![Quote](images/metro/blue/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
franz
Some text are missing from your entry, and its:
My entry? What entry? What are you talking about?
Sides to every story, my friend. But i'm more inclined in patronizing the originator.
Consulting broke all contractual ties with AWSC and Arthur Andersen. As part of the arbitration settlement, Andersen Consulting paid over the sum held in escrow (then $1.2 billion) to Arthur Andersen, and was required to change its name, resulting in the entity being renamed Accenture.
And this is viewed as a good thing (or bad on the side of Accenture)? Ang-ang sad sila modala sa pangalan sa tag-iya!
-----
The point why I brought it up, bai, is so everyone can be aware of what's the story behind the "Accenture" name - not the one they show us during job fairs/recruitment seminars. This is not a debate on two-sided facts. I'm just putting it bluntly: Your company didn't just
"come up with a new name" because of
"a new vision for the future" (as what your video calls it). It was really for
"legal reasons" (quite bloody by my standards), which now makes me wonder WHY they failed to mention that in the overhyped recruitment video.
We have a right to know as applicants and employees of what's really going on in a certain company in terms of economic standing (dili ba lugi? nagsaka ba ang market value or nanaog?) AND management standing (wala ba gubot? tarong ba pagkadala?).
I have no doubt with my first concern although the salary leaves a WHOLE LOT to be desired. The second concern is (or was), of course, pretty obvious by now.