Comments on: Crunching the numbers

By: Kim

Kim — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:01:01 +0000

“I hope this is all obvious, but it does not seem so – all the posts on this topic presume this problem is not significant because it is invisible to the authors, but hello, reality. I hope KFK actually goes to court and sets up a new precedent, generating public awareness along the way – this is public service to many other potential victims.”

Funny, there I was thinking that a private law suit should do corrective justice between the parties rather than be used as a vehicle for social crusades.

The next time someone dents my car, should I sue them for 5% of their net worth to raise public awareness of reckless driving?

Even if you favour some massive financial deterrent for this sort of conduct, it should be recognised as punitive in nature and thus be administered under the criminal law. This would afford the appropriate level of procedural protection (eg elevated burden of proof), and would mean that the punitive component of any damages goes to the State. KFK is not entitled to reap a windfall from some function of social deterrence.

By: Martha Maus

Martha Maus — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 05:55:55 +0000

McInnes was paid $2 million to go away, apparently he was owed about $500k contractually. If DJ’s takes its own policies seriously in any way it’s hard to fathom what the early extra $1.5 million was for. For a practical person this money leads support to any comment that DJ’s policy and practice were/are flawed and that outrageous PR is required to shine a light on these practices for the general public. One has to admire the finess of her craft so far.

By: Peter Patton

Peter Patton — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:59:11 +0000

I hope she gets $1 or, better still, a peppercorn; and has to pay DJ’s costs.

By: Peter Patton

Peter Patton — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:57:09 +0000

Well brought up!? Pig’s arse.

Well brought up people are told, “darling you should only ever appear in the press twice in your entire life. When you are born, and when you die.”

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:39:49 +0000

M – This is the point that is in dispute. When the board became officially aware of the issue the CEO was gone. The question was whether they were informally aware of his behaviour, and if so whether they should have inquired further.
There is a grey area here – we cannot ban office romance.

By: M

Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:19:06 +0000

I think the point being made is that DJ’s was prepared to have a CEO who acted inappropriately constantly because he was very good at his job. The success of DJ’s over the last couple of years is undeniable and at least partly driven by the former CEO.

What other CEO behaviors would be tolerated by a board for the sake of profit?

Apparently flirting, harassing and feeling up the cute young women was ok.

Would it be ok if he was prone to Gordon Ramsay style verbal barrages at underlings?

By: Son of the Ratpack

Son of the Ratpack — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:33:24 +0000

I didn’t realise until today that KFK’s announcement was designed to do maximum damage to DJ’s launch yesterday of their Spring collection, the annual gathering of air headed celebrities and anorexic models designed to market over priced trash to cashed up bogans. And it worked a treat. I wouldn’t like to be on the other side of KFK’s lawyers. These people are scary.

By: F perspective

F perspective — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:44:15 +0000

I am happy for KFK to make an example of the company that turned the blind eye to harrassment by the CEO of its juniors. By definition it is not a fair situation, and the employees have limited ways to fight back. The reality is that more senior women than KFK have more to lose by going into a legal battle, and conseqently MANY offenders like McInnes go unpunished, while these senior women endure (1)a threatening work environment, and (2) often diminished career prospects, to the extent that those require the support of the offending senior manager (and in lean hierarchical organisations, your progress depends on a small number of senior people). I hope this is all obvious, but it does not seem so – all the posts on this topic presume this problem is not significant because it is invisible to the authors, but hello, reality. I hope KFK actually goes to court and sets up a new precedent, generating public awareness along the way – this is public service to many other potential victims.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:29:31 +0000

On sacking McInnes, the company said that McInnes behaviour towards her was not part of a pattern, whereas she had said, and the board and senior management allegedly knew, that it was.

That’s what made her flick the switch to Hellcat.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 06:35:25 +0000

I actually hope she gets <$100K, because we need some perspective on issues like this. Dismissal of the offender plus a payout to the victim in the $25K-$100K range depending on degree of victimhood is plenty for something at the serious misdemeanour end of things.