Intel CEO resigns after consensual relationship with employee following investigation from Board

[kidlat020]

3 minutes ago, SC2Mitch said:

He violated his companies policy on relationships, what's the huge deal? He accepted he was wrong and handed in his resignation, no harassment to speak off lol. 

I don't see the female getting fired. let me remind you that she also violated the company policies. only the CEO got fired.

 

furthermore CEO is a very important position and frankly could mean the death of the entire company. a mere secretary can easily be replaced and the company will do just fine.

 

you have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes bro.

[Jito463]

19 minutes ago, kidlat020 said:

I don't see the female getting fired. let me remind you that she also violated the company policies. only the CEO got fired.

Which is why I believe this incident was simply a smoke screen to give him an easy out without there being some controversy over his leaving.  I don't believe for one moment that this incident is what prompted his resignation, it was simply a convenient excuse.

[Sauron]

On 6/21/2018 at 3:12 PM, SC2Mitch said:

Time to watch the stock market, going to be a wild day for Intel that's for sure. 

Meh, I don't think stockholders care... the cause of his "resignation" has nothing to do with his actual management capabilities and there's no reason to suspect foul financial play.

On 6/21/2018 at 3:15 PM, mynameisjuan said:

I dont get why this is frowned upon. It two people in a work place turn out to be great together, who the fuck cares. Let them be happy. 

 

I have seen two people in a relationship at work fight and that can be awkward for sure. But that is an outlier 

Potential conflict of interests, imbalanced power dynamics, petty revenge or favours at the expense of the company... there are reasons why you wouldn't want a CEO to be in a relationship with their subordinates. It's unprofessional to ask a subordinate out on a date, and unless they've been flirting on the job (even more unprofessional) there must have been some interaction outside of work that they shouldn't have indulged in.

 

If this is just about a one night stand (even worse) then they both should have known better.

 

Granted, there are far worse things than to date a colleague, but if the relationship is actually going somewhere the responsible choice would be to look for another job elsewhere.

On 6/21/2018 at 3:30 PM, Deus Voltage said:

Therefore it follows that the discussion should not be about whether or not the rule is silly, rather to what extent do investors have power, rightfully or wrongfully, over the private lives of employees?

This is the CEO we're talking about... his only job is to please investors.

[Sauron]

23 minutes ago, kidlat020 said:

but that's not what happened here? ONLY the CEO guy got fired while the waman got away with it. probably that CEO position is gonna be replaced by a diversity hire aka a waman with zero skills. because something about muh diversity is our stwength or some sjw crap like that maybe?

 

also yes, I'm saying wamanz should stay away from male jobs and, frankly? go back to the kitchen!

I guess you weren't kidding after all... oh dear. The CEO was asked to resign (not fired) because, being the one with greater power inside the company, he was the one who could actually cause damage to it, as well as being the one who most likely doesn't actually need to earn a living. Since he no longer works for Intel, there's no point whatsoever in letting his partner go.

 

His position has been taken by another man who has worked for Intel for decades and statistically speaking there's an overwhelmingly high chance he will, in turn, be replaced by a man. If you honestly think stockholders would be willing to hire someone with no skills to manage their investments because of an imaginary sjw influence, you're more than deluded.

 

Male jobs? What part of being a CEO makes it more suitable for a man than for a woman in your mind? I could maybe understand if the job description included power lifting (although even then there are plenty of exceptions) but it doesn't. Then again judging from your comments you probably couldn't apply to be a janitor at Intel, let alone a position you would consider a "male job".

[leadeater]

Thread cleaned and a reminder of the Community Standards, in particular:

 

Quote

No harassment, discrimination or abuse of any kind.

 

[Jito463]

16 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I guess you weren't kidding after all... oh dear.

Yeah, I thought it best not to entangle myself with his other......ramblings.

[NMS]

While I find this extremely stupid since this was a consensual relationship between both parties, I very highly doubt that he just decided to resign.

I'm pretty sure the board partners panicked and to escape any backlash that might've came from the media just MADE HIM RESIGN.

[ItsMitch]

1 hour ago, VegetableStu said:

unless his wife approves of the relationship

M..Maybe he had a kink with his wife? 2 girls better than one in the bedroom Kappa

[The Benjamins]

14 hours ago, kidlat020 said:

so it doesn't have to be harassment. men can be fired even on a consensual relationship, huh? and you don't see how this is actually far worse?

 

I'll bet money, effing money, that this CEO will be replaced by a diversity quota hire aka a waman with no skills. because muh diversity is our stwength or something.

This is not a man vs woman thing this is a policy implemented that does not allow people higher up in the company have relationship with people below them, be it male or female. 

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

This is not a man vs woman thing this is a policy implemented that does not allow people higher up in the company have relationship with people below them, be it male or female. 

Does it specifically say higher up and lower down or does it just say not to have relationships?  Because that seems like a very important distinction and one that must be evidenced before claims of an ethical nature can be asserted.

[porina]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Does it specifically say higher up and lower down or does it just say not to have relationships?  Because that seems like a very important distinction and one that must be evidenced before claims of an ethical nature can be asserted.

