LawTalkers - A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=643)

through the looking glass

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Did this pass the Victoria Principal principle? We may never know.

Hmmmm.....Victoria Principal.....hmmmmm...

through the looking glass

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Given the ambiguity of the reasons for his termination, it's a reasonable question. If the policy is no intra-corporate affairs, why isn't she on the hook? Double standard?

Is the policy "you have to report any affairs if you're in x position" and she either reported it or isn't in x position? Then there's a reason.

Why are they interested in fucking up his life? They'll end up having to settle with him over the inevitable suit over whether the termination was for cause (assuming he hasn't settled already).

I assume that someone wanted to get medieval on his ass for other reasons, and that this is how it played out. Of course it's a double standard. This is not usually a firing offense, right? Surely they care about the costs of such litigation not at all, assuming that he'll sue and risk the filing of an answer with more allegations in it.

Quote:

Didn't anyone see that terrible movie with michael douglas and demi moore?

Maybe Michael Douglas has made a good movie, though I rather doubt. Demi Moore has surely made a good movie, though none comes to mind. But any movie with both of them would have to suck, even if it wasn't written by a tendentious, Harvard-educated blowhard like Michael Crichton, who increasingly uses his movies as a platform to foist his ideological and ignorant world view on the rest of us. (Like Michael Moore, only it's fiction.)

through the looking glass

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
a tendentious, Harvard-educated blowhard like Michael Crichton, who increasingly uses his movies as a platform to foist his ideological and ignorant world view on the rest of us

Now, now. Haven't you taken the time to read his positions on global warming, where he points out that it is the scientific community's worldviews that are ideological and ignorant?

Look -- any man who's talented enough to tell a story about man-eating dinosaurs is smart enough to be pretty goddamned close to the truth. He's got my proxy on all this scientific stuff.

through the looking glass

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe Michael Douglas has made a good movie, though I rather doubt.

Are you kidding? The Game? Wall Street?

through the looking glass

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Are you kidding? The Game? Wall Street?

He was pretty good as the jeep driver in Cast a Giant Shadow.

through the looking glass

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
They'll end up having to settle with him over the inevitable suit over whether the termination was for cause (assuming he hasn't settled already).

Sweet thing, given the way this was announced, they've already negotiated his termination/severance package. Check the SEC filings for