Comments on That CEO

They're ignoring it, Charles, because they don't want readers to have precisely the kind of reaction you noted that they might have had to seeing the black woman you mentioned yesterday who was hogging the samples of beef at QFC.

How aboout this conspiracy theory of why the Economist didn't mention his color? Tt didn't matter! Money is color blind. Yes, the firing seems a little knee-jerk, but it's because the market is too focused on the short-term.

Get a grip you losers.

The "idiots" at the Economists have "g[a]ll" and that's exactly why we pay $150 a year or or $5 at news stands for their insightful, honest reporting. Find me another publication that has a fraction of their realism and honesty. At least they tell you when they're giving you their opinion.

You're reading race into this when it has nothing to do with it. It's all about the bottom line and the most recent quarter's results with the Wall St crowd. The article didn't say anything about his being the first black CEO let go. Just the first CEO.

"as if this kind of thing happens all of the time"

This kind of thing does happen all the time. If, by "this kind of thing" you mean, CEOs being fired for poor short-term performance. It is utterly unremarkable in the corporate world - this story is getting more attention than usual because of Merrill Lynch's size and because it's linked to the mortgage issue.

If, by "this kind of thing" you mean, a black CEO being fired for poor short-term performance, then, I ask, what does the fact that he is black have to do with him being fired? As @2 said, money is color blind. I guarantee that the Board does not think of him as a black CEO, but as a CEO. Shareholders do not think of him as a black guy who needs to deliver results, but as a guy who needs to deliver results. So, why should those reporting on the issue be any different?

Charles, it's being reported that he approached Wachovia about a merger with Merrill Lynch without telling his own Board about it. That plus writing down a few billion in losses will get you shown to the door just about anywhere a Board has the power to show the CEO the door.

Race doesn't have a fucking thing to do with this, you militant asswipe.

Charles, I disagree with you. This 3rd Qtr write-down is huge. O'Neal is the first to be "retired", but there will plenty of other heads rolling. The markets always start melting down in October.

His race was not mentioned because it was not relevant to the story. He was not hired because he was black, he was not fired because he was black, and from a business perspective, whether or not it was a good idea to fire him or not is solely a question of its effects on Merril’s profits. The Economist gave it the coverage it deserves.

Of course this doesn't happen all the time, because there are virtually no black CEOs. For O'Neal to have made it this far, he had to break down a lot of racism and had to ingratiate himself to his white colleagues. While I'm sure, actually positive, that most white financiers are racist, I guarantee they don't see O'Neal "that way." He's one of them now, not one of those black people: the ones deserving of their scorn.

O\'Neal\'s ouster is being treated as a retirement by the investment bank and brokerage firm, allowing him to walk away with benefits valued at $161.5 million from various pension plans and stock grants. Merrill is also providing O\'Neal, 56, with an office and an executive assistant for up to three years.

The gull [sic]! I can\'t believe they\'d do a black man like that!

Charles, You see race in things where race does not play an issue. Why did they not mention race? It is a British publication and Britian is not as hung up on race as Americans are. And when YOU play the race card on every issue when it is not a factor you destroy credibility when it IS a factor Charles.

Until you bring definitive proof or race being an issue Charles shut up.

Charles, please find a real issue to write about.

"and Britian is not as hung up on race as Americans are. "

you have never been there obviously or have never experienced the brutal brit racism in scotland northern ireland, wales and england.

From the Commission for Racial Equality:

"Our call is based on a damning analysis that 30 years after the Race Relations Act and the creation of the CRE, Britain, despite its status as the fifth largest economy in the world, is still a place of inequality, exclusion and isolation."

there are no black ceos in the UK,you can not find people of color in any positions of power there.

the point of the post was that it is rare to see a black CEO and its just as rare, even more so, in europe than in the US.

