Unlike Obama, Meg Whitman Actually Kicks Ass

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Whitman's CEO shove could harm campaign message

In her bid to be California's next governor, Meg Whitman has frequently cited her tenure as chief executive of eBay to contend she has what it takes to run the nation's largest state government. But that may no longer be the best talking point. The New York Times' Brad Stone reports today that Whitman once paid off an eBay employee who had threatened to sue after the then-CEO shoved her during a work argument.

Neither Whitman nor the employee in question, Young Mi Kim, would discuss the matter in detail. But Stone, citing interviews with current and former eBay employees who spoke anonymously about the incident, say the run-in happened in June 2007, when Whitman became angry while Kim, an eBay press handler, was preparing the CEO for a media interview.

According to the accounts, Whitman "forcefully pushed" Kim — or, as Whitman argued, "physically guided" her — out of a conference room. Either way, Kim retained a lawyer and left the company, later receiving what Stone says was a payout in the neighborhood of $200,000. In October 2007, Kim returned to eBay, where she still works today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100615/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2609

lol...meg didn't need to form a committee to tell her whose ass to kick, she kicked ass right away, now thats leadership

j/k....interestingly, the lady went right back to work for ebay...likely a light shove, get $200,000 "bonus" and get job back with ebay....thanks meg!
 
Yurt said:
Whitman's CEO shove could harm campaign message

In her bid to be California's next governor, Meg Whitman has frequently cited her tenure as chief executive of eBay to contend she has what it takes to run the nation's largest state government. But that may no longer be the best talking point. The New York Times' Brad Stone reports today that Whitman once paid off an eBay employee who had threatened to sue after the then-CEO shoved her during a work argument.

Neither Whitman nor the employee in question, Young Mi Kim, would discuss the matter in detail. But Stone, citing interviews with current and former eBay employees who spoke anonymously about the incident, say the run-in happened in June 2007, when Whitman became angry while Kim, an eBay press handler, was preparing the CEO for a media interview.

According to the accounts, Whitman "forcefully pushed" Kim — or, as Whitman argued, "physically guided" her — out of a conference room. Either way, Kim retained a lawyer and left the company, later receiving what Stone says was a payout in the neighborhood of $200,000. In October 2007, Kim returned to eBay, where she still works today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100615/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2609

lol...meg didn't need to form a committee to tell her whose ass to kick, she kicked ass right away, now thats leadership

j/k....interestingly, the lady went right back to work for ebay...likely a light shove, get $200,000 "bonus" and get job back with ebay....thanks meg!
Click to expand...

You call it leadership, I call it assault. I think Whitman's head may be a little too hot already to take all the heat she'd be facing as a governor.
 
christiefan915 said:
If Whitman wasn't guilty of something there wouldn't have been a six-figure pay out to Young.
Click to expand...
Please, her high level of job... People get laid off with better parachutes than that. If there really was something there she'd have had millions and a silence agreement. This is like seeing somebody with a cigar and calling the fire department, then saying, "Where there's smoke there's fire!"
 
christiefan915 said:
If Whitman wasn't guilty of something there wouldn't have been a six-figure pay out to Young.
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily true. While different than Whitman's situation I had an a*hole threaten to sue me recently and while my lawyer said I had done nothing wrong he said with the amount of time and money it would take for you to defend yourself you might as well just pay him off which I did. It's possible she was in a situation similar to me.
 
Damocles said:
Please, her high level of job... People get laid off with better parachutes than that. If there really was something there she'd have had millions and a silence agreement. This is like seeing somebody with a cigar and calling the fire department, then saying, "Where there's smoke there's fire!"
Click to expand...

What is your problem? Even Whitman admits there was an altercation.
 
christiefan915 said:
What is your problem? Even Whitman admits there was an altercation.
Click to expand...
She says she guided the woman from the room. What would have happened had she called security? Seriously. Neither you and I know what happened, but until there is more evidence than anonymous weirdos and some chick who barely got her salary to "leave" for a bit... Well, the jury is still awaiting evidence, there is more than "reasonable doubt" here.
 
cawacko said:
That's not necessarily true. While different than Whitman's situation I had an a*hole threaten to sue me recently and while my lawyer said I had done nothing wrong he said with the amount of time and money it would take for you to defend yourself you might as well just pay him off which I did. It's possible she was in a situation similar to me.
Click to expand...

When Clinton paid off Paul Jones without admitting to any wrongdoing, repubs were all over him, calling him a liar. Why should Whitman expect any better treatment from libs? :cof1:
 
christiefan915 said:
When Clinton paid off Paul Jones without admitting to any wrongdoing, repubs were all over him, calling him a liar. Why should Whitman expect any better treatment from libs? :cof1:
Click to expand...
For me, it's the amount. I actually don't even know what party Whitman is in, nor do I care. What was described just isn't the worst that I have seen, let alone heard about.
 
christiefan915 said:
When Clinton paid off Paul Jones without admitting to any wrongdoing, repubs were all over him, calling him a liar. Why should Whitman expect any better treatment from libs? :cof1:
Click to expand...

I wasn't speaking from a political perspective. I was just speaking from experience that sometimes paying out occurs even when nothing has been done wrong.
 
cawacko said:
I wasn't speaking from a political perspective. I was just speaking from experience that sometimes paying out occurs even when nothing has been done wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know what kind of money we're talking about here, nor do I want to know, but based on just the info given, if it were me I might be considering a countersuit against the a*hole. People like him who sink to this kind of legal extortion are despicable.
 
christiefan915 said:
Well, I don't know what kind of money we're talking about here, nor do I want to know, but based on just the info given, if it were me I might be considering a countersuit against the a*hole. People like him who sink to this kind of legal extortion are despicable.
Click to expand...

Mine was a real estate issue not a case like Whitman's where it could be assult so that's a difference. And it wasn't big money it was more a principal thing. The lawyer basically said it would take a year and $10k to $20k to defend yourself or pay off the guy $3k which I did. If I had the money I would have gone to court because the guy was screwing me.

I'm not trying to claim Whitman's innocent as I have no idea I'm just giving an example of paying out even though you haven't done anything wrong.
 
cawacko said:
Mine was a real estate issue not a case like Whitman's where it could be assult so that's a difference. And it wasn't big money it was more a principal thing. The lawyer basically said it would take a year and $10k to $20k to defend yourself or pay off the guy $3k which I did. If I had the money I would have gone to court because the guy was screwing me.

I'm not trying to claim Whitman's innocent as I have no idea I'm just giving an example of paying out even though you haven't done anything wrong.
Click to expand...

if there was a contract involved (guessing with real estate)....was there an atty fee clause? in most contracts, there is always an attorney fee clause that gives atty fees to the prevailing party....

barring that, you're right, it is often better to settle than drag it out....it is the way our legal works. is it right? i don't know, but it does induce people to settle. courts are taking a much more proactive approach to settlements now, there are mandatory settlement conferences, and strongly "suggested" mediation
 
Yurt said:
if there was a contract involved (guessing with real estate)....was there an atty fee clause? in most contracts, there is always an attorney fee clause that gives atty fees to the prevailing party....

barring that, you're right, it is often better to settle than drag it out....it is the way our legal works. is it right? i don't know, but it does induce people to settle. courts are taking a much more proactive approach to settlements now, there are mandatory settlement conferences, and strongly "suggested" mediation
Click to expand...

damn, I cannot remember and I know that was discussed to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top