- This topic has 45 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by SHILOH.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM #16325September 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM #455550dbapigParticipant
http://piggington.com/greed_stupidity_a_wells_fargo_senior_vice_president
What’s described in the article is wrong.
September 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM #456346dbapigParticipanthttp://piggington.com/greed_stupidity_a_wells_fargo_senior_vice_president
What’s described in the article is wrong.
September 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM #455744dbapigParticipanthttp://piggington.com/greed_stupidity_a_wells_fargo_senior_vice_president
What’s described in the article is wrong.
September 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM #456155dbapigParticipanthttp://piggington.com/greed_stupidity_a_wells_fargo_senior_vice_president
What’s described in the article is wrong.
September 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM #456084dbapigParticipanthttp://piggington.com/greed_stupidity_a_wells_fargo_senior_vice_president
What’s described in the article is wrong.
September 11, 2009 at 4:48 PM #455615SandiagonParticipantI read the link. Some pigs supported the behavior of bank and bank employee. How anybody can support that kind of behavior? Foreclosed house is property of bank not bank employee. It is that simple. These kinds of employees are dangerous to the bank and bank customers. These kinds of employees can do day trading with your check in account money.
September 11, 2009 at 4:48 PM #456410SandiagonParticipantI read the link. Some pigs supported the behavior of bank and bank employee. How anybody can support that kind of behavior? Foreclosed house is property of bank not bank employee. It is that simple. These kinds of employees are dangerous to the bank and bank customers. These kinds of employees can do day trading with your check in account money.
September 11, 2009 at 4:48 PM #455809SandiagonParticipantI read the link. Some pigs supported the behavior of bank and bank employee. How anybody can support that kind of behavior? Foreclosed house is property of bank not bank employee. It is that simple. These kinds of employees are dangerous to the bank and bank customers. These kinds of employees can do day trading with your check in account money.
September 11, 2009 at 4:48 PM #456218SandiagonParticipantI read the link. Some pigs supported the behavior of bank and bank employee. How anybody can support that kind of behavior? Foreclosed house is property of bank not bank employee. It is that simple. These kinds of employees are dangerous to the bank and bank customers. These kinds of employees can do day trading with your check in account money.
September 11, 2009 at 4:48 PM #456148SandiagonParticipantI read the link. Some pigs supported the behavior of bank and bank employee. How anybody can support that kind of behavior? Foreclosed house is property of bank not bank employee. It is that simple. These kinds of employees are dangerous to the bank and bank customers. These kinds of employees can do day trading with your check in account money.
September 11, 2009 at 5:10 PM #456415daveljParticipantThe questions are why was she staying there and what approvals, if any, did she receive?
If she just decided that she could stay there because it was empty, then she should be fired. That’s probably the case. However…
If she got approval from higher-ups… then the issue is why they granted her approval. Could an argument be made that there was some value to the bank in having her living there? It’s conceivable. But it’s a stretch.
September 11, 2009 at 5:10 PM #456223daveljParticipantThe questions are why was she staying there and what approvals, if any, did she receive?
If she just decided that she could stay there because it was empty, then she should be fired. That’s probably the case. However…
If she got approval from higher-ups… then the issue is why they granted her approval. Could an argument be made that there was some value to the bank in having her living there? It’s conceivable. But it’s a stretch.
September 11, 2009 at 5:10 PM #456153daveljParticipantThe questions are why was she staying there and what approvals, if any, did she receive?
If she just decided that she could stay there because it was empty, then she should be fired. That’s probably the case. However…
If she got approval from higher-ups… then the issue is why they granted her approval. Could an argument be made that there was some value to the bank in having her living there? It’s conceivable. But it’s a stretch.
September 11, 2009 at 5:10 PM #455814daveljParticipantThe questions are why was she staying there and what approvals, if any, did she receive?
If she just decided that she could stay there because it was empty, then she should be fired. That’s probably the case. However…
If she got approval from higher-ups… then the issue is why they granted her approval. Could an argument be made that there was some value to the bank in having her living there? It’s conceivable. But it’s a stretch.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.