Related Posts

Norwegian Businesses Take Bathroom Access Far More Serious Than Ernst & Young’s Long Island Office

You may remember way back in January when we told you about Ernst & Young’s Jericho office putting the clamps down on its water closets. The long/short of it was that the firm made them only accessible by key like some flithy gas station shithouse.

As bad as that is, some businesses in Norway are taking things a bit further:

A boss in Norway has ordered all female staff to wear red bracelets during their periods – to explain why they are using the toilet more often.

The astonishing demand was revealed in report by a workers’ union into ‘tyrannical’ toilet rules in Norwegian companies. The study claimed businesses were becoming obsessed with lost productivity due to employees spending too much time answering the call of nature. It found 66 per cent of managers made staff ask them for an electronic key card to gain access to the toilets so they could monitor breaks. Toilets in one in three companies were placed under video-surveillance, while other firms made staff sign a toilet ‘visitors book’, the report by the Parat union said. It added: ‘But the most extreme action was taken by one manager who made women having their period wear a red bracelet to justify more frequent trips to the loo. ‘Women quite justifiably feel humiliated by being tagged in this way, so that all their colleagues are aware of this intimate detail of their private life.’

Now we don’t know if the key system is still in place in Jericho (residents can let us know) but this should give you pause.

Boss orders female staff to wear red bracelets when they are on their periods [Telegraph via DB]

Is Accounting Rule Anarchy a Good Idea?

John Carney comments on Sheila Bair’s bellyaching about mark-to-market today by simply wondering why there has to be a debate at all. That is, couldn’t accounting rules just be served up – presumably buffet style – and the banks would choose which treatment they like best and then regulators could judge their health based on their choices:

Here’s what I don’t get: why do we need one set of accounting standards at all? To put it differently, why should banking regulators feel obliged to judge the safety and soundness of financial institutions according to any measure that they do not like? If Bair doesn’t think fair value is appropriate to the banking sector, can’t she just ignore fair value when judging whether banks satisfy regulatory requirements?


It’s an interesting question. Why does the FDIC care what fair value says when determining bank health? Analysts use and refer to non-GAAP data all the time, so what difference does it make if regulators rationalize their analysis on similar non-GAAP measures?

After explaining that, despite the complaints of a certain billionaire (among others), transparency is actually a good thing, Carney floats an idea:

My truly radical proposal is that we should probably do away with this argument altogether by allowing banks—and every other company for that matter—to choose which accounting standards they want to use. If amortized cost is truly a better standard, banks using that will surely be rewarded by higher stock prices and cheaper access to credit. On the other hand, if fair value is appropriate, the market will reward that. Why not let banks choose and bear the costs of their choice?

While we’re with John in spirit (especially for the banks, they run things after all), the BSDs in the accounting will never let this fly. The idea of letting individual companies determine what accounting rules to follow is enough to cause Big 4 partners to set themselves on fire in the middle of Union Square in protest.

However, if you’ve got thoughts on we could put this thing in motion, it might be kind of fun to see how it works out.