It is very clear to me after reading this disturbing story that the vast majority of Slog commenters are little white people with no sense of history or the constant struggle of minorities in this country. It is the kneejerk reaction to jump on someone for calling out race as an issue, yet applauding that person rarely is the "PC" thing to do. Internet culture has created a rabid form of misinformed dissent, disguised in anonymity, which only fuels the fires that still burn in our society.

It will be interesting to see if other heads will indeed roll. If this guy is the only one who gets the boot, then race could be an issue.

#10: I don't think you can 'guarantee' that race isn't an issue here. It's very unusual to have a black CEO. It's rather groundbreaking, actually. Of course, it's a factor. I'm sure he had to work twice as hard (and twice as politically) in that firm to get to the CEO position. However, he's the first one to get the boot. Coincidence?

Chuck, it is your goal to emphasize the fact that this guy is a black pariah, instead of just a generic pariah? Totally off base. Not a race issue.

keshmeshi @10 - that's was a great way of phrasing that point. Not only do Board members/other executives not care that he is black, many probably see him as "white"/"like them" rather than one of those black people.

As an aside, that is the reason I think that it is easier for a black man to ascend to the high ranks of the corporate world than for a woman. In my experience with Boards/CEOs, it is easier for the old white men in suits to see a black executive as "like them" than it is for them to see a female executive as "like them".

Of course his race was the factor. A white CEO would have been buddy buddy with all the other white men on the board, who would then have given him the benefit of the doubt they didn't give to the black man.

As I read your post I was wondering at what point you were going to turn it into a race post.
Predictable.

Money isn't colorblind when it's controlled by white ex-frat boys in country clubs.

Black people are now CEO's in 1.7% of the top 1000 companies and black people make up 0.5% of current senators.

Are you people seriously arguing that money is colorblind in these cases? Because, if so, you're saying only white people are fit for leadership.

What I see is yet another CEO being paid off after pushing record losses. $165 million on the way out? If they kicked him off the top of the tower, they stuffed his pockets full of money first.

I keep wondering what Citigroup's board is thinking about Chuck Prince. What's going on over at WaMu? I heard they're cutting their dividend. Is this correct?

The financials seem to have gone into the toilet except perhaps for Goldman's, and these companies seem unable to come to grips with trying to establish a mark to market for all these CDO's floating around in their portfolios. It seems like a real mess.

--- Jensen

Feigned outrage?
Since when does Charles express disgust with the interjection "Jesus Christ!"?
Nice fishing, Charles. Looks like you caught some biguns.

The parade of people on this kind of post who jump in to pooh-pooh the notion that race could possibly have anything to do with anything is hilarious. "I guarantee that the Board does not think of him as a black CEO." "You're reading race into this when it has nothing to do with it." "He was not hired because he was black, he was not fired because he was black." Oh! And you all know this how -- via your telepathic link to the Merrill Lynch board?

None of you know, or can know, why he was fired any more than Charles does. (There may well be valid reasons for firing him, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that those were the board's "real" reasons. The faith expressed here in money as the great equalizer -- the leveler of petty personal politics -- is quasi-religious.) But rather than leave it at that, you rush in to offer an alternative mind-reading, lest anyone should have the fleeting unworthy thought that white folks (especially in the SOPHISTICATED world of HIGH FINANCE) might ever do any such thing, move along people, nothing to see here!

@19. I think that claims that race was the reason he was fired are just ridiculous -- that's just not how individuals at the Board level and "c-suite" operate. I've worked with lots of Fortune 500 executives and Boards and seen how they interact with female and minority executives and Directors. There is absolutely no way that Stan O'Neal became CEO without being "buddy buddy" as you put it with the Board and other executives.

CEOs are fired for performance or PR reasons (the Boeing CEO's sex scandal). Carly Fiorina was not fired from HP because she was a woman. Stan O'Neil was not fired because he is black.

This is some serious troll-fu right here.

