Brian Krzanich resigns as intel ceo

[PeterScott]

This thread has gotten beyond absurd with "good old boy" mentality. I cant believe the minimization of what is a serious breach of conduct rules. It doesnt matter whether the conduct was consensual, whether somebody "snitched", or how bad his performance has been as a CEO. It doesnt even matter when it happened, as long as he was in a position of influence over the person he was having the affair with.

Evidence?

 

[witeken]

This thread has gotten beyond absurd with "good old boy" mentality. I cant believe the minimization of what is a serious breach of conduct rules. It doesnt matter whether the conduct was consensual, whether somebody "snitched", or how bad his performance has been as a CEO. It doesnt even matter when it happened, as long as he was in a position of influence over the person he was having the affair with. It *did* happen. Now I am not so naive to believe that all the 10nm problems were not a huge influence. But that still does not excuse his conduct or negate the rules against intimate relationships between a manager and a subordinate. And this is just my personal opinion, but I feel that the CEO of a major company should not be excused, but if anything, held to a higher standard (by the company AND HIMSELF) due to his position of leadership and public visibility.

But according to WSJ, the affair started before those rules were put in place in 2011 (IIRC).

 

[formulav8]

I really don't think adultery is anyone's business outside of the wife/husband and the third person coming between them.

Of course committing adultery in general is a personal/family issue but he made it others business by his own self. He slept with his company's employee, the company he must answer to and thus made it beyond his personal life.

Edit: I still honestly believe he was fired for his CEO performance and not his fraternizing.

 

[PeterScott]

Of course committing adultery in general is a personal/family issue but he made it others business by his own self. He slept with his company's employee, the company he must answer to and thus made it beyond his personal life.

Edit: I still honestly believe he was fired for his CEO performance and not his fraternizing.

I was mainly just questioning what kind of low life reports this kind of thing.

But:

From reports the relationship ended before he was CEO. I have yet to see evidence she was working for him. If not it just becomes a relationship between consenting adults.

As far as answering to the compnay: I don't think anti-fraternization policies make any sense at all. They make as much sense as abstinence only programs to prevent teen pregnancy.

You have to recognize human nature when you craft policies.

 

[PottedMeat]

From reports the relationship ended before he was CEO. I have yet to see evidence she was working for him.

even if this happened several years ago, he was a very high level manager at a large company with significant influence over even those that are not his direct subordinates. that kind of relationship should make their coworkers and anyone in the path of their advancement nervous. imagine the drama if it went sour.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I was mainly just questioning what kind of low life reports this kind of thing.

But:

From reports the relationship ended before he was CEO. I have yet to see evidence she was working for him. If not it just becomes a relationship between consenting adults.

As far as answering to the compnay: I don't think anti-fraternization policies make any sense at all. They make as much sense as abstinence only programs to prevent teen pregnancy.

You have to recognize human nature when you craft policies.

Seriously?? A top executive doesn't have enough self control to keep it in his pants except for his wife? Hell, he has loads of money, is reasonably good looking, and since he is a CEO, I assume is reasonably articulate. If he really *had* to have an affair, he would have plenty of opportunities outside of co-workers. But again, it really doesnt matter, because the policy "is what it is". And I hate to tell you it doesn't really matter what you think, because you dont make the rules.

 

[lopri]

Evidence?

Legally it is presumed that a subordinate is unable to consent to a person in position of power. Sure John Doe might believe he is sharing a true love with his high school teacher, but in the eyes of law the teacher is committing child molestation (or worse).

 

[coercitiv]

But according to WSJ, the affair started before those rules were put in place in 2011 (IIRC).

And it was swiftly terminated as the rules came in, right?

 

[Spartak]

And it was swiftly terminated as the rules came in, right?

Jesus Christ. You and Frozentundra sound like a bunch of children (or worse; autists) that have no understanding about the complexities and emotions surrounding a relationship. Choosing between your carreer somewhere and someone you are in love with is not easy. You make it sound like he was late for work and decided to drive through a red light. This black and white moralism sounds like you know nothing about life. The fact that these rules came into play after the relationship started and that there was no actual relationship at this moment are indeed mitigating circumstances,

If you believe just for one moment this 'forbidden romance' was anything more than a stick to push him out, you need to get away from your PC a bit more, into the real world.

