:Tacky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, they have already been informed by mail

    2. Re:Tacky by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      The people responsible for writing email to sacked persons have been sacked.

    3. Re:Tacky by Kyont · · Score: 1

      A moose once bit my sister. No, really!

      --
      You shall see a cow on the roof of a cotton house.
  3. moral of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    have the fucking balls to fire someone in person.

    1. Re:moral of the story by bws111 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nobody was fired. RTFA. It was nothing more than a final note to a person who was leaving the company.

    2. Re:moral of the story by Annirak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair, TFA is titled "Aviva Investors Accidentally Fires Entire Company Via Email [FULL TEXT]." But, TFA links to another article as its source. But that source isn't the origin of the story either. It came from Reuters. Honestly, if you're submitting a story to a news aggregator like Slashdot, take the time to send a link for the ORIGINAL story...

    3. Re:Moral of the story by netsavior · · Score: 1

      Time to change my name to "CEO; allstaff"

      I'll be unfirable

    4. Re:moral of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then you can't pimp your blog that has no content other than a blurb about a story you read in a blog that got it from a blog that got it from a blog that got it from a news site that got it from a blog that got it from a news site that got it from an APwire that threw it together in two minutes and didn't bother fact checking!

    5. Re:Moral of the story by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I worked for a company whose very first paying customer was named Richard Test. Poor Mr. Test had his account deleted by well-meaning and fastidious secretaries several times. (We'd have just renumbered his account if that ID wasn't used in a zillion other systems.)

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:moral of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      information 'encapsulation' on the web has become a plague.

    7. Re:moral of the story by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      Where would be the profit in doing that?

      For the submitter, I mean. Obviously, it would profit Reuters.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    8. Re:Moral of the story by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      or be a doctor with a name of allcome.

    9. Re:moral of the story by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      It's all about the context of the email. Someone who took another position somewhere else would expect the email and think nothing of it. If the same email is sent to someone who isn't expecting it however, they would be likely to assume the worse.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    10. Re:moral of the story by Xtifr · · Score: 2

      Which in turn would remove the excuse so many of us have to not RTFA. And if people started reading TFA, slashdot as we know it would be over!

    11. Re:Moral of the story by gparent · · Score: 1

      That's funny, I worked for that company. Good thing our 2nd customer was named Henry Backup, huh?

    12. Re:Moral of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oblig: http://xkcd.com/327/

    13. Re:Moral of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, my doctor's name is Dr. Moriarity. That probably gets some odd looks when someone's scrolling through a database.

    14. Re:Moral of the story by backwardsposter · · Score: 2

      So his name was Dick Test?

      I'd keep that account around even if I didn't know he was a real person.

    15. Re:moral of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "x is leaving the company". Isn't that how you annonce someone was fired ?

    16. Re:Moral of the story by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 1

      We have students in our system with the last name "Sample". And every year, the Ministry of Education flags their records as "test records" with "invalid data in last name field" and refuses to fund us for them. And every year, we have to re-fax their birth certificates to the Ministry.

    17. Re:moral of the story by unixisc · · Score: 1

      'x is leaving the company' implies that x quit voluntarily, maybe much to the company's disappointment. 'x is no longer w/ the company' implies that x got fired.

  4. Happiness by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

    I am sure the employees were really happy when they heard that they weren't fired after all (well, except the guy who was fired).

    1. Re:Happiness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That would be the worst.

      First email: You're fired!

      Second email: Oops. It was all a mistake. Only one person was supposed to be fired.

      Third email: That person is you.

    2. Re:Happiness by sjames · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was thinking first email: You're fired

      Second emaol: Can someone fix the email?

      Third email: Where is everyone? Can someone please fix the email?

    3. Re:Happiness by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Funny

      That would be the worst.

      First email: You're fired!

      Oh, yah? Well screw you all! I never liked this company and pissed in the coffee daily. And Mr. CEO, I am banging your wife.

      Second email: Oops. It was all a mistake. Only one person was supposed to be fired.

      Uh....

      Third email: That person is you.

      Damn...

    4. Re:Happiness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to mention after first email all the angry employees that replied-to-all cursing the company on their way out the door.
      This was then followed by the well-meaning idiot emails telling people "NOT" to reply-to-all, but decided it was perfectly ok for them to reply-to-all to "educate" the others.
      This series was then followed by other slightly more idiotic people informing the previous well-meaning bunch that they are idiots for replying-to-all with their education rants, of course this second set of morons ALSO replied to all.
      By now, perhaps the IT staff has started to get control of the system and filter out mail and exmerged out as much as they can in an attempt to get control along with installing filters to pickup future messages with similiar subject lines. Problem solved!
      Whoops!, fourth set of idiots take the original mail and changed up the subject line enough to kick off another reply-to-all bedlam storm, followed by another re-hash of the well-meaning idiots reminding them NOT to change the subject line AND to stop replying-to-all...

    5. Re:Happiness by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      I know than can be redundant, but... LOL!

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    6. Re:Happiness by dbaumann · · Score: 1

      This was a weekly occurrence during Girl Scout cookie season at a place I used to work. One secretary would announce worldwide that the sign up for her daughters cookies was at her desk. The resulting email storm took about four hours to calm down.

    7. Re:Happiness by wmbetts · · Score: 1

      Just because he has boobs doesn't make him a girl!

      --
      "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
    8. Re:Happiness by Tukz · · Score: 1

      Third email: That person is now you.

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
  5. Giant Mistake? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    And it was all one giant mistake

    I think it's more like snafu than mistake

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Giant Mistake? by TWX · · Score: 2

      One for the Desk Set...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Giant Mistake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I accidentally the entire company

    3. Re:Giant Mistake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      SNAFU is an apt description for doing anything "legal" via email or via the internet for that matter. Unfortunately it is becoming all too much the "norm" and billions are getting bilked from the systems every year. The free exchange of information is still all this is truly suitable for. Anything digital can be faked, intercepted, etc and after all this time there is no such thing as a "secure server", never has been, never will be, not functioning and connected to the internet at least (just to skip all the "disconnected, slagged, sealed in concrete and sunk to the bottom of the Marianas Trench type lines).

      OK, everybody, ignore the ancient noise above and get back to making money off this stupidity!

    4. Re:Giant Mistake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Situation Normal, All Fucked Up. Well, that's what I was taught it meant. And yes it is a SNAFU if your normal procedure for firing an employee is an e-mail. Man, that's fucked up...like being dumped over AOL Instant Messenger.

      captcha: cunning
      took me like 5 tries to get right....I knew "cumming" was wrong, but fuck those captchas can be hard to read

    5. Re:Giant Mistake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You accidentally what?

    6. Re:Giant Mistake? by TWX · · Score: 5, Funny

      The ENTIRE COMPANY!

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:Giant Mistake? by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was invented by Disney during WW2 to help train soldiers to fight nazis. yes, they were trained by cartoons.

      Snafu was actually Private Snafu, who just fucked up everything he touched. Don't be like Private Snafu.

      It does mean "Situation normal all fucked up"

    8. Re:Giant Mistake? by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was invented by Disney during WW2 to help train soldiers to fight nazis.

