The way I see it, it was probably a cover up and they did not want to say the real reason. If it was not a cover up, that is a really dumb company policy, to fire someone for a consensual relationship. Either way, shame on Intel.
What they should have done, is retire him for performance issues and state the truth, or not fire him at all.
Wrong. What appears "consensual" from the point of view of the superior, or even from the outside, ignores the hidden coercions latent in any superior/inferior relationship. Note that we are not talking equals, here. That is another story.The way I see it, it was probably a cover up and they did not want to say the real reason. If it was not a cover up, that is a really dumb company policy, to fire someone for a consensual relationship. Either way, shame on Intel.
What they should have done, is retire him for performance issues and state the truth, or not fire him at all.
Exactly, and very well said. I have been trying to get this across repeatedly in this thread, but get excoriated every time. I would agree that 10 nm was *probably* a major issue, but that does not negate the fact that an intimate relationship with someone over whom you have influence is a very serious violation, whether it is consensual or not.Wrong. What appears "consensual" from the point of view of the superior, or even from the outside, ignores the hidden coercions latent in any superior/inferior relationship. Note that we are not talking equals, here. That is another story.
For a company to rigidly require that no boss mess with an underling is an important policy that prevents sub-rosa coerced relationships -- relationships that wait until someone is let go, and show up in expensive lawsuits. There is money involved; hence, the policy.
And don't go hiding behind the characterization of the relationship as "consensual." If we ask the lady involved, she might have a very different perspective on the "persuasions" used.
Interesting that both broke the rule, but only one got fired.https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-ex-chiefs-affair-with-employee-began-before-he-was-ceo-1529722358
WSJ says that the affair started many years ago, before BK became CEO but didn't say when the affair ended. The female was a middle manager, they say, still works at Intel.
Basically the board used this as an excuse to fire him over 10nm.
Usually it's the most senior position that feels the most wrath. But if it's a blanket to sleep with coworkers both should be let go. But we all have mentioned over and over and over again. This is all about putting a nearly transparent blanket over the real reason. They wanted him out this was a quick and easy one.Interesting that both broke the rule, but only one got fired.
Amazing how one can stare at the facts and still see the fantasy.Interesting that both broke the rule, but only one got fired.
The superior was fired for taking advantage. To fire the underling would be punishing her for being the victim in the "relationship."Interesting that both broke the rule, but only one got fired.
That may be your opinion, but that does not make my opinion wrong. I am all for free love my friend That said, maybe we should ask the lady. See what she says. IMO the policy is wrong, or at least needs some tweaking. But that is another discussion besides the performance issues at Intel.Wrong. What appears "consensual" from the point of view of the superior, or even from the outside, ignores the hidden coercions latent in any superior/inferior relationship. Note that we are not talking equals, here. That is another story.
For a company to rigidly require that no boss mess with an underling is an important policy that prevents sub-rosa coerced relationships -- relationships that wait until someone is let go, and show up in expensive lawsuits. There is money involved; hence, the policy.
And don't go hiding behind the characterization of the relationship as "consensual." If we ask the lady involved, she might have a very different perspective on the "persuasions" used.
The superior was fired for taking advantage. To fire the underling would be punishing her for being the victim in the "relationship."
That may be your opinion, but that does not make my opinion wrong. I am all for free love my friend That said, maybe we should ask the lady. See what she says. IMO the policy is wrong, or at least needs some tweaking. But that is another discussion besides the performance issues at Intel.
He knew the rules and codes of conduct and he freely chose to break them. Case closed.
I have a suspecion he was offered a graceful out and said no, possibly unaware that the past relationship was enough grounds for an exit. The largest "nail in the coffin", as it were, for me was when he sold just about as much stock as he could after Intel knew about Spectre, but before the existence of Spectre was released to the public. I also believe the only reason for Intel not using this as the "official" reason is that Intel cannot afford to let that that word be even suggested as another cause for anything bad right now.