upvote
It's only huge because it has been made public by a large amount of medias. If you have ever worked in any companies, you'd know the shit going on at any layers.
reply
It doesn't have to be 'made public by a large amount of medias', just made public. Regular ole avergae nobodies get fired for the same.
reply
It's a huge deal for underlings who have to obey their masters. It's not a huge deal for masters who make the rules.

If you allow your employer to control your sexuality you are not fully human.

reply
It's a huge deal regardless. You'll be fired even as a CEO. As the above comment states, CEOs of Nestle, McDonalds, Intel have fallen once these things were uncovered. It's basically an express ticket to getting fired.
reply
> It's a huge deal regardless. You'll be fired even as a CEO

Bill Gates met Melinda Gates while he was CEO of Microsoft and she was a newgrad developer.

Many such cases. Rupert Murdoch. Larry Ellison.

Maybe I would have worded it differently, but I generally agree with the grandparent poster. It seems rare that a founder would be ousted over this type of thing.

My guess is that the China dealings are the most important part, and that part is being undersold because it's actually illegal and puts both him and anyone with knowledge of it at risk of going to jail.

reply
>Bill Gates met Melinda Gates while he was CEO of Microsoft and she was a newgrad developer.

Bill Gates met Melinda ~40 years ago. It should be blatantly obvious I'm taking about where things stand today. Lots of things happened 40 years ago that would be generally unacceptable today.

The U.S government have known about this for a year. How serious would it be (i.e in terms of Jail time) for them to just give a warning and sit on it for a year?

reply
For Intel at least, that CEO was fired because the board wanted him gone, because he destroyed the company. The relationship with a subordinate was only a pretext. If he'd been performing well it would never have been made an issue.
reply
You are contradicting yourself. If destroying the company isn't enough pretext to get you fired but an affair with a subordinate is, then it's a big deal that would have been an issue regardless.
reply
They needed a pretext because if the board publically confirmed how much damage he'd done to the company, it would hurt the company even more through investor and employee panic.

When has legal fallout from an affair with a subordinate ever destroyed a Fortune 100 company? That doesn't happen.

reply
You are not making much sense. Was he destroying the company or not? What kind of destruction does not have obviously visible signs (to everyone) that can be acted on? What Kind of board sits down and decides that the destruction of the company is worth investor panic because 'it's worse than it looks'. What, are investors going to be calm as he destroys the company?

Do you think a CEO is a King or what that they are destroying a company and that's not enough to get booted? CEOs get fired all the time. A Board certainly doesn't need an affair pretext to boot one that is actively tanking the company.

reply
It’s a big difference if it’s a mercenary CEO hired by the board versus a founder CEO that likely controls much of the board.
reply
Yeah, but does it make sense? The CEO is responsible for company success. Firing them over sexual misconduct is a decision to prioritize non-profit related matters. Companies do this all the time because of political correctness, but it is strictly speaking optimizing for other things than shareholder value.
reply
There is no law or really good principle that suggests that shareholder profits matter above aspects such as ethics; that is just a misrepresentation of something a famous economist said.

It matters for the very obvious reason that a less senior employee may feel pressured or may lose their job when the relationship ends, that usually office affairs result in other employees feeling compelled to keep secrets, that it may result in others losing out on promotions to the employee in the affair, that they often result in abuse of resources, because it opens everyone up to blackmail, that it’s a display of bad judgement and ethics, etc. etc.

It’s nothing at all to do with political correctness.

reply
They were talking about "underlings" who have to "obey their masters" and supposedly don't matter, while those "masters" are not "fully human" if they let anyone impose rules on their "rule making". It is the kind of talk that makes you want to cover your drink.
reply
I read it as sarcastic pointing out the hypocrisy, and that they're fully in support of free will for anyone to pursue relationships they want at all levels. You could disagree with the latter, but the starting point doesn't seem like what you suggest
reply
I am merely saying, if you fire a CEO because of, say, him having a relationship with an underling, you are saying: "there are arbitrary things more important than profitability".

I am not sure it makes sense given why companies exist in the capitalist system. Stockholders, I'd think, on average care more about the returns less whether the CEO is a likable character.

The real problem is potentially illegal behavior, of course.

reply
Even in purest capitalist sense, romantic relationships cloud judgement and point at a possibility (inevitability?) that people in question (CEOs, managers, owners, board members) will do that again thus increasing the risk to the business.

This ignores the direct consequences like "worse" employees getting promoted (affecting business) or put in charge, or like in this case, potential national security issues.

reply
> arbitrary things

I'm sure Jenson knew sleeping with his direct reports was wrong. And that plenty of CEOs got fired for that. Nothing arbitrary about that.

reply
His dick cost people hundreds of millions of dollars in shareholder value and this is about the worst case scenario outside of maybe a true sexual misconduct lawsuit coming against him. Like with your thinking taken to an extreme, if he murdered someone he should keep his title and run the company from jail because it doesn’t make him a bad engineer and we don’t want to bow to woke?

How does it NOT make business sense to consider firing bim here (outside of manosphere thinking)?

reply
Having an affair vs. killing someone is materially different - one is legal, the other is not.

I am not debating the spying, smuggling angle here; but it this was just the affair, its a decision by the board, whereas if he run over an elderly lady at a crossing, its no longer a choice - law is law.

Btw, re: ad hominem 'manosphere' or 'woke' whatever. I have nothing to do with either.

reply
Sleeping with your subordinates opens the company to lawsuits. Which is bad for business.
reply
This is just a weird and IMO slightly creepy thing to say. Office affairs are ripe for power abuse and corruption. It’s not about sexuality.
reply
I mean—certainly if it turns into the kind of situation where the higher-ups can’t look the other way. It probably becomes a problem as soon as your supervisors have to think about it. It definitely becomes a problem as soon as it becomes their problem, or a distraction from what everybody’s there to do.

By the time it’s public knowledge and reflecting on the company, yes, that’s a failure—and the failure of discretion is probably closer to the board’s clammy little hearts than any particular fluids (or allegations of favoritism) that may have been swapped along the way.

reply
It's difficult (impossible really) to hide such affairs indefintiely when you've reached that kind of status and notoriety. No amount of discretion will keep someone from finding out eventually when so many eyes are on you, so it's really just a matter of time till some sort of public disclosure.
reply
[flagged]
reply
Sorry, what does DEI have to do with Jensen Huang sleeping with a Chinese spy?
reply