What's going on at the FDIC?

[Anonymous]

It seems like this is why management is pushing people to RTO so that they can continue to sexually harass them. Upper level managers telling women employees they want to f*ck them, sending them d*ck pics, that place sounds like rife with mismanagement.

WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/fdic-toxic-atmosphere-strip-clubs-lewd-photos-boozy-hotel-12c89da7

The Hill:
https://thehill.com/business/4307302-fdic-employees-allege-harassment-misogyny-at-banking-regulator-report/

[Anonymous]

it is so bad. I hope these guys get fired now.

[Anonymous]

Just hours after the story appeared, FDIC chair Marty Gruenberg announced they were hiring an independent consulting firm to do a review of sexual harassment at the agency.

Why wasn't this done after the 2020 IG report on this came out. Or a month ago when the WSJ gave the FDIC a head's up about the story?

[Anonymous]

The WSJ story basically just discussed white collar American “road warrior” culture. The same crap happens in elite consulting, Big 4 accounting, I-banking, tech….and also apparently the federal government. Anywhere you have heavy travel involved, you get people drinking too much and crossing professional boundaries.

This same story can basically be written about any major corporation or institution. This article is pretty tame compared to what happens in the Secret Service, DoD, or IC agencies.

[Anonymous]

Lol and I bet if any of those FDIC employees posted here about those incidents, DCUM posters would tell them this is just how it is, deal or find a new job, plenty of people are looking to get into finreg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The WSJ story basically just discussed white collar American “road warrior” culture. The same crap happens in elite consulting, Big 4 accounting, I-banking, tech….and also apparently the federal government. Anywhere you have heavy travel involved, you get people drinking too much and crossing professional boundaries.

This same story can basically be written about any major corporation or institution. This article is pretty tame compared to what happens in the Secret Service, DoD, or IC agencies.

Except that a lot of stuff here happened when they weren't drinking. Also, gotta love how the agency gives the union rep a $20 gift card when he voices concerns about management conduct.

[Anonymous]

Less of this stuff happens when people work from home. Ask any employment lawyer, conduct like this dropped off significantly during covid.

Really sketchy for management to be pushing people to come back to the office more than any other financial regulator when there are these serious workplace culture issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Less of this stuff happens when people work from home. Ask any employment lawyer, conduct like this dropped off significantly during covid.

Really sketchy for management to be pushing people to come back to the office more than any other financial regulator when there are these serious workplace culture issues.

Look, these allegations are awful. And I do find it odd that FDIC is pushing RTO so hard.

But I find people making the connection to RTO off base and missing the point.

First, IF "this stuff" truly happened less during COVID, correlation does not equal causation. A lot of things were different that could affect behavior in the middle of a pandemic.
Second, the people in this article are examiners, mostly on work travel. RTO has no impact on these conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just hours after the story appeared, FDIC chair Marty Gruenberg announced they were hiring an independent consulting firm to do a review of sexual harassment at the agency.

Why wasn't this done after the 2020 IG report on this came out. Or a month ago when the WSJ gave the FDIC a head's up about the story?

FWIW, the 2020 OIG report was not about any specific allegations, nor did it uncover any unknown allegations: https://www.fdicoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2022-08/EVAL-20-006.pdf

And, it appears that the FDIC has already done everything that the OIG recommended as a result of that report: https://www.fdicoig.gov/unimplemented-recommendations

And since the FDIC announced that it has hired the independent firm, rather than will hire, and given how long federal procurement takes.....seems like they did do it right after they were notified.

[Anonymous]

^^^ Management found this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Management found this thread.

I assure you I am not.

People should absolutely be fired. Victims should be compensated. AND the appropriate processes should be followed.

There is enough evidence of ACTUAL wrongdoing to be upset about.

No need to try to find connections to RTO or to make up new theories on things to be angry about (the timing of the independent firm).

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately, if the FDIC fired one of the harassers years after the fact, it would lose the subsequent lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, if the FDIC fired one of the harassers years after the fact, it would lose the subsequent lawsuit.

I'm trying to figure out why you think this?

Is it some application of Douglas factors?

You wouldn't even need to go for misconduct....you could go after the underlying suitability, particularly if they had a clearance....

[Anonymous]

I like how one of the offenders got demoted and then promoted to a other managerial position at OCC. It's like no one noticed this giant red flag in his personnel folder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, if the FDIC fired one of the harassers years after the fact, it would lose the subsequent lawsuit.

I'm trying to figure out why you think this?

Is it some application of Douglas factors?

You wouldn't even need to go for misconduct....you could go after the underlying suitability, particularly if they had a clearance....

I think a lawyer could successfully argue that he was already reprimanded for his conduct and the firing would only be cya-ing after the WSJ publication.

The person's in question seem to be management, so probably not BU.