      That sounded facinating, but when I went to learn more I found that Wikipedia disagrees with you. It cites several uses of the word prior to the creation of Private Snafu.

      Still, it was interesting to find out about the Disney shorts. I must watch some on Youtube once my boss have left the building!

    9. Re:Giant Mistake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was invented by Disney during WW2 to help train soldiers to fight nazis. yes, they were trained by cartoons.

      Cartoon training or not, we still kicked their asses.

    10. Re:Giant Mistake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's two fuckups I see:

      1) They send letters with legal weight via e-mail and this is accepted. That's just wrong.

      2) They wrote the e-mail so impersonal, without attribution, that 1300 people could mistakenly think they've been let off.

      What a shithole company.

    11. Re:Giant Mistake? by azalin · · Score: 5, Funny

      I must watch some on Youtube once my boss have left the building!

      *bling* "You got mail!"

    12. Re:Giant Mistake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the good news for the email's sender is.. that the boss was one of those 1,300 people!! Dead Man's Shoes!!!!

    13. Re:Giant Mistake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is everyone on slashdot gullible today?

      must be a slow news day so someone felt like they had to make up some lame garbage to give people something to talk about

      you do realize that president obama is actually a woman? right?

      NEWS AT 11... PRESIDENT OBAMA IS A WOMAN...

      NEWS UPDATE... PRESIDENT OBAMA DECLARES A WAR ON A MONTHLY BASIS, BLOODSHED ORIGINATES FROM UNEXPECTED SOURCE...

    14. Re:Giant Mistake? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      like being dumped over AOL Instant Messenger.

      AOL does that still exist? It looks like we Slashdotters are old now. I think the current procedure is to create a facebook group "People who are no longer my spouse" and invite them.

    15. Re:Giant Mistake? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      No no no. That's too much effort. The normal procedure is to now change your relationship status on face book from "In a relationship with " to "Single".

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    16. Re:Giant Mistake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In defense of the idiot who broadcast a private e-mail, the company has employees all over the world, I suspect the one being let go didn't have a local manager.

    17. Re:Giant Mistake? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      The fact that it was a war actually worth fighting probably helped, too.

    18. Re:Giant Mistake? by jodido · · Score: 0

      Gandhi didn't think so. And was it worth fighting to keep Indochina a French colony? Or to keep the KKK in power in the US South? A lot of Afro-Americans didn't think so either.

    19. Re:Giant Mistake? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gandhi's feelings on the matter regardless, WWII was probably the last war that the American public, as a whole, felt was worth fighting.

    20. Re:Giant Mistake? by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Yes, but can you imagine the atmosphere in the office if it could easily be deduced from the email who it was who was really being fired?

      Dear Fred Bloggs, you are being fired for persistent tardiness

      Fred Bloggs walks in 10 minutes late and after the whole office has read the email....

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    21. Re:Giant Mistake? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      captcha: cunning
      took me like 5 tries to get right....I knew "cumming" was wrong, but fuck those captchas can be hard to read

      Especially if you are, in fact, cumming at the time.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re:Giant Mistake? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe Disney would have allowed an abbreviation for "fucked" to be used, even if it was for a noble cause.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re:Giant Mistake? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      I think gtalk absorbed aol's userbase at some point, but you can still login using the old OSCAR client.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    24. Re:Giant Mistake? by operagost · · Score: 1

      It looks like Private Snafu was actually a creation of Chuck Jones at Warner Brothers.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    25. Re:Giant Mistake? by honestmonkey · · Score: 1

      "Fouled" is the PG version.

      --
      Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
    26. Re:Giant Mistake? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I don't know, after 911 everybody pretty much wanted Afghanistan to be a giant hole in the ground.

    27. Re:Giant Mistake? by Herr+Brush · · Score: 2

      Really? The same 911 perpetrated by mostly Saudi's? Starting a war in Afghanistan for harboring Bin Laden is a bit like bombing a neighborhood that won't co-operate with police. I'm sure a SWAT raid that resulted in 20,000 civilian and almost 3,000 friendly casualties would be viewed as an abject failure. That's before you even consider that Bin Laden was eventually killed in Pakistan!!

    28. Re:Giant Mistake? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The point is, when they found that Bin laden was in Afghanistan and being protected by the Taliban, everybody and his dog was ready to start bombing.

    29. Re:Giant Mistake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Korea? (the forgotten war)

    30. Re:Giant Mistake? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      Maybe in your neck of the woods, but around these parts most people didn't believe that any one particular nation was behind the attacks and that a large-scale mobilization of an invasion force was pointless, especially in Afghanistan, the USSR's Vietnam. Later, when Bush went into Iraq, there was a significant number of people here that were against the invasion from day one (I was one of them). I admit, though, that this is a very liberal area (Madison, WI), so it may not necessarily be the norm, but it was a far cry from the historical response to Pearl Harbor and WWII. In my opinion, if they'd even tried to introduce something like the rationing they did for WWII there would have been an uproar, which leads me to believe that support was not nearly as widespread as that at all.

      From what my brother tells me, where he was stationed (Camp LeJeune, NC), the civilians were decidedly more gung-ho for the war, which isn't surprising in a town that pretty much exists solely due to the USMC base and depends on it completely for it's economy. However, the Marines themselves were (privately) much more reserved about things. There were people champing at the bit to get over to Iraq and start shooting people, as there is in any war, I'm sure, but they were the exception, not the rule. Most people just wanted to get their fucking job done and get home alive. There were few that truly believe they were "saving the world" or "fighting terrorists" or "making the world safe for democracy"...most of them didn't feel they belonged in Iraq at all, and this was in the beginning, while being fed a steady diet of propaganda, before body-bags started piling up and opposition to the war back home reached fever pitch. My brother jokingly refers to it as "the effect of the Generation-Y Marine", and apparently, it's something that our military has actually been examining. As he says, "How can you tell a Gen-Y marine? Because they always ask 'Why?' when given an order." Not something that the higher-ups were used to, especially in the USMC...or so he tells me.

      I suppose the propaganda was much more effective in those days when there were only a handful of avenues of information available to people, and the opposition groups to WWII have probably become footnotes of history, but I've yet to hear any vets of any wars since WWII tell me how proud they were of their service like my grandparents did. Half a century later and there was still none of the cynicism in their attitudes regarding it that you hear from our service members coming back from overseas today. They honestly felt they made a positive difference in the world and that the lives laid down towards achieving that goal were worth it. I doubt there are many that would say the same thing about anything they've done in the Middle East over the last 10+ years.

    31. Re:Giant Mistake? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      Even Korea, though, ended in a stalemate. There was no victory there; we pretty much just put tens of thousands of people in the ground and accomplished jack squat. We're still dealing with NK's bullshit today.

      Well, unless you count the fact that the DMZ has become a nature reserve of sorts, due to the fact that humans will get their face shot off if they step foot inside it. Humanity's loss is natures gain, I suppose...

    32. Re:Giant Mistake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I've read, the American Public didn't want to get involved in WWII; the Europeans could just 'fight it out amongst themselves'. There was actually a lot of support for Hitler's policies in certain circles, although how many of them knew, or would have cared much if they did, about the concentration camps is up for debate (although it's fairly certain that a number of IBM administration and employee types did). Which is what led to 'letting' Pearl Harbor happen, as a "sneak attack" against the US itself was about the only thing to get the American Public riled up enough to support entering the war. Which, if nothing else, is supported by the fact that we didn't get involved in the war until after it had been going on for YEARS.

