Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Company Accidentally Fires Entire Staff Via Email

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the now-intended-for-two dept.

Businesses 333

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."

cancel ×

333 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wrong (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777323)

It will now be two people leaving the company!

Giant Mistake? (2)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777347)

And it was all one giant mistake

I think it's more like snafu than mistake

Re:Giant Mistake? (2)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777465)

One for the Desk Set...

Re:Giant Mistake? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777599)

I accidentally the entire company

Re:Giant Mistake? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777679)

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!

Re:Giant Mistake? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777983)

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

Re:Wrong (5, Funny)

Lohrno (670867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777403)

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

Re:Wrong (5, Funny)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777555)

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

Re:Wrong (5, Funny)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777827)

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

Re:Wrong (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#39778009)

I have a sudden urge to go watch that movie.

Re:Wrong (5, Funny)

Nimloth (704789) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777889)

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

Re:Wrong (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777951)

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.

Re:Wrong (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777441)

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.

Re:Wrong (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777511)

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

Re:Wrong (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777539)

Good, Let's start from you :D

Re:Wrong (4, Insightful)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777569)

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

Re:Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777713)

Among other things.

Re:Wrong (4, Funny)

flatt (513465) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777995)

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

Re:Wrong (5, Funny)

Cylix (55374) | more than 2 years ago | (#39778027)

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!

Re:Wrong (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777583)

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

Re:Wrong (4, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777623)

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

Re:Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777677)

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.

Re:Wrong (5, Funny)

paiute (550198) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777717)

There are always unproductive employees.

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

Re:Wrong (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39778051)

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

Re:Wrong (0)

Bomazi (1875554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39778053)

average != median. Woosh !

Re:Wrong (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39778065)

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.

Re:Wrong (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39778083)

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.

Re:Wrong (1)

thereitis (2355426) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777573)

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!

Re:Wrong (5, Informative)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777609)

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.

Re:Wrong (1)

emurphy42 (631808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777639)

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).

Re:Wrong (5, Informative)

WillHirsch (2511496) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777725)

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 [reuters.com] 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.

Re:Wrong (2, Insightful)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39778093)

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

Re:Wrong (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#39778025)

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.

Tacky (5, Funny)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777327)

Those responsible should be sacked!

Re:Tacky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777443)

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

Re:Tacky (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777627)

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

moral of the story (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777329)

have the fucking balls to fire someone in person.

Re:moral of the story (4, Informative)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777551)

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

Re:moral of the story (5, Insightful)

Annirak (181684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777595)

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 [thenextweb.com] . But that source isn't the origin of the story either. It came from Reuters [reuters.com] . Honestly, if you're submitting a story to a news aggregator like Slashdot, take the time to send a link for the ORIGINAL story...

Re:moral of the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777927)

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!

Mod 'Funny' - it's posted AC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777565)

seriously.

Happiness (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777335)

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).

Re:Happiness (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777393)

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.

Re:Happiness (4, Funny)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777585)

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?

Re:Happiness (5, Funny)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777613)

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...

Re:Happiness (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 2 years ago | (#39778057)

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

Re:Happiness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777711)

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...

Re:Happiness (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777437)

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).

Maybe it was not a guy

I wonder (5, Funny)

dakkon1024 (691790) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777357)

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

The intended recipient... (4, Insightful)

Veetox (931340) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777361)

This should have happened to the United States Congress.

Re:The intended recipient... (-1, Flamebait)

mozumder (178398) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777457)

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

Re:The intended recipient... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777487)

Because they'd get even less done.

Re:The intended recipient... (1)

mozumder (178398) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777697)

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.

Re:The intended recipient... (2)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777965)

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.

Re:The intended recipient... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39778077)

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)

Re:The intended recipient... (4, Insightful)

hendridm (302246) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777491)

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

Re:The intended recipient... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777773)

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.

Re:The intended recipient... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777865)

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

Re:The intended recipient... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777507)

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.

Re:The intended recipient... (3)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777651)

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.

Re:The intended recipient... (2)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777559)

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?

Re:The intended recipient... (1)

mozumder (178398) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777615)

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.

Re:The intended recipient... (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39778017)

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

Re:The intended recipient... (1)

mozumder (178398) | more than 2 years ago | (#39778127)

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

Re:The intended recipient... (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777621)

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

Re:The intended recipient... (1)

mozumder (178398) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777723)

It works for the screwer.

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

Re:The intended recipient... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777647)

I would prefer an amateur thief to a career thief.

Re:The intended recipient... (2)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777693)

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

Re:The intended recipient... (0)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777707)

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.

Didn't they put the person's name on it? (5, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777365)

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

Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? (5, Funny)

waynemcdougall (631415) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777467)

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

Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777525)

ahh, little bobby tables had a job!

Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? (2)

skine (1524819) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777863)

Not anymore.

Re:Didn't they put the person's name on it? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777907)

Tables can get fired? Sheesh. ;)

Moral of the story (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777367)

Never hire an employee named "allstaff".

Re:Moral of the story (1)

netsavior (627338) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777817)

Time to change my name to "CEO; allstaff"

I'll be unfirable

Re:Moral of the story (5, Funny)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777955)

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.)

New Email System (2)

GeneralSecretary (1959616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777405)

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

Not Fired, but Start Looking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777415)

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.

asshats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777419)

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.....

C'mon Slashdot.. (2)

Severus Snape (2376318) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777427)

keep up. This is days old.

Re:C'mon Slashdot.. (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777633)

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

Alli? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777469)

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

RTFA (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777497)

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

Not the first time (5, Funny)

bakes (87194) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777499)

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

Time to Man Up (0)

Rary (566291) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777501)

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.

Re:Time to Man Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777607)

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.

Is anyone surprised ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39777517)

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

Some mistakes can come back and haunt (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777611)

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

HR Departments (5, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777703)

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.

Re:HR Departments (3, Informative)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777909)

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 not kidding, boss (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777807)

I really did just change my name to Majordomo.

In some jurisdictions, this would be a no no.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39777945)

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.

Re:In some jurisdictions, this would be a no no... (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39778023)

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.

Didn't offend anyone though ... (1)

Kittenman (971447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39778019)

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?

Read TFA (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#39778033)

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.

Sounds like a RomneyMail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39778085)

Downsizing is SOO easy in the 21st century.

Secretly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39778099)

They did it for the lulz.

[RECALL] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39778143)

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

happens all the time (4, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39778159)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>