News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Its so weird tha dude had to resign and get suspended just because he had an affair.
Dont get me wrong, dude is a scumbag (like most CEOs) for cheating on his wife and so is the lady who also cheated on their partner. Without question they did wrong and should face their personal consequences.
But why in the USA hell is this an issue on the work side - it shouldn't be Let whoever fuck with whoever non of the companies business.
He was technically her boss. And he gave her that job. Was it because she was sleeping with him? That will certainly cause people at the company to assume so. So whenevr the next person doesn't get a promo, they will sue because the company fostered an environment where you only get ahead by having sex with your superiors. Also, most companies have a written policy about fraternizing with subordinates. It usually states termination as a consequence of breaking the policy.
It's not the cheating. It's the "porking your HR lady" part that's a problem for companies who dont want to get sued.
I haven't read to many articles on the matter but for all we know hr lady does not like him at all but wanted to keep/get that job and now she is stuck in an abusive relationship. Can't share with her partner cause yeah... And can't get HR to step in cause... Yeah.
No evidence that is the case but that's why we should fire CEOs who date their underlings. You are right we should absolutely not be firing people for not abiding a religious/social contract that has nothing to do with their job.
At no company is HR ever going to step in over something the CEO is doing because they don't have the authority. -It is difficult to get an objective business take from a subordinate you're porking, though.
Mostly true. Depends on the structure of the company I'd imagine. Pretending shit works like it's written in the rule book and not exactly what you just said (won't get involved cause he is boss) HR would absolutely bring this to the board of directors as it jeopardizes the company's bottom line. And we all know Money is the real boss.
Because it's a conflict of interest to not disclose a relationship with a subordinate. This is a normal course of action, it's just been denormalized as of late.
I think the main issue is that he was cheating with the head of HR
The main issue is hiding it. Hes not fucking batman or something. Divorce your wife and get with the hrady who gives a fuck, dont act like its some schoolyard secret.
The main issue for the company is that he's having an affair with a person directly under him in the company - it's a conflict of interest at the very least, with the possibility of the person higher up in the hierarchy having leveraged their position to get sexual gratification from their underling and/or of the underling having used their sexuality to influence that higher up in the professional domain (for example, to get salary raises).
Absolutely, they might both be impeccably professional and not let their romantic relationship influence their professional relationship, but the company doesn't know that and it's hard to disprove that it wasn't so.
On the Moral and Ethical plan, the main issue is indeed that they're betraying their respective partners in secret rather than having assumed their relationship.
Its entirely possible that if they disclosed the relationship to the board or whoever, they would have an arrangement where he doesnt have to quit.
True.
It boils down to how much they could keep their relationship professional at work even whilst romantically involved outside, and them keeping it hidden, whilst understandable, doesn't exactly indicate to the board that they were professional about it (people who are impeccably professional about it immediatelly realised the potential conflict of interest and would have tried to address that risk and the impression around it, even if trying to keep it discrete).
Having come clean about it at least to some board members might have helped once the news came out because said people would have mentioned to the rest when the news blew up that they had been kept appraised of the situation, which might have helped. On the other hand it might've just guaranteed termination when they did come clean.
I had in my own professional career a situation which had the potential to explode (legal trouble, small but none the less some) and informed and kept my direct superior appraised of it, and when it did blow up and ended up in the newspapers (purelly by chance there was a freelance reporter there and the whole thing was "juicy" and a bit sleazy and made everyone involved look bad - great for gossip kind of news - so I guess that freelance reporter managed to sell the article to a couple of newspapers - good for her as she looked like she needed the money) I still got kicked out of my contract (I was a freelancer) because it made the company look bad. I was literally told that had the thing not ended up in the newspapers it would've been fine.
Thats a fair point to make although I would hold leadership to a different standard than freelancers.
I'm not really trying to pass judgment on the right or wrong of the situations.
I'm just pointing out that in my experience (not just personally but also for what I've seen with others) most companies will just ditch employees/"colaborators" if they can do so legally when some scandal involving those people hits the Press, quite independently of those people having done the professionally correct thing before it all became a scandal.
Being more of a well connected insider might protect one from this, but my impression is that the initial reaction is to remove the person connected to a scandal in the Press, and then maybe they'll come up with some arrangement if that person has enough influence with the right people within the company, and I guess this guy - even being the CEO - did not.
(Obviously in my own situation, is was a freelancer hence easy to legally let go even in Europe, and with enough distance down the chain from the ultimate decision makers that even with my direct manager trying hard to keep me, they didn't care enough about me or even him, so the outcome was pretty much guaranteed)
Two coworkers on equal footing is one thing (though still discouraged), but when there's a power imbalance (ceo-hr, manager-associate) it becomes a pretty significant conflict of interest.
Some examples;
A Manager gives favor to their lover and promotes them over other employees that fit the position better or did more to earn it.
CEO signs off on a big bonus for their subordinate lover, who then shares it with them on a fancy cruise.
All this tells me is that he is rich enough to not care about a job and just take a sabbatical until the commotion has died down.
Its all just not wanting to deal with other humans.
He should run for President instead
A big part of being a CEO is being the face of the company. Many companies hire a CEO simply based on their recognition in the industry. If you have a bad image, companies won't want to associate with you.
Because if you've been proven to be immoral and a liar no one wants to work with you or buy your product. Of course they're going to force the CEO out.
Just like mr trump right? Right?
Ehhh, cults are a little different
It's different when you're majority stakeholder. No one with enough influence to force you to do anything.
They only get forced out when they get caught.
Immoral liars are mandatory for C-suite positions otherwise.
*Donald Trump enters the chat
This story is being promoted in the media to distract from trump being a child rapist