Hacker News Reader

Comment by polytely | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

>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?

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.

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.

Which is obviously worse than harassing people using company ressources. /s

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.

I think we have that for Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. I wonder why CEOs are responsible for some crimes, but not others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com