4 ms·

It would be somewhat bearable if it would at least have consequences for the CEO, it's fucking wild that he gets to walk away from this with $57 million. Do the

It would be somewhat bearable if it would at least have consequences for the CEO, it's fucking wild that he gets to walk away from this with $57 million. Do these people have no shame at all? (no) >The investigation also found that former CEO Wenig had made “inappropriate communications” but did not have advance knowledge of the harassment and stalking. Wenig, who was not charged, was allowed to resign in September 2019 with a compensation package worth $57 million; the Steiner scandal was a “consideration” in his departure, the company has said. These morally bankrupt parasites somehow get in situations where they get rewarded when things go well and when things go catastrophically wrong under their watch. I wonder what you would have to do as a CEO to actually get fired without getting a huge sack of cash, murder someone in broad daylight?

riknox 5y ago
I think Wenig was also pushed out somewhat in relation to his opinion on the sale of eBay Classifieds - the rumour at the time was that he was very much against it while activist investors where trying to push it through.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Which is obviously worse than harassing people using company ressources. /s
coldcode 5y ago
I always thought the CEO should be responsible for what their company did even if they were carefully screened from direct knowledge of stupid things. But obviously that rarely happens.
- vimacs2 5y ago
  Maybe we should introduce a tradition similar to how a captain should go down with his ship, except in this case, have the CEO remain in his high rise office and then demolish the building from the bottom up. Of course I'm joking. I would never wish such an abhorent thing on the cleanup squad as to have to deal with Wenig's remains.
  - tartoran 5y ago
    Captain going down with the ship analogy for CEOs would be to personally pay from their own pockets or their future compensation any misdeeds on their watch. If this were to happen I bet we’d see companies immediately start behaving
    - vimacs2 5y ago
      My idea is more fun though :( On a serious note, I unfortunately don't think that would make companies behave because the problem with corporations is not specifically bad leadership but a more systematic one. Hierarchies just naturally cause communications to breakdown between different levels of an organisation with sufficient scaling and this will lead to inevitable conflict between workers and management which will further expand to conflicts between the company and their own userbase.
- blackboxlogic 5y ago
  I think we have that for Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. I wonder why CEOs are responsible for some crimes, but not others.
everdrive 5y ago
>It would be somewhat bearable if it would at least have consequences for the CEO, it's fucking wild that he gets to walk away from this with $57 million. Do these people have no shame at all? (no) It's clear to me that I don't really understand companies. Why give him such a huge exit package? Why would any executive get an exit package? What is the benefit to paying them so much money to leave? Why do most companies do this?
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Boards think, or pretend to think, they need to promise such payments at hiring time in order to attract the candidates they (think they) want. Board members tend to be, have been, or be related to CEOs. So, it is largely a matter of class solidarity. A norm of "CEO always wins" is good for them in general, even if it occasionally makes bad publicity. Bad publicity doesn't really cost them anything, anyway. Boards and corporate officers ganging up against the interests of the stockholders is an old story. Nobody seems to have a solution, or to know how to put one into practice. Typically there is no one but a Board in any position to act on any idea.

riknox 5y ago

I think Wenig was also pushed out somewhat in relation to his opinion on the sale of eBay Classifieds - the rumour at the time was that he was very much against it while activist investors where trying to push it through.

hef19898 5y ago
Which is obviously worse than harassing people using company ressources. /s

coldcode 5y ago

I always thought the CEO should be responsible for what their company did even if they were carefully screened from direct knowledge of stupid things. But obviously that rarely happens.

vimacs2 5y ago
Maybe we should introduce a tradition similar to how a captain should go down with his ship, except in this case, have the CEO remain in his high rise office and then demolish the building from the bottom up. Of course I'm joking. I would never wish such an abhorent thing on the cleanup squad as to have to deal with Wenig's remains.
- tartoran 5y ago
  Captain going down with the ship analogy for CEOs would be to personally pay from their own pockets or their future compensation any misdeeds on their watch. If this were to happen I bet we’d see companies immediately start behaving
  - vimacs2 5y ago
    My idea is more fun though :( On a serious note, I unfortunately don't think that would make companies behave because the problem with corporations is not specifically bad leadership but a more systematic one. Hierarchies just naturally cause communications to breakdown between different levels of an organisation with sufficient scaling and this will lead to inevitable conflict between workers and management which will further expand to conflicts between the company and their own userbase.
blackboxlogic 5y ago
I think we have that for Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. I wonder why CEOs are responsible for some crimes, but not others.

everdrive 5y ago

>It would be somewhat bearable if it would at least have consequences for the CEO, it's fucking wild that he gets to walk away from this with $57 million. Do these people have no shame at all? (no) It's clear to me that I don't really understand companies. Why give him such a huge exit package? Why would any executive get an exit package? What is the benefit to paying them so much money to leave? Why do most companies do this?

ncmncm 5y ago
Boards think, or pretend to think, they need to promise such payments at hiring time in order to attract the candidates they (think they) want. Board members tend to be, have been, or be related to CEOs. So, it is largely a matter of class solidarity. A norm of "CEO always wins" is good for them in general, even if it occasionally makes bad publicity. Bad publicity doesn't really cost them anything, anyway. Boards and corporate officers ganging up against the interests of the stockholders is an old story. Nobody seems to have a solution, or to know how to put one into practice. Typically there is no one but a Board in any position to act on any idea.