Cancel Comcast and They'll Cancel Your Job!

[BvBPL]

Guy attempts to use his connections with his own employer to obtain leverage on his private vendor.

This backfires on him.

Boo hoo.

 

[Zelig]

Guy attempts to use his connections with his own employer to obtain leverage on his private vendor.

Is there any evidence of that? From what I've seen this angle looks completely made up by Comcast at the time.

 

[BvBPL]

The article you linked to quotes O'Rourke stating that he used his professional connections to place pressure on Comcast.

 

[Commodore]

Guy attempts to use his connections with his own employer to obtain leverage on his private vendor.

This backfires on him.

Boo hoo.

So if this is all this guy's fault as you seem to imply why did Comcast feel the need to apologize? People, especially corporate types, don't make a habit of apologizing when they feel they haven't done anything wrong.

Earlier this week, we tipped our hat in awe at Comcast’s ability to deliver customer service that was so bad that it literally ended up ruining a man’s career. Now, Comcast has come out and publicly apologized to the man for the trouble he’s gone through, although the company insists that no one at Comcast told his employer he should be fired.

In its public apology issued Wednesday, Comcast says that it “simply dropped the ball and did not make things right” with O’Rourke’s complaints while vowing “to get to the bottom of exactly what happened with his service, figure out what went wrong at every point along the way, and fix any underlying issues.” Again, though, Comcast reiterated that no one at the company ever called for O’Rourke’s firing

So while they are trying to save face by not admitting they specifically demanded he be fired, they obviously acknowledge they did something wrong and unethical in this situation.

Link

 

[Zelig]

The article you linked to quotes O'Rourke stating that he used his professional connections to place pressure on Comcast.

Where?

 

[BvBPL]

So if this is all this guy's fault as you seem to imply why did Comcast feel the need to apologize?

That's easy to put to rest: Comcast is also at fault here.

Where?

Last paragraph of the article you posted.

"'You have sloppy accounting, you don't take anything seriously, and I should go to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.' That's the regulator that makes sure that accounting is done properly. I think that some of my terminology would have indicated that I wasn't a layman."

He brought his profession into it.

 

[Samson]

That's easy to put to rest: Comcast is also at fault here.




Last paragraph of the article you posted.

"'You have sloppy accounting, you don't take anything seriously, and I should go to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.' That's the regulator that makes sure that accounting is done properly. I think that some of my terminology would have indicated that I wasn't a layman."

He brought his profession into it.

That looks like using his professional knowledge (as in the name of correct board to send such accounting errors to) not his professional contacts.

 

[Zelig]

Last paragraph of the article you posted.

"'You have sloppy accounting, you don't take anything seriously, and I should go to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.' That's the regulator that makes sure that accounting is done properly. I think that some of my terminology would have indicated that I wasn't a layman."

He brought his profession into it.

Yeah, what Samson said - I'd say the same thing as O'Rourke given the circumstances, there's no indication of using any of his professional contacts. And half of what you quoted was just the quote to Ars, what he said to Comcast was just the "'You have sloppy accounting, you don't take anything seriously, and I should go to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board." part.

(Also that paragraph is in the middle of the article, presumably only last paragraph if you're only reading the first page.)

 

[Commodore]

That's easy to put to rest: Comcast is also at fault here.




Last paragraph of the article you posted.

"'You have sloppy accounting, you don't take anything seriously, and I should go to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.' That's the regulator that makes sure that accounting is done properly. I think that some of my terminology would have indicated that I wasn't a layman."

He brought his profession into it.

How is using his professional knowledge attempting to "use his connections with his own employer to obtain leverage on his private vendor"?

 

[BvBPL]

First off, Comcast disputes O’Rourke’s claim that he never presented himself as a PWC employee. You may think that Comcast is a jerk company with jerk business practices, but Comcast’s jerk business practices do not imply that they would fabricate the claim that O’Rourke said he was a PWC employee. The obverse, that Comcast picked one irate customer and said “hey how can we put pressure on him” and researched, apropos of only his customer service complaint, his employment is patently absurd.

Furthermore, it is quite likely that O’Rourke voluntarily released his employment information to Comcast prior to this situation coming to a head. If O’Rourke gave Comcast his PWC email or phone number? Did O’Rourke inform Comcast that PWC was his employer when he signed up with the cable company? Quite likely.

So on some level this is a “he said, she said” situation and I don’t see many reasons to believe O’Rourke over Comcast.

That aside, even if we accept ad argumentum that O’Rourke never released to Comcast the name of his employer, O’Rourke, by invoking the PCAOB violated his professional and employer’s code of ethics.

Consider the number of alternative forms of redress O’Rourke could have used. He could have called his AG or the BBB. He could have raised the issue with his township responsible for awarding the cable contract. He could have switched his vendor (which he eventually did). Any of those actions would not have implicated his own professional conduct.

