I don't know how anyone can call the board's action a "coup." Calling it that seems to be a propagandistic abuse of the term.
The board was in charge, and it's not a coup if it fires a subordinate (the CEO). If anything, the coup was getting the board ousted.
>The board was in charge, and it's not a coup if it fires a subordinate (the CEO). If anything, the coup was getting the board ousted.
The CEO was a member of the board and the ones that fired the CEO also fired the Chairman of the Board, so the board went from 6 to 4. So far there's been even less of an explanation for the firing of the Chairman of the Board - who they offered to let remain as a regular employee - than there has been for Altman, though I see the removal of the Chairman as potentially the most egregious and coup-like.
Why do we have voting in board and democracy in the first place if one cannot use it for its intended use case without the fear of retaliation?
They clearly could have been more transparent, but it still does not make it as coup.
If you think so - that is why populism is considered as threat for democracy.
The GP was pretty clear that he thought "the entire board decided to do a coup," which does not fit that interpretation.
But even the scenario you describe isn't something that can be properly described as a "coup." In that case, the employees are just appealing to a legitimate higher authority, which is a totally OK thing to do (e.g. it's not wrong to report a bribe-taking boss to the company ethics hotline). IMHO, a coup is where subordinates illegitimately usurp and depose the highest authority from below.
I don't think invoking a higher power necessarily makes it not a coup. To me, a coup is when you angle to relieve someone from office above you by any means. But reasonable people can disagree on that, I suppose.