Related Posts
I have had several rounds of interviews for a role at Visa London office. When I reached out to the HR to check on progress/status after what they called the "final round", they said everything is positive and then set up another round with the hiring manager last week. TBH, that round seemed as if they want to make sure I have understood the job well. And there has been radio silence after that. Any idea how to read this? I have another offer and deliberating if i should just accept that.
More Posts
37/F/ATL - is this thing still on?? Lol
Just found out about this bowl! Male, NY
Additional Posts in Consulting
What's the FSI strategy team like at KPMG?
Time to beast mode this spreadsheet #deadlines
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.



What is it you think we stand for as a country? This is 100% a political move on the new administration part and it's a very sensitive political topic for leadership at our firms to deal with. It's simply much smarter to stay objective and not let emotions slip into company wide emails.
I kind of feel she did take a stance a little bit, albeit not explicitly ("inclusive environment" etc.). I don't see what else you can expect from her - taking a firm stance & publicly condemn will cause all sorts of problems for her & others...
OP: Obama banned refugees from Iraq for 6 months... Trumps is only for 90 days.
If Obama only "slowed the process" then show has Trump.
Also, I will ask again, what is your view on CU?
OP you're wrong, Obama DID ban all Iraqi refugees for 6 months in 2011 after two terrorists were found living in Kentucky. Were you outraged then?
And we're trying to get in on the surge of contractors that will follow this gov hiring freeze
How apathetic was it? Can someone post?
This is way more than politics. Emotions make us human. Let's not loose that please.
If you don't like CU then why do you want a strongly worded letter on politics from a corporation?
The reason I bring up Hillary is to call out the hypocrisy of all the Hillary voters that were anti-CU but are now all of a sudden wanting a corporation to spend money on a political stance...
If Hillary had gotten her way, those types of letters could be banned.
CU and taking a stance have nothing to do with each other. Are you confused about what CU allows? It's about corporate donations to politicians, not the beliefs expressed by a company's leadership.
Not close, D10 - Obama banned Iraqi refugees for 3-6 months (don't recall offhand) while a new fingerprint database was being built. Not nearly the scale as Trump's EO and had a clear reason. Also didn't impact those with visas.
D10: he banned them for 6 months. Trump has done a slight expansion on scope but decreased the time(90 days) until the vetting process can be updated and fully verified.
D7 your argument is what trump is saying, it's not actually the same. Obama didn't ban anyone. As a reaction to a court case they did additional vetting which slowed processing of visas. Trump isn't reacting to anything. There was no successful terrorist attack. Who knows what is happening in the background but doesn't that show that we have solid policies in place? Refugees don't wake up and decide to come to the US. Vetting takes so long people die waiting. And Deloitte has a strong culture of inclusion and we have made that clear by sponsoring politically charged events in the past - gay pride parade for example - not showing where our company stands with this goes against what I love about this company.
THANK YOU JANET FOUTTY. Didn't take much but that's what I was hoping for. Over and out fellow 🐟
PWC 2 me too
SA1, can you elaborate?
OP: what is your view on CU? Did you vote for Hillary?
D10: Two things. Green card holders are exempt. Are you a fan of the CU ruling? If so, did you vote for Hillary?
D10: You are the one that is confused. CU allowed corpse spending on political issues. Corporate donations are still banned...
Emails cost money. Computers cost money. A CEOs time cost money. The writing and sending of that email was corporate spending on a political issue.
If you ban or heavily regulate corporate spending, you can't send these emails...
I hope you now understand why the CU ruling was so important.
Yes, you are right - prior to the CU ruling no corporation ever took a public stance on a political issue [rolls eyes]. Hope you feel safer now that those horrible women and children are banned.
D10: Congrats on that strawman!!! I never said that!! I was saying that if Hillary got her way, the government could have banned it. CU protects that right.
I hope you felt safe in 2011 when Obama banned women and children!!
Ford took the same stance in WW2. Great for profits.
Did you understand when I said that from my understanding, the administration was reacting to a terrorism case involving refugees. While based In fear I can see why they may want to review the processes in place. I said trumps EO was in a reaction to nothing. Nothing has happened. He is feeding off of and feeding fear. The 2011 action also didn't accept those who already have been vetted. Trump thought through nothing and just signed an EO without thinking about or caring for people who were in the air on their way to this country. It's disgusting. Review processes if they are failing. Work with your advisors and think through impacts to everyone before enacting a ban, even if temporary. These are people and trump and you don't seem to get that