 

[Hitman928]

Legally it is presumed that a subordinate is unable to consent to a person in position of power. Sure John Doe might believe he is sharing a true love with his high school teacher, but in the eyes of law the teacher is committing child molestation (or worse).

Ummm, false. There is a huge difference between two consenting adults being involved in a relationship when one is a superior, and a situation when a teacher has a relationship with a minor (i.e. child) in his/her classroom.

One is a crime and most likely a felony because an adult is preying on a minor who is legally considered to not be able to consent. The legal age of consent gets a little murky depending on state but usually when it's a teacher-student relationship, it's illegal. There's nothing illegal about two consenting adults having a boss/subordinate relationship. It's against intel's company policy (and many other company policies for good reason) but it is not a crime in and of itself.

 

[coercitiv]

You and Frozentundra sound like a bunch of children (or worse; autists) that have no understanding about the complexities and emotions surrounding a relationship.

I'm a happily married 36 year old adult who loved and lost my share of people, including members of the family. Get your headings straight fast, please.

Choosing between your carreer somewhere and someone you are in love with is not easy. You make it sound like he was late for work and decided to drive through a red light. This black and white moralism sounds like you know nothing about life. The fact that these rules came into play after the relationship started and that there was no actual relationship at this moment are indeed mitigating circumstances,

My comment was a sarcastic response to Witeken's remark, attempting to combat what we know to be a simple excuse for firing him is a doomed exercise.

If you believe just for one moment this 'forbidden romance' was anything more than a stick to push him out, you need to get away from your PC a bit more, into the real world.

You may want to check my opinion on the matter, since we're talking about kids and problematic emotional response.

We don't have proof it's because of the 10nm struggle, but the entire little drama looks like a pure theatrical distraction.

So we're expected to believe the board just found out about a past relationship and swiftly decided to fire their CEO after a record profit year?! This may be grounds for a graceful hand-off, not a quick and dirty removal.

 

[PingSpike]

I feel like everyone is talking over each other in this thread. I actually think the rule is a reasonable one, just that there's no way it would have actually been enforced to this level if there weren't a different motive.

The more I think about it, the more I think that this relationship, since it was so old, has been known about for years. The "overheard at a watercooler last week" source is probably a pure work of fiction.

 

[PeterScott]

Legally it is presumed that a subordinate is unable to consent to a person in position of power. Sure John Doe might believe he is sharing a true love with his high school teacher, but in the eyes of law the teacher is committing child molestation (or worse).

Evidence that she was actually a subordinate. I have seen none.

Also we are 5+ years after that relationship, in the era of #metoo. If she felt in any way wronged, she could come forward. If there was a pattern of taking advantage, it would have emerged after the first report.

In all likelihood this is just a case of two consenting adults falling for each other.

 

[PeterScott]

Seriously?? A top executive doesn't have enough self control to keep it in his pants except for his wife? Hell, he has loads of money, is reasonably good looking, and since he is a CEO, I assume is reasonably articulate. If he really *had* to have an affair, he would have plenty of opportunities outside of co-workers. But again, it really doesnt matter, because the policy "is what it is". And I hate to tell you it doesn't really matter what you think, because you dont make the rules.

Seriously?? You think that being a top executive makes any difference in falling for someone? Why do you assume he was looking for an affair? Do you really think that is how relationships work? Do you seriously think he was just looking to get laid, and found the first easy target at work?

In reality, people meet, and fall in love, and relationships ensue. That is human nature.

So yes, when I said anti-fraternization policies, make as much sense, as abstinence only does for teen pregnancy prevention. I was serious. You can't ignore human nature and expect good outcomes.

The amount of high horse moralizing in this thread is ridiculous. I am reminded how often those who moralize the loudest are often hypocrites hiding similar actions.

 

[chrisjames61]

That paints the snitch as even more a lowlife.

Low moral compass you seem to have. You seem bent on proving it at every opportunity too.