    33. Re:Giant Mistake? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I don't know about this. They were ready to start bombing the remote areas that bin Laden and AQ were set up in: their mountain hideouts, training camps, etc. That doesn't equate to taking over the entire country for a decade. I think people were OK with us providing some help to the "Northern Alliance" so they could go overthrow the Taliban that were running most of the country, but that's been over for many years, so why are we still there? The whole thing should have been a quick operation: bomb AQ's facilities and kill BL, provide a little assistance to the rebels so they could take over, and leave. Instead, it's turned into a giant quagmire.

    34. Re:Giant Mistake? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, there's actually a ton of people still using aol.com email addresses. Why, I have absolutely no clue.

    35. Re:Giant Mistake? by MattBD · · Score: 1

      Actually, as I understand it, this was just a standard "Don't forget to hand in any company property before you leave" email. I actually worked for Aviva for over a decade (including in their previous incarnation as Norwich Union) until I left to take up a different job last year, and when I left I got exactly the same kind of boilerplate email to confirm my resignation.

      From my experience it's not really any worse than any other big company like that, it's just hugely bureaucratic and tiresome to actually ever get anything done there, and they are one of those companies that every few years hire in a new set of consultants who introduce a new cargo cult management philosophy that everyone has shoved down their throats for a couple of years.

    36. Re:Giant Mistake? by randyleepublic · · Score: 0

      Another snow job. We, the west, funded Hitler's rise to power for the express purpose of conquering Russia - the Bolsheviks had reneged on their promise to put in a central bank once they took out the Czar, so they had to be taken out. Only Hitler reneged too. So then we *had* to enter the war. Not to mention that wars are good for *some* businesses. Que Pearl Harbor...

      What a fortunate PR coup that after the war, we found out how depraved Hitler had become. That sealed WWII in as a "good" war. We were such suckers.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    37. Re:Giant Mistake? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Which would explain why Iraq was made into a giant hole in the ground?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    38. Re:Giant Mistake? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Exactly. When 911 happened that's what everyone expected. The Afghan war shouldn't have lasted more than six months. After a ten year quagmire everyone is against it as mucg as they were for it in the beginning.

    39. Re:Giant Mistake? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Iraq was a clusterfuck. We should not have invaded, but Bush wanted revenge on Saddam for trying to kill his dad.

    40. Re:Giant Mistake? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Ah, the outrages sensibilities of the second member of the Bush Dynasty. What a good way to be remembered by history. "The War of Bush's Disgraced Dignity" will go down with the great ones like "The War of Jenkin's Ear".

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  6. I wonder by dakkon1024 · · Score: 5, Funny

    How many "How you really feel" comments went around during this time that people are going to now have to live with.

    1. Re:I wonder by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many people would have the balls to cope with the new knowledge of what people felt about them and cleaned up their act versus the amount of people that got in trouble for mailing how they really felt.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    2. Re:I wonder by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      How many "How you really feel" comments went around during this time that people are going to now have to live with.

      Probably none. People looked at the To: line and noticed that everybody was on there (why would the sender bother to Bcc, if there is only one intended recipient?). And those that didn't notice were reassured by their coworkers: "don't worry, it's a mistake, everyone got that email".

  7. The intended recipient... by Veetox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This should have happened to the United States Congress.

    1. Re:The intended recipient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they'd get even less done.

    2. Re:The intended recipient... by hendridm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amateur politicians still think they can make a difference, and might even try.

    3. Re:The intended recipient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have nothing to do with the Tea Partiers, but I would like to point out that if we did regularly recall under-performing politicians they'd actually have fear of losing their jobs, maybe then we'd see actual work get done in a timely manner.

    4. Re:The intended recipient... by Surt · · Score: 2

      Because the skill that the career politicians have developed is taking money from powerful interests and suckering voters? Who wouldn't want their leadership less competent at that?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:The intended recipient... by mozumder · · Score: 1

      Or, go the other way and install them permanently for life?

      That way they don't have to worry about reelection and kissing corporate interest ass.

    6. Re:The intended recipient... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Experience screwing you over is not exactly a resume builder to me.

    7. Re:The intended recipient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would prefer an amateur thief to a career thief.

    8. Re:The intended recipient... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3

      We thought that in California. It just makes them start looking to their next job that much sooner. The path goes like something this:
      1. City council (maybe county board of supervisors)
      2. Minor statewide elected position (such as Board of Equalization)
      3. Assembly or Senate
      4. Senate or Assembly (whichever one they didn't do in Step 3)
      5. Large city mayor
      6. Congress or political appointment

      They pretty much just bounce around, dragging their incompetence with them. When they stick around in one spot, there's an institutional knowledge that comes with it, which includes knowing that they're going to have to get along with the other people around them for a long time. I'd rather the fiefdoms that come with being in the Assembly or House for 30 years than them constantly trying to make a name for themselves in the current position so they have a better shot at the next position.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    9. Re:The intended recipient... by tomhath · · Score: 2

      The assumption is that career politicians do not represent the constituency. Not a bad assumption IMHO.

    10. Re:The intended recipient... by mozumder · · Score: 0

      That's the problem.

      We socialists want MORE done by government, not less. We're always fighting the Tea Party types that say government should be a minimal thing. We prefer a big government.

      I'll never understand why the Tea Party types want government to be smaller. People that hate government should not be allowed to participate in government.

    11. Re:The intended recipient... by pla · · Score: 0

      You know, I'll never get why Tea Partiers feel replacing career politicians with AMATEUR politicians would be a good thing?

      Because I'll take clueless idealists over seasoned criminals?

      Because, jokes aside, the lot of losers we have now can't even manage to quit the bipartisan bickering long enough to pay to keep the goddamned lights on. We've gone how long without a proper budget? We have long term appropriations expiring left and right because of their incompetence, and we came so close to actually defaulting on the good name of US Debt, the most trustworthy financial instrument the world has ever seen, that we had our rating downgraded.

      Because not everything counts as "better than nothing". I would go so far as to say that not only should we toss the current lot, we should toss them "with prejudice" and ban both the Democratic and Republican parties from even fielding a candidate in a national election for the next 50 years.


      Instead, of course, nothing will change. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go check my food and ammo supplies for the tenth time today.

    12. Re:The intended recipient... by mozumder · · Score: 0

      It works for the screwer.

      If my interests screws your interests, that still works great for me.

    13. Re:The intended recipient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amateur politicians still think they can make a difference, and might even try.

      I don't know about that. We all see the damage professional politicians can do.

    14. Re:The intended recipient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, like the "professional" politicians are any better?

    15. Re:The intended recipient... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      People that hate government should not be allowed to participate in government.

      That would be just fine, as long as the government isn't allowed to interact with those people either.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    16. Re:The intended recipient... by Surt · · Score: 1

      In practice, ruler for life has for some reason turned out to be a frequently abused position.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    17. Re:The intended recipient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you really don't deserve to be alive...I mean, clearly you're a history troll.
      America became great with a small government and has a constitution to keep the government small, idiots like you have trampled our constitution. Do you want to know why a big government is bad? It's very simple and even has a catchphrase: "Show me your papers citizen!" and another: "If you have nothing to hide..."

