[ethbr1]

The problem with KPMG et al. is that you hire a bunch of Machiavellian grads, arbitrage their time for profit, see who clambers to the top of the pile, then obscenely reward those few folks.

While operating under a corporate structure that explicitly geo-fences liability.

This is not a scheme that intrinsically creates strong ethics.

In the same way that letters of marque weren't.

[alephnerd]

> The problem with KPMG et al. is that you hire a bunch of Machiavellian grads

It's not that hard to get hired at KPMG. Going to a semi-decent public Engineering, Accounting, or Business undergrad in the US will guaruntee you a job there.

It's just another audit shop. If we're being honest, almost every person here on HN has also lied about actually doing their Sexual Harassment HR training and SOC Compliance mandated security training and just clicking through then (or writing scripts to bypass the prompts).

The "ethics" exam mentioned is just another one of those types of exams used as an HR CYA.

Edit: the article is about the Netherlands practice. I don't know that much about their hiring practices and prestige in NL and mainland Europe.

[aidenn0]

> It's just another audit shop. If we're being honest, almost every person here on HN has also lied about actually doing their Sexual Harassment HR training and SOC Compliance mandated security training and just clicking through then (or writing scripts to bypass the prompts).

Don't skip those:

1. Not skipping doesn't take much longer than skipping.

2. Look for the scenarios that are "taken from actual cases" and look up those cases; great way to find some weird shit that has actually happened.

3. There's plenty of unintentional humor to be mined. The last time I did it, there was a "can you harass your own in-group" section that gave an example of a 1st-generation Punjabi-American harassing a Gujarati immigrant, raising the question of "Is it problematic that the author of this section considers those two individuals to be the same in-group?"

[axus]

The first time has some informative content, or at least some ironic clip-art to copy to your next presentation. The 3rd time and on it's just repetitive. Makes me jealous of the Microsoft employees from the other story about training videos.