@25. I'm not saying that the white folks in the sophisticated world of high finance are too moral to fire someone based on race. I'm saying that because many of these white folks are likely to be racist, Stan O'Neal would not have been made CEO if they didn't see him as "white like them". They're not going to then just fire him because he "didn't fit in" or some quasi racist BS like that -- he did fit in and that's why I think he was fired solely for performance reasons.

I've worked and know some of the people involved. Race was probably an impediment to him getting to where he was to some degree, as it would be with a woman. Obviously, people are going to have to feel like you are 'like them', but education, experience and politics play more of a role in that than the color of your skin.

In any corporation, money is basically all that matters (for promotion, pay, office size etc.), but this is investment banking. If you seriously think that anything but money matters in investment banking, you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Seriously.

The obvious unfairness of people being laid off while the man at the helm walks off with millions in severance would have been the angle to pursue, and I wouldn't have disagreed that analysis.

Julie's argument: Because we can presume the board is racist, it follows that race was a factor in neither his firing nor his hiring.

@29. That was very well said... much better than my attempts at communicating the same points.

last one hired, first one fired....

jamier, thank you. that was my point.

I don't get how the claim that money rules the day for corporate decision making means that race doesn't factor in hiring and firing decisions. Given that this is, you know, the United States, I'd say that the two are more likely to go hand in hand.

Yep, nothing screams racism like a $165MM golden parachute. Apparently people used up all their outrage following Mike McGavick's departure from Safeco.

Has anyone considered that ML might have some board members that aren't stuffy old white men? I'm kinda surprised that the board's composition hasn't been discussed yet.

Thirty-five comments so far (36 with this one). Pretty high for a Mudede post. Let's try for a record 100 by discussing pitbulls on bikes having sex at the restrooms in Volunteer Park.

Charles dreams of a race war just so he can get a front page article in the Stranger. And gotta give him credit, he is really trying to find something to start it with.

julie, i think it's a pretty good question how this group figures that the board was not so racist that they wouldn't hire him, but racist enough that they'd seize the first opportunity to fire him? But wait, they were also willing to let him walk with all that cash because they're such racists.

This is just typifies the debate on Slog. The Board names are in ML's proxy from March, but aren't any pictures and it honestly doesn't matter how many are women (I think it's 3 or 4 of 11 or 12 though).

#15: THANK YOU!

That's not really the story. He's responsible for losing a record $8 BILLION for the company, and was rightfully fired. In banking, it's all about numbers. Period. No one would have cared how much the man was despised during his tenure there - and he was pretty much considered a dick by everyone he worked with (there was actually a website dedicated to how much work he DIDN'T do, how many rounds of golf he played a day) - but if his business decisions would have panned out, he'd still have a job.

Oh yeah, he also got a record $200 million in severance for his efforts.

The real story here is that this man may be the straw that broke the camels back regarding CEO severance payouts. Not even the famously failed Home Depot CEO got off this clean.

Jamier @21 (and Charles @33) – there are larger issues in our society that result in the minority and female candidate pool for CEO positions (and the precursors to those positions) being much smaller than the pool of white, male candidates. That is why the percentage of minority and female CEOs is much lower than their percentage of the overall population (rather than Boards looking at two qualified candidates and picking the white one over the black one, or being quicker to fire a black executive). Once black candidates make up 12% of the candidate pool for these positions (and that obviously requires addressing the larger issues), then if the percentage of black CEOs is still so low, you can say that money isn’t colorblind at the CEO level.

I'm not sure how long it will be before the percentage of black CEOs increase. In my old job at a consulting firm, I was in charge of recruiting MBA candidates (for a position for which someone might be able to become a F500 CEO in 20 years or so), and an incredibly small number of black people applied for these positions. I think I interviewed all of one black candidate in 2-3 years (and he was African, not African-American).

Could the CEO of this company be fired without allegations of discrimination. Gap's response should be a PR disaster. Not selling the clothes and terminating the contractor? How about compensating the kids involved and how is closing a factory that doesn't pay its workers unfair to the workers?