      Now, GTFO before I have to educate you some more(the education might destroy your ego...which could only be good, but I don't like to make people suffer like you commies do)

      ps, communism is a good idea in theory, yes we should all do things just because they need to be done and its good for the community, but in practice the common people get screwed hard because "absolute power corrupts absolutely" always holds true if there isn't a strong democratic process involved to make sure the community really supports the law. Usually communism just leads to dictatorship or aristocracy where the laws only serve the rich and GASP you can't get rich everyone gets paid the same by the big government regardless of the danger/difficulty or even demand of the job.

      pps, I hate the tea party so don't even try to group me in with them, I'm a nihilist democrat if you must know(you're a troll so there's some good bait for ya)

    18. Re:The intended recipient... by mozumder · · Score: 0

      And yet the few abusers always end up managing to be evicted one way or another.

    19. Re:The intended recipient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, just as long as those people aren't allowed to interact with any of the things built by the government, like roads.

    20. Re:The intended recipient... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Amateur politicians still think they can make a difference, and might even try.

      This country was built by amateur politicians. They left their families and their jobs for only a few weeks at a time and wrote the Constitution, and founded a government that is now the longest-lived government still existing today. I'd say that's a damn sight better than where these "professional" politicians are taking us.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    21. Re:The intended recipient... by Amouth · · Score: 1

      That was on argument i hear for voting for John Edwards when he was looking at running for president.. When a friend an I where discussing it, i pointed out his horrid attendance record, and the fact that he basically got elected and never went to work. My friend used that argument as to why he would be a good president, he wouldn't show up or sign anything and there for couldn't screw us up anymore than what we already where. Sadly i have to agree, that i'd rather the politicians not show up for work than for them to continue this game they are playing.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    22. Re:The intended recipient... by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Um, not all big governments are inherently like that. Some of them do lots of stuff, but generally stay out of the lives of citizens (apart from occasional well-meaning but ultimately failed attempts with things like anti-smacking regulations). The New Zealand government for example provides healthcare, education, social security, law enforcement, and many other services, but it either too lazy or too weak to interfere too much in peoples' lives (exempting, as above, the anti-smacking law change and small things like that). We don't have a "surveillance state" or that silly "papers please" stuff - not all socialist and semi-socialist civilizations are inherently like Nazi Germany like you "small government" zealots would have us believe.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    23. Re:The intended recipient... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      "We prefer a big government." -> Do you prefer big things in general, or only when they're governments? ;-p

      "I'll never understand why the Tea Party types want government to be smaller." -> Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. More power = more corruption, or at least opportunities to be corrupt. It isn't a terribly difficult concept to grasp.

      "People that hate government should not be allowed to participate in government." -> *Claps hands* Wonderous! *More clapping* Glorious. *Wipes tear away from eye* If only we applied that logic elsewhere. People who hate businesses, should not be allowed to participate in them. People who hate music should not be allowed to listen to it. People who hate money shouldn't have any. And so on....

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    24. Re:The intended recipient... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      See, the problem right there, is the word 'politician.' Amateur or not, these aren't the kinds of people you'd really want to leave alone with your kids, especially if they think they're being unwatched.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    25. Re:The intended recipient... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Over the course of several generations, and wars, yes.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    26. Re:The intended recipient... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      "If my interests screws your interests, that still works great for me." -> Until, of course, someone else comes along, and finds that screwing your interests works great for him. We end up with that big, gay dog-pile from South Park, where everyone is screwing everyone else.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    27. Re:The intended recipient... by mozumder · · Score: 0

      Great, so everything works out in the end!

    28. Re:The intended recipient... by FoolishOwl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a socialist, I want state authority to be a direct expression of popular will. A state authority that is not an expression of popular will is not a state authority I want to "do more".

      I'd rather Congress did more, if the "more" is understood to mean things like redistributing wealth through progressive taxation, providing desirable social services, and defending civil liberties. I'd rather it did less, if the "less" is understood to mean things like financing invasions and occupations, concentrating wealth through regressive taxation and subsidies to corporations, and undermining civil liberties.

      The US Congress, in its present form -- i.e., the entire complex of legislators, staff, party functionaries, lobbyists, donors, PACs, and so on -- is so tied to the interests of the 1%, that it's starting to fail to even maintain the illusion of balancing competing social interests. It is not a direct expression of the popular will.

      How to make it a more direct expression of the popular will, or alternately, how to construct a form of government that is, is no small question. But to begin with, I believe it's necessary to avoid the trap of accepting the idea that bigger or smaller government is, in itself, the issue, or even a meaningful question.

    29. Re:The intended recipient... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Kia Ora, actually we *do* have a surveillance state in New Zealand, you just have to be paying attention to notice it. Things like all our ISPs were required to have "Lawful Intercept" equipment installed by the end of 2009. This allows foreign intelligence to see our web traffic in real time.

      Our very own GCSB have been automatically sifting through phone conversations for a long time, looking for suspicious stuff. I know, a person known to me (with contacts in that world) mentioned how his ex-wife and I would discuss political issues like the Invasion of Iraq over the telephone - which was picked up by the phone monitoring system (and I'm not activist, just a regular, relatively pro-Western, Joe).

      Then we are part of Echelon with not one, but two sites on our soil (Waihopai and Tangimoana). While this was originally intended for tracking Soviet communications in the Cold War those days are long over. An assertion has been made that the intercepts are now used by the US for economic espionage, sometimes against NZ businesses (since the US sees all the intercepts and filters what the NZ agencies get to see - so they can withhold any juicy bits they choose).

      This is the routine surveillance. If you are a suspicious character then you can be targeted for further investigation, provided a judge approves (unlikely they would withhold a request).

      Now I'm not saying this surveillance is good, bad, or otherwise. I'm just saying that it is there - even though most kiwis don't know it (it is not like it is advertised as the surveillance gets progressively wider and more comprehensive). Plus, in NZ we don't have anything like a constitution to limit the power of the Crown (actually not the Crown itself, but the local government agencies) over the citizenry. You may scoff at the US but at least they have their protections spelled out, even if they are now ignored (but you would have recourse, at least in theory).

      Ain't life in Godzone grand - one of the secretest and low-key police states of them all. Almost all developed and developing nations are acquiring the mechanisms and technology the average person would only associate with repressive regimes like North Korea or the former East Germany. Time to wake up!

    30. Re:The intended recipient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the long run, we are all dead.

    31. Re:The intended recipient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

      "
      Political experience

      The framers of the Constitution had extensive political experience. By 1787, four-fifths (41 individuals), were or had been members of the Continental Congress. Nearly all of the 55 delegates had experience in colonial and state government, and the majority had held county and local offices.
      "

      Amateurs, you say?

      No, dude. Amateurs are idiots who dress up in colonial costumes, protest not just tax rates but _the very concept of taxation_, and then drive home on roads that taxes built.

      Government is hard and requires skills amateurs do not possess. Professional politicians are by no means perfect--they're just a lot less imperfect than you.