What he instead did was threaten go to the PCAOB. He invoked an organization that he, at least tangentially, works with at PWC. He mentioned the ONE ORGANIZATION that might possible incur a professional conflict of interest between himself and his vendor. Given the number of PWC clients that fall under the purview of the PCAOB, he should have known that there was the potential of a conflict of interest here.

As it turns out there was a conflict of interest.

See also Rule 3520.

 

[Zelig]

First off, Comcast disputes O’Rourke’s claim that he never presented himself as a PWC employee.

Where?

You may think that Comcast is a jerk company with jerk business practices, but Comcast’s jerk
business practices do not imply that they would fabricate the claim that O’Rourke said he was a PWC employee.

Doesn't imply "they" (i.e., whatever individual employee at Comcast) wouldn't, either.

The obverse, that Comcast picked one irate customer and said “hey how can we put pressure on him” and researched, apropos of only his customer service complaint, his employment is patently absurd.

There were many customer service complaints. The contact to PWC only happened after he complained to a controller at Comcast.

Furthermore, it is quite likely that O’Rourke voluntarily released his employment information to Comcast prior to this situation coming to a head. If O’Rourke gave Comcast his PWC email or phone number? Did O’Rourke inform Comcast that PWC was his employer when he signed up with the cable company? Quite likely.

Why would that be likely? None of my utility providers have any idea who my employer is or what my work email is.

So on some level this is a “he said, she said” situation and I don’t see many reasons to believe O’Rourke over Comcast.

I don't see many reasons to believe Comcast over O'Rourke.

That aside, even if we accept ad argumentum that O’Rourke never released to Comcast the name of his employer, O’Rourke, by invoking the PCAOB violated his professional and employer’s code of ethics.

Source?


Snopes covers it pretty well, as usual: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/comcast.asp

"What is clear from statements given by Comcast, PwC, and O'Rourke is that O'Rourke was indeed terminated from his position at PricewaterhouseCoopers on 18 February 2014. However, the precise reason for his termination and an accounting of just what transpired between Comcast and O'Rourke's former employer have not been disclosed by anyone privy to that information. "

 

[BvBPL]

Where?

In Comcast’s response letter to O’Rourke’s lawyer.

Why would that be likely?

Because this is information that people frequently give to business with whom they transact for a variety of reasons.

Source?

PCAOB, AICPA, and PWC’s various codes of conduct and ethics. For example, PCAOB’s rule 3520 and AICPA’s rule § 102 .04 102-3.


Those codes deal with the professional conduct and the independence of auditors. When a client’s auditor or the auditor’s actor threatens a client with action by an oversight board to resolve a private affair the actor’s conduct is decidedly not professional and raise material questions of independence.

 

[Commodore]

Because this is information that people frequently give to business with whom they transact for a variety of reasons.

I disagree with this assertion. I, nor anyone I associate with has ever had to give out their employer information to a utility company or any other similar entity. Even when I had Comcast years ago, they never asked for my employer information. The only time I have been asked for my employer information is when I have applied for any kind of credit, whether a credit card or a loan. So you are going to have to provide some sort of evidence that this is a common business practice outside of trying to obtain some sort of credit.

 

[Zelig]

In Comcast’s response letter to O’Rourke’s lawyer.

Thanks.

Because this is information that people frequently give to business with whom they transact for a variety of reasons.

Not with an ISP. I can't think of any good reason for an ISP to know the employer of any of its subscribers. At the very worst, this still isn't likely.

PCAOB, AICPA, and PWC’s various codes of conduct and ethics. For example, PCAOB’s rule 3520 and AICPA’s rule § 102 .04 102-3.

Not seeing anything that's specifically/necessarily applicable in either the PCAOB or AICPA links your provided.

Those codes deal with the professional conduct and the independence of auditors. When a client’s auditor or the auditor’s actor threatens a client with action by an oversight board to resolve a private affair the actor’s conduct is decidedly not professional and raise material questions of independence.

He should send them an invoice for professional services rendered. (And/or fire his lawyer if that's the case.)

I disagree with this assertion. I, nor anyone I associate with has ever had to give out their employer information to a utility company or any other similar entity. Even when I had Comcast years ago, they never asked for my employer information. The only time I have been asked for my employer information is when I have applied for any kind of credit, whether a credit card or a loan. So you are going to have to provide some sort of evidence that this is a common business practice outside of trying to obtain some sort of credit.

Even that's iffy - privacy laws here definitely don't allow for refusing any services for withholding employer information with regards to credit checks.

 

[Farm Boy]

If a monopoly provider manages to pull in the satisfaction numbers Comcast manages to pull in it's sick in its corporate culture and practices at best. It's openly predatory at worst. Character references and credibility in this world is still relevant, and Comcast's is wretched. Now if you think this private individual is as bad as that, I suppose this makes a sort of sense, but barring that I see compelling rationale to take Comcast on less than its word straight out of the box.