"The children were producing hand-stitched blouses for the Christmas market in the United States and Europe at Gap Kids stores, according to the newspaper. The blouses were to carry a price of about $40, The Observer reported.

The Gap faced criticism for similar practices in 2000, when a BBC documentary uncovered young girls producing Gap products at a Cambodian factory. But since then, Hansen said, the company has developed comprehensive policies to prevent abuse and protect workers' rights. Hansen said violations of those policies are now "extremely rare."

Hansen does not support closing any factories in India in response to the allegations because it would deprive those working in proper conditions of their income."

The female CEO involved should be fired, but could she be without Slog reader outrage?

that he was the first african-american ceo was very significant. honestly people do you not know any people of color, or when you do meet one you spend the entire conversation telling them how not racist you are and you never noticed the fact that they were black/mexican/indian/whatever. no matter how much you think race is relevant it still is to a lot of people and not just minorities who you feel might be hung up on the past.

@43, actually, yes. It's my second favorite hobby. (My favorite hobby is walking my dogs in my ethnically diverse, yet gentrifying, urban village.)

For instance, I honestly didn't notice you were Filipino until right now, this second.

Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break.

Nice rhetorical sleight-of-hand there, left coast. Who here said O'Neal shouldn't have been fired, much less called it an "outrage"? "Money isn't colorblind" (comments #14, 15, 16, 19/34, 21, 25, etc.) does not equal "People of color should never be fired for any reason."

That he was the first african-american ceo was very significant.

Oh, please. He was NOT "the first African-American CEO". He wasn't even the first African-American CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

I'd say that, if anything, the effort to ignore his race in the article is a deliberate effort by the writers to not make this an issue of him being "a shame to his race", as some would unfortunately call him. It is done out of respect. Is he being unfairly targeted due to racism? If so, it's hard to see exactly how - he did seriously fuck up here.

@43,

Race is still relevant, but now there's more of a class element to it. In my personal experience, the most common form of racism is the inclusion of minorities who are like us. Educated well-off white people have no problem with educated well-off black people. They have a problem with all other black people -- who don't speak "correctly," who don't act "correctly," who are poor (because poverty must be their fault).

Both my parents worked in or with the financial sector. Even 20 years ago, that was the prevailing attitude among their friends and colleagues.

I'd like to suggest that the guy stopped being "one of them" as soon as they found it convenient to use him as a scapegoat. The black guy gets it first, just like in the movies.

Why then, did they give him a whatever-million-dollar golden parachute? Because they might be racist, but they aren't altogether *stupid*. They were generous because the alternative -- a big, honkin' lawsuit -- could have potentially cost them more. And even if they won that lawsuit (I'd give them good odds, in fact), it could have created a truly huge PR disaster.

Blacks don't need to be CEOs we just built them the light rail on MLK!

At the executive level, severance packages are negotiated during hiring and are part of a your contract, not calculated when you leave.

He couldn't have sued anyhow, if he'd been fired, it would have been performance related (guiding the Company to it's biggest quarterly loss in their 100+ year history) in an "employment-at-will" state. But he wasn't fired, he was forced into retirement.

What is significant about this case is that it may prompt legislation to allow Boards of Director's to contest payouts like this one in such extreme cases, as well as shed some light on the extreme discrepancy in compensation between ordinary workers and executives (the gap has increased to 400x compared to 20 years ago, when an executive made close to 30x what the workforce did).

A lot of people lost their livelihoods because of this guy, and he walks with $200 million in parachute pay.

If you were looking for a story on race, it should have been written when this man was moving forward as one of Americas few black CEOs, even more interesting that ML is one of Americas most "old timey" institutions. Before any of this. There may be an interesting story there.

Huh. Nothing about Franklin Raines, Charles? You could have made your argument based upon *two* anecdotes, not just one.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar david.

No Nig Nogs for me!

@53: That's crap, and you're a fucking coward. Do you even know what that means? I swear to God you are ASKING for a beating saying that. Fuck off, you hateful piece of shit.