    32. Re:The intended recipient... by samoanbiscuit · · Score: 1

      Yeah, after a lifetime! Electoral cycles are shorter than that.

    33. Re:The intended recipient... by mr100percent · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, this country was built by rich and educated local leaders (elites, if you will), who were the doctors and lawyers of the country. They already had the respect and trust of the population, seeing as they were the aristocracy of the time.

      While many were amateur politicians, the truth was that many had served in local pre-existing legislatures and were sent as senators or ran for higher office.

      Yet more proof that the Tea party crowd has no grasp of actual history (though they have a romanticized fictional version).

    34. Re:The intended recipient... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Things like all our ISPs were required to have "Lawful Intercept" equipment installed by the end of 2009. This allows foreign intelligence to see our web traffic in real time.

      Only when the ISP is ordered to do so by a NZ court. But then, when the US tells NZ to jump, NZ arrests Kim Dotcom and spends millions in court costs an illegal seizures. What ever happened to the "take your nuke ships and park them in your own ports" atittude? Might as well be Australia for all the kowtowing and such.

    35. Re:The intended recipient... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Because I'll take clueless idealists over seasoned criminals?

      Yet the teabaggers are first to bag on Carter, the only clueless idealist to hold the top office in the past 100 years.

    36. Re:The intended recipient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...this country was built by rich and educated local leaders (elites, if you will), who were the doctors and lawyers of the country. They already had the respect and trust of the population...

      There's the problem: no one trusts or respects the doctors or lawyers anymore....

    37. Re:The intended recipient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Congress, in its present form -- i.e., the entire complex of legislators, staff, party functionaries, lobbyists, donors, PACs, and so on -- is so tied to the interests of the 1%, that it's starting to fail to even maintain the illusion of balancing competing social interests. It is not a direct expression of the popular will.

      Supporting the interests of the 1% is fine. The long run interests of the 1% actually are the same as the long run interests of the 99%.

      The problem is when the 1% and their purchased politicians get greedy and optimize their current wealth rather than their 20 years from now wealth, and that of their descendants. Specifically, a well educated, healthy proletariat (the 99%) is necessary for long term growth, which is there the 1% gets their resources. Currently, we're blowing away the 99% for short-run benefits - and hurting the long run 1% without it even being discussed. The 99% don't really understand this either, but the majority of immediate demands from the 99% (health care, free education, etc.) happen to correspond better to growth.

      An interesting pickle we're in.

    38. Re:The intended recipient... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      People who hate the government should move somewhere else. It's usually what states-rights advocates recommend for people who don't like their state's policies - just move to a different state!

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    39. Re:The intended recipient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might have just posted the stupidest comment ever seen on /. Congrats, shill!

    40. Re:The intended recipient... by MLease · · Score: 1

      Because, jokes aside, the lot of losers we have now can't even manage to quit the bipartisan bickering long enough to pay to keep the goddamned lights on. We've gone how long without a proper budget? We have long term appropriations expiring left and right because of their incompetence, and we came so close to actually defaulting on the good name of US Debt, the most trustworthy financial instrument the world has ever seen, that we had our rating downgraded.

      Right. And what faction is it that's throwing sand in the gears and opposing everything that involves spending money (other than on military, of course!)? The "clueless idealist" Tea Baggers! They're not clueless, they're downright insane.

      Because not everything counts as "better than nothing". I would go so far as to say that not only should we toss the current lot, we should toss them "with prejudice" and ban both the Democratic and Republican parties from even fielding a candidate in a national election for the next 50 years.

      A nice thought, but it won't ever happen. The foxes are in charge of the henhouse.

      --
      I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
    41. Re:The intended recipient... by doston · · Score: 1

      "We prefer a big government." -> Do you prefer big things in general, or only when they're governments? ;-p

      "I'll never understand why the Tea Party types want government to be smaller." -> Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. More power = more corruption, or at least opportunities to be corrupt. It isn't a terribly difficult concept to grasp.

      "People that hate government should not be allowed to participate in government." -> *Claps hands* Wonderous! *More clapping* Glorious. *Wipes tear away from eye* If only we applied that logic elsewhere. People who hate businesses, should not be allowed to participate in them. People who hate music should not be allowed to listen to it. People who hate money shouldn't have any. And so on....

      Small governments can be powerful. Slashdotters in general just resent the oversimplification. Big=bad, Small=good. The truth is, behind any "powerful" government, is the ability to back it up with force. I don't see any of these Teabaggers pushing for a smaller military or police. What the Teabaggers are really going for (whether they understand this or not) is a government that doesn't regulate corporations. To them, small government = nothing for the end user and everything for the people paying off the ministers of the government (corporations). The one thing power understands in the end, is violence. Do you get it????

    42. Re:The intended recipient... by gangien · · Score: 1

      As a socialist, I want state authority to be a direct expression of popular will. A state authority that is not an expression of popular will is not a state authority I want to "do more".

      Which is the same as mob rule. which is exactly the opposite of the ideals that the US was founded upon, that we are all free.

    43. Re:The intended recipient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather that they start with your income and redistribute it first, working their way through your family and friends tree. Then branching out into other parts of your particular organizations and such.
      Ask me if I want more services, the answer is NO .
      You want to redistribute others income? Please start with your income first.

  8. Didn't they put the person's name on it? by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's pretty cold to send a termination email and not bother including their name in the message.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? by waynemcdougall · · Score: 5, Funny

      They did, but he had recently changed his name to Robert; staff; management; everyone; Tables

      --
      Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
    2. Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? by JoeCommodore · · Score: 1

      ahh, little bobby tables had a job!

      --
      "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
    3. Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? by skine · · Score: 2

      Not anymore.

    4. Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Tables can get fired? Sheesh. ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    5. Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? by El_Oscuro · · Score: 2

      Apparently dropped himself.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    6. Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2

      It depends. Metal tables can't, wooden tables are quite flammable.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    7. Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? by crazyvas · · Score: 1

      The parent was making a reference to this: http://xkcd.com/327/

    8. Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I'm upset they didn't give the name of the person fired. I've seen more than one message to "Al" making its way to everyone in the company, thanks to Exchange/Outlook auto-complete.

    9. Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Wooooooooosh! I know that already. I was joking about tables getting fired. ;)

      Do chairs get fired too? I guess they do with Steve Ballmer's throwing them. ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    10. Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? by felipekk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, too many injections and bam!;-- DROP dead.

    11. Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      That's pretty cold to send a termination email and not bother including their name in the message.

      Better yet, how about a human being giving the bad news?

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    12. Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Hey, you forgot to call me a fascist - are you feeling OK?

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    13. Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Oh, did you need a reminder, you fascist?

    14. Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      That sounds more like the AK Marc I remember. Now you just need to make up a reason for using that label.

      And here I was wondering if your account was compromised. I guess I need worry no longer.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    15. Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nope, you must have just stopped your fascist ways.

    16. Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Nope, you must have just stopped your fascist ways.

      Nope, that's not it. The same things you called me a fascist for before, I still do in the same way. And I rather doubt you've changed your beliefs on them.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    17. Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You speak like I recognize you. I don't. I have no idea what fascism you were pushing before, but it must have been deserved.