I don't work at Intel, but I do work for a US HQ company with worldwide presence. Annually I have to re-assert that I agree to abide by the code of conduct, which includes a prohibition on relationships where there is any reporting or signoff link e.g. if one party has decision making ability of any kind over the other. So it doesn't necessarily have to be direct chain of command, but indirectly to other departments if they have to approve some of your work. It is intended to avoid conflict of interest that could arise from such a scenario. The guidelines say that if such a scenario were to occur, it should be reported and the people involved will be reassigned where possible, but if not, at least one has to go.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, porina said:

I don't work at Intel, but I do work for a US HQ company with worldwide presence. Annually I have to re-assert that I agree to abide by the code of conduct, which includes a prohibition on relationships where there is any reporting or signoff link e.g. if one party has decision making ability of any kind over the other. So it doesn't necessarily have to be direct chain of command, but indirectly to other departments if they have to approve some of your work. It is intended to avoid conflict of interest that could arise from such a scenario. The guidelines say that if such a scenario were to occur, it should be reported and the people involved will be reassigned where possible, but if not, at least one has to go.

So it's less likely to be a generic "no relationships" policy and more likely to be a upper/lower, and in that is there any indication that the upper should resign?

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So it's less likely to be a generic "no relationships" policy and more likely to be a upper/lower, and in that is there any indication that the upper should resign?

The way those types of policies are worded they apply specifically to the higher reporting line as it is their duties which are called in to question and have to be reviewed. Auditing nightmare pretty much.

 

This is not to say that only one will ever be asked to resign as it may depend on who each person is and what role they have in the company. I imagine if it was for example the CEO and the CFO both would be asked to resign.

[porina]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So it's less likely to be a generic "no relationships" policy and more likely to be a upper/lower, and in that is there any indication that the upper should resign?

Again, I'm not at Intel, but where I am... from memory, it is the responsibility of the more senior person to report it, but there was no mention that if if it came to it, which one would go. I think they'd leave that open for flexibility, and hope it isn't needed at all...

[NMS]

9 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

if wikipedia's accurate (the last time i checked), unless his wife approves of the relationship...

Wait wait wait?! He's married? Well in that case this is more than justifiable!

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, NMS said:

Wait wait wait?! He's married? Well in that case this is more than justifiable!

why does his marital status have anything to do with this?  For all you know they have an open relationship or agreement.  Such things are not uncommon. 

[porina]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

why does his marital status have anything to do with this?  For all you know they have an open relationship or agreement.  Such things are not uncommon. 

Not saying it applies here, but my employment contract has a clause in it that essentially says I could be terminated without notice if I do anything that could damage the company's reputation. This has been used in one case that I'm aware of where a now former employee was prosecuted for causing a noise problem in their neighbourhood and it made the local paper. That person's role was a public facing one and that was enough.

[NMS]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

why does his marital status have anything to do with this?  For all you know they have an open relationship or agreement.  Such things are not uncommon. 

But unless he clarifies, or specifically his wife the assumption is that it wasn't open.

And you know what? No. I'm totally biased here, but I would never approve of something like that. Once you're married I do not believe in "open marriage". Because if you're in one, clearly you're unhappy so just split. There's no need to create this false idea of happiness.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, porina said:

Not saying it applies here, but my employment contract has a clause in it that essentially says I could be terminated without notice if I do anything that could damage the company's reputation. This has been used in one case that I'm aware of where a now former employee was prosecuted for causing a noise problem in their neighbourhood and it made the local paper. That person's role was a public facing one and that was enough.

I get that, deciding not to support a company because the CEO is immoral in ones own eyes is worthy of that company protecting itself from such scrutiny.  My point was more that if an individual (or group) thinks their moral compass is holier than thou's and  that is justification to call for resignation on it's own then we have seriously more severe societal justice issues than whether the CEO is unfaithful or just part of a swinger culture.

9 hours ago, NMS said:

But unless he clarifies, or specifically his wife the assumption is that it wasn't open.

And you know what? No. I'm totally biased here, but I would never approve of something like that. Once you're married I do not believe in "open marriage". Because if you're in one, clearly you're unhappy so just split. There's no need to create this false idea of happiness.

That's only your opinion. There's in no "clearly" nor "false idea of happiness" about it. Many people are happy in open relationships, some cultures even embrace it.

[Fyrwulf]

Let's not act like this is really about a consensual relationship. This is about his failures as a manager. He didn't have a plan to fight AMD, which is just inexcusable considering that Jim Keller was giving interviews about Zen four years before it hits the market. He didn't step on his node engineers when they decided to use Cobalt in the interconnects of the bottom two layers, which none of the other foundries are doing because of physical property reasons.

[AnonymousGuy]

My money is on it being his assistant.  She is/was ridiculously hot for an assistant and then got replaced by a fat ugly one.

 

And amusingly enough, the stock market didn't significantly care about BK leaving.  He didn't have a single good acquisition or breakout product in his tenure, and managed to let AMD and foundries to close a big gap.  Board probably just wanted him out.

[CTR640]

On 24-6-2018 at 4:25 AM, SC2Mitch said:

M..Maybe he had a kink with his wife? 2 girls better than one in the bedroom Kappa

Or....Brian was negotiating with the employee to do 2girls1cup with his wife and he wanna watch Kappa