  9. Moral of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Never hire an employee named "allstaff".

  10. New Email System by GeneralSecretary · · Score: 2

    Their new email system will now redirect termination emails sent to all employees back to the sender.

  11. Not Fired, but Start Looking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If an employer said to me: "Congratulations! You haven't been fired."

    (which is effectively what Aviva Investors has done)

    I'd be relieved for a few moments before I started looking for a new job. A fuckup on this scale deserves employee desertion on the same scale.

    1. Re:Not Fired, but Start Looking by lightknight · · Score: 2

      Bah. In any large organization, there is bound to be one person who doesn't understand the 'Reply to All' button, no matter how many Sunday afternoons you have put aside to teach them the basics of emailing. Said person should be fired (and the IT department, no doubt, would cheer you on as you did it).

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    2. Re:Not Fired, but Start Looking by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Bah. In any large organization, there is bound to be one person who doesn't understand the 'Reply to All' button, no matter how many Sunday afternoons you have put aside to teach them the basics of emailing. Said person should be fired

      hehe, maybe that's what happened.

      Seriously, you'd be astonished about how little people know about e-mail in some industries. Run-on lines, messed up quoting, huge signatures: September indeed never ended, it now continues in the corporate world! Nowadays, you can call yourself happy if you find one person who does know about emailing.

    3. Re:Not Fired, but Start Looking by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Or just mishits because they're angry, I had one colleague at a former workplace who was replying to a friend making his goodbyes and wrote a rather fiery mail on how unhappy he was with things himself and might soon join him. Except he hit "Reply to all" instead of "Reply", fortunately he's the kind of guy that can bounce that off but that was a 9.5/10 on the email screw-up scale. I'll reserve a perfect ten for broadcasting highly intimate personal details, which fortunately I haven't seen yet. There's such a thing as too much information....

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Not Fired, but Start Looking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have always wondered why e-mail programs don't have a possibility for limiting the use of "reply to all".
      Things like removing it from the toolbar (so it is only available from a menu), adding an extra confirmation dialogue "do you really want that",
      limiting the number of recipients it will accept, etc.

  12. asshats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps this will show (well, probably not), that firing someone by email is for fucking pussies. If you are a manager or supervisor have the Balls (or guts ladies) to say to my face that I'm fired and why. If you can't then you don't deserve your position.

    as it stands the person who sent the email should be fired for being a) a fucking pussy b) a goddamned idiot who sent it to everyone and c) well make something up here.....

  13. C'mon Slashdot.. by Severus+Snape · · Score: 2

    keep up. This is days old.

    1. Re:C'mon Slashdot.. by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Sorry... They were busy on dice.com...

    2. Re:C'mon Slashdot.. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      So why didn't you submit it?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  14. Alli? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet they use exchange and the guys name was "Alli Staffa".

  15. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    The person wasn't fired. It seems to be a typical "last day" e-mail given to anyone leaving voluntarily.

  16. Not the first time by bakes · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is not the first time that Alan 'Call me Al' Staff has caused this problem.

    --
    Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
    1. Re:Not the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HR: I'm sorry Mr. Shole, our username policy is first initial followed by last name. Unfortunately, Arnold Shole already has that user name. Our next step is to use your middle initial. What is your middle name?

      Alan Shole: Steven.

  17. Time to Man Up by Rary · · Score: 0

    Next time, have the balls (and decency) to look the guy in the eye when you fire him, and shit like this won't happen.

    --

    "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    1. Re:Time to Man Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time, have the balls (and decency) to RTFA!

      This was an email sent to someone who chose to leave the comapny wihing him luck in the future. It was accidentally sent to everyone.

  18. Is anyone surprised ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is anyone surprised considering the dweebs who tend to be in HR these days ?

    1. Re:Is anyone surprised ?? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      As I watch the rest of humanity fight back against technology like it's Attila the Hun banging at their city-gates, no.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  19. Mod 'Funny' - it's posted AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seriously.

  20. Some mistakes can come back and haunt by WiiVault · · Score: 1

    I imagine the person who sent the email will be getting their own personalized copy very soon.

  21. HR Departments by owlnation · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Human Resource Departments: the single biggest brake on the World's economy. The reason for the lack of productivity, innovation and creativity in most large enterprises.

    It's a job that nobody with a brain ever wanted to do. Actually, it's a job that nobody ever wanted to do. Nobody ever grows up wanting to work in HR. The only people who do work in HR, are those who have failed. And they bear a grudge.

    Which explains why their inhumanity creates situations like this one, and so many similar situations. With the technology currently available, real managers can manage. HR staff need to be fired. All of them, everywhere. The world never really needed them in the first place, but there's no justification for having them now.

    The first corporation that has the insight to fire all its HR people will wipe the floor with its competition within 5 years. They will have all the advantages of a small business, mixed with the power of a corporation. And they will have MUCH happier, more productive, employees.

    1. Re:HR Departments by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The first corporation that has the insight to fire all its HR people will wipe the floor with its competition within 5 years. They will have all the advantages of a small business, mixed with the power of a corporation. And they will have MUCH happier, more productive, employees.

      I agree, until of course, someone critical leaves and they discover "Opps, we didn't have a non-compete or even a non-solicit signed by them." Or "We're being sued because some manager violated a bunch of employment laws during the hiring process." That person we just hired as a driver? It would have been nice to know he had six DUIs before we gave him the keys to one of out trucks.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:HR Departments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first corporation that has the insight to fire all its HR people will wipe the floor with its competition within 5 years. They will have all the advantages of a small business, mixed with the power of a corporation. And they will have MUCH happier, more productive, employees.

      So, Valve then?

    3. Re:HR Departments by Tom · · Score: 1

      Human Resource Departments: the single biggest brake on the World's economy. The reason for the lack of productivity, innovation and creativity in most large enterprises.

      Like all simplifications, this is not entirely true. I've worked with (actually, against as per my job description) HR for many years. While there are fuckups and lots of nonsense, at least in my former company most of the actual people working there enjoyed their work and wanted to do things.

      You seem to think that HR is only for hiring and firing people, but it isn't. Our HR department, for example, also had the oversight over training programs, employee benefits of all kinds and other stuff that's basically "maintainance", if you want an engineering term.

      The only people who do work in HR, are those who have failed. And they bear a grudge.

      I think the one bearing a grudge here is you. Had a couple bad experiences with HR, I take?

      I'm going to say the same to you that I like to say to republicans and other idiots who think that "less government" is the solution: It's not quantity, it's quality. We don't need less government, we need better government. And we don't need less HR, but better HR.

      Now on the next detail level, in some countries, companies or even parts of those, that can very well mean less. "better" does not automatically mean "more", just as it doesn't automatically mean "less".

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:HR Departments by lurker1997 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for this. I feel exactly the same way but could never have put it as well.

    5. Re:HR Departments by archen · · Score: 1

      I was thinking something along those lines. Then I realized that HR is only a symptom of the real problem: Lawyers. HR doesn't cause the inefficiency, lawyers necessitate the need for HR which is another inefficiency.

  22. I'm not kidding, boss by PPH · · Score: 1

    I really did just change my name to Majordomo.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  23. In some jurisdictions, this would be a no no.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Article doesn't say where the actual terminated individual resides, but I know that in some parts of the world, firing somebody via email could be construed as unnecessarily harsh, and end up putting the company squarely in line for a wrongful dismissal charge against them.

  24. Didn't offend anyone though ... by Kittenman · · Score: 1

    Ftfa ..

    "An email which was intended for a member of staff who was leaving today was accidentally sent to all Aviva Investors staff worldwide," said Paul Lockstone, a spokesperson for Aviva.

    Lockstone said that Aviva's quick actions to correct the issue ensured that no employees were truly offended.

    "People were pretty quickly aware of the fact that this was a mistake," Lockstone said. "I don't believe any of our staff would have seen it really as anything other than the mistake that it was."

    No employees truly offended? What planet is this man on?

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Didn't offend anyone though ... by WillHirsch · · Score: 2

      No employees truly offended? What planet is this man on?

      Maybe one with employees of asset management firms who expect writing to be consistent with context, and would realise from this that something was wrong with the email? Or at least ones who would spot the subject line of the next email in their inbox which I presume went along the line of "OOPSIES!"

  25. Re:In some jurisdictions, this would be a no no... by bws111 · · Score: 1

    The thing is, nowhere does it say that anyone was actually fired. The excerpts that are quoted don't say anything about dismissal, termination, firing, etc. All of the quoted things look like perfectly normal things that would be said to a person who was leaving the company voluntarily - don't forget your obligations, turn in company property, thanks for your service, best wishes, etc.

  26. Read TFA by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    I know it's against SOP on /., but he/she was fired, he/she was just leaving the company that day. I'd complain about an incorrect summary, but how useful would that be.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  27. Sounds like a RomneyMail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Downsizing is SOO easy in the 21st century.

  28. Secretly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They did it for the lulz.

  29. [RECALL] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were there also 1300 emails stating [RECALL] in attempt to hide their mistake?

  30. happens all the time by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was an administrator for a medium size tech company in the early nineties, and we got this all the time. The problem was not with the technically inept, but with the engineers, who would commonly send emails with:

    mail -s "some subject line text" user_name (left_arrow) textfile

    ...and leave off the double quotes, so that each word in the subject line was treated as a recipient. If one of those words was the name of the company or the name of any of several cities, or any one of a number of other common key words, (like "engineering") the mail would be propagated to an audience much larger than intended. You haven't lived until you've been directed to scrub several thousand copies of someone's negative performance review from a number of servers at 11:00 at night.

    This was the same company that had a homegrown script to delete a user from the system. (Not written, maintained or owned by my team, I hasten to say.) The script had inadequate error checking, and if an operator hit carriage return without entering a user name, the script would delete the entire home directory structure on several machines. It kept us busy.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:happens all the time by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      he script had inadequate error checking, and if an operator hit carriage return without entering a user name, the script would delete the entire home directory structure on several machines. It kept us busy.

      Hilarious.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:happens all the time by buglista · · Score: 1
      We had a similar incident when some poor bloke sent his CV to foobar@barfoo.co,uk - note the comma instead of a full stop. Turns out "uk" expanded to our UK employees and the other part got discarded as undeliverable.

      Lessons are I guess: don't send CVs from your work email, and don't have email aliases which are close to elements of email addresses.

    3. Re:happens all the time by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > don't have email aliases which are close to elements of email addresses

      ...or are common words like "operators". When we set up mail alias files in the old days, it *seemed* like a good idea. It wasn't.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  31. no HR does not = no driver or other checks by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    no HR does not = no driver or other checks.

    It's the manager / team lead who should be doing the hiring / firing. And some HR stuff can be done by the back office or having HR not control hiring

    1. Re:no HR does not = no driver or other checks by Teancum · · Score: 1

      There is a role that "Human Resources" could play in a well run company, but I'd have to agree that the hiring/firing ought to be done by the direct managers rather than going through some "HR specialist". Back in times of old what is called "Human Resoruces" was simply called "Payroll Office" that dealt with paperwork and other things necessary between existing employees, the company, and the government.

      Sadly, my experience in dealing with a typical "Human Resources" department even on that level tended to border on incompetence or at least indifference. Missing a paycheck? Sorry.... you'll have to wait until the next pay period. Screwups with a 401(k) program? Here is the "800 number" to work it out..... and other similar kinds of responses.

    2. Re:no HR does not = no driver or other checks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back office == fail.

  32. Whole_Company email by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the time my company decided that the annual bonus plan wasn't going to be given out that year, for some goofball reasons. Most teams were carefully maginalized to keep them from qualifying for bonus anyway, but there were some people left who had been counting on it.

    And they knew about the open whole_company email distribution list address. It had no filters and nothing to block external emails.

    So naturally, as soon as the bonus was cancelled, disposable email accounts popped up across the web and began firing a bitch barrage broadside into the open whole_company email distro list. Gripe after gripe went on for several hours in the middle of the night. Much fun was had by all who ready that stuff. Even the IT people enjoyed it even as they had to reluctantly block the address from further use.

    We did get a new bonus plan after that, so perhaps the complaints worked. Shrug.

    Management loves announcing bonus plans and performance incentives but hates hates hates paying them. It ends up not being much of an incentive if you know they're handing you five bucks they'd openly rather spend on a rope to wring your neck because the company didn't outdo Apple this year.

    --
    Sig for hire.
  33. A møøse once bit my sister by Dogbertius · · Score: 1

    The directors of the firm hired to continue the credits after the other people had been sacked, wish it to be known that they have just been sacked.

  34. I got fired by mistake once by istartedi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It happened when I was in support. I couldn't clock in. A told the manager about it and she was like, "maybe you got fired". We both had a good laugh about it because we were all on good terms. No mass layoffs were expected, this was the go-go 90s. Next day--still can't clock in. Manager is more serious. "I'll have to look into this". Sure enough, somebody fat-fingered me off the payroll.

    It was actually a good thing--I got paid for my accumulated vacation hours. They couldn't figure out how to charge them back to vacation. They "re-hired" me and I got money. The vacation hours started accumulating from zero; but I had just taken a few days so I didn't mind saving up again. The money came in handy.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:I got fired by mistake once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It happened to me when they closed down a facility and laid off a whole bunch of tech support and sales folks. They included me in the termination process, and paid a severance of almost a half year's pay -- this was a mid '90s California salary mind you. They recognized their mistake and kept me on, but I got to keep the cash. Good thing, because by 2001 the whole scenario melted down and when _everybody_ got let go, they didn't pay out like that anymore...

  35. Upsetting.. by greywire · · Score: 1

    this must have been pretty upsetting for everybody who erroneously got the message (I have to wonder how many people actually got to the point of turning all their stuff in and walking out the door before the error was corrected..).

    But the ultimate humility would be for that one person who was the intended recipient of that email. Because you know, the first thing that will happen is the news spreads around that it was all a big mistake, so that one person probably sighs in relief. And then shortly later that person finds out that they really were getting fired. Furthermore, probably everybody in the whole company will know who that person is now, where if he had been fired correctly the first time it probably would have been pretty low key and no big deal.

    In fact I wouldn't be surprised if this one person could suffer from emotional damage as a result of all this.

    --
    -- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
    1. Re:Upsetting.. by germansausage · · Score: 1

      your spellchecker accidentally replaced humiliation with humility just before you posted.

  36. On to plan B. by unreadepitaph · · Score: 1

    Dom Portwood: So, uh, Milton has been let go?
    Bob Slydell: Well, just a second there, professor. We, uh, we fixed the *glitch*. So he won't be receiving a paycheck anymore, so it'll just work itself out naturally.
    Bob Porter: We always like to avoid confrontation, whenever possible. Problem is solved from your end.

    --
    My internetting is no good.
    1. Re:On to plan B. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I burn the building down.

  37. found the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The person being fired was named "Alan Li" but unfortunately the email address was typed in as "ALL@" instead of "ALI@"

    Whoops

  38. Miss-click by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    Another possibility was that the sender was using the directory and the "allstaff" mailing list was just above or just below the one wanted. The sender could have clicked a bit off and selected the wrong address, not notice it and sent the email. It is not hard to do and is a rather simple mistake with no real consequences other than a few minutes uproar when people read their email.

    By the way, as others have reported no one was fired by email. The email was sent to remind an employee that was already leaving what needed to be done on the last day of employment. Maybe people should read more than a summary before jumping to conclusions.

    1. Re:Miss-click by hey_popey · · Score: 1

      Moreover, in several European countries, you simply cannot fire someone by email; you need to summon them for a preliminary interview first, etc.

  39. Who fires by email? by natetron · · Score: 1

    Is that a thing ?

  40. Epic trolling moment by Arancaytar · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Haha! You're fired!"

    *sadface*

    "Oh, sorry, we sent that email to everyone by mistake."

    - :D

    "Whoops, never mind, you're the one employee we actually intended to fire."

    - ...

  41. The second snafu... by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Funny

    The second snafu is when 500 of those people did a Reply-All saying "sod off wankers!"

  42. Fired by E-Mail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of company fires people by e-mail? Uh, low, disgusting & inhuman! If i were an employee there, I'd really try to find another job.

    1. Re:Fired by E-Mail? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      What kind of company fires people by e-mail? Uh, low, disgusting & inhuman! If i were an employee there, I'd really try to find another job.

      Those who don't use text messages

  43. Honest mistake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I'd never hire Sam Alluser in the first place.

  44. but great numbers! by khipu · · Score: 1

    Revenue and profit per employee went through the roof, though!

  45. Doesn't surprise me too much by jimicus · · Score: 1

    I used to work for a different subsidiary of Aviva - it was long enough ago that I think I can speak fairly freely.

    Like most huge companies (and Aviva are absolutely mahoosive - 1,300 people would make this just one small subsidiary), each division operates with varying degrees of independence - and varying degrees of competence.

    My guess is that they meant to send this to somebody called Alison or Alex or something, but instead sent it to all@.... Usually you'd limit who can send to that particular mailing list, enforce some sort of filter to prevent email going out that hasn't been moderated and/or give it a slightly different (and harder to mix-up) alias.

  46. oooooops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so people would blame auto-completion of the email addresses
    XDD

  47. whoosh yourself, smug ass by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Average can mean any of median, mode, or mean (geometric, harmonic, arithmetic).

    If you want to be precise and unambiguous, don't use the word.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:whoosh yourself, smug ass by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      That's why I usually just say 'measures of central tendency.' Precision ambiguity.

  48. requirements by Tom · · Score: 1

    One advantage of the legal requirement in my country that you can only fire in writing (which means paper, e-mail doesn't legally count as "writing"). It's much less likely that you send out, say, 1300 termination letters, you know with post stamps and all, without noticing that something is wrong.

    Sometimes, those regulations are quite useful.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  49. Unlikely... by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2
    If he was banging the CEO's wife, he'd almost certainly know too much to be fired. In China or Texas he might be "terminated", but in the civilised world the CEO would probably reason thus:

    OK, he's banging my wife but:
    I know he's doing it and
    She can't complain about me banging my PA
    And he'll do what he's told...all in all, a win/win situation.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  50. Easy mistake to make. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all the employee's name was Ali Staf.

  51. Damn You, Autocorrect! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    That's what they get for sending a termination email from an iPad.

  52. I call shenanigans by ApepUK · · Score: 2

    The final line.... 'I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and wish you all the best for the future' ...seems to suggest that it wasn't supposed to be aimed at one person at all. Who would address a single person and say that?

    1. Re:I call shenanigans by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Quite a common phrase. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/all_the_best

    2. Re:I call shenanigans by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 1

      Unless you are a hilly-billy / Southern States American, that sentence is parsed "wish you" "all the best", and not "wish y'all" "the best". :)

  53. it could be you by queBurro · · Score: 1

    imagine receiving that mail, realising *everyone* had received it, calming down, laughing and then watching a new email arrive addressed only to you

    --
    sag
  54. Aviva is a joke name, surely by niks42 · · Score: 1

    When they rebranded Norwich Union, I always wondered how the marketing guys came up with Aviva.

    How are we going to come up with a new name? uh ... dunno ... what was the make of your first car? A Viva. Well, there you go.

    Just think, it could have been AnEscort, or AFiat.

    1. Re:Aviva is a joke name, surely by MattBD · · Score: 1

      As a former Aviva employee, I actually recall seeing on the company intranet how it came about. It was in about 2002, after the merger between CGU and Norwich Union was completed, and at the time the group was called CGNU, but that was only ever a temporary name, and they had apparently hired some marketing agency to come up with the name. Apparently it was chosen because of the connotations with vitality, activity and health. From then on it was known as Aviva on the stock market, but they continued to use the Norwich Union brand until 2009.

  55. To sum up.... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Ousta la Aviva, baby.

  56. I sense... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

  57. If it was an IBM employee by maple_shaft · · Score: 1

    ... he would have gotten a big promotion for increasing shareholder value!

  58. Damn you automatic name resolution! by halligas · · Score: 1

    The perils of hiring (and needing to fire) a guy named Joe Allusers.

  59. Send All strikes again by YetAnotherBob · · Score: 1

    Gotta love the horrible mistakes that the little 'send all' button on Outlook causes.

    In my last job, we got an email about once a month from the IT group telling us to never NEVER use that button. But, there was always t embarrassment. This however, is classic. It was done in a Tracy Hepburn movie once. Classic.

    --
    Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
  60. I wonder if somebody yelled "Golden parachute!" by madhi19 · · Score: 1

    Then followed it by "Let go celebrate our freedom!!" Because let face it if you work for a place that fire via Email you work at a shit place and secretly wish to get fired so you can get the hell out of your contract!

  61. Calm down... by MattBD · · Score: 1

    As a former Aviva employee who left to take up a new job last year and has seen their dismissal and resignation procedures in action (I suppose it's conceivable they might have changed since I left in September, but I seriously doubt it), I call shenanigans on this.

    The company as a whole is so ridiculously risk-averse and keen on trying to present itself well that there is no way on Earth anyone would have been fired by email like that. Every time someone was lef go they were given the news in person by a line manager.

    From reading the article, it sounds like the email that went out was actually a standard "Don't forget to return any company property" thing that goes out to someone who already knows that they are leaving. I have a very similar email from when I left.

  62. What is the Personnel Department now called HR ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Cos its inhabitants spell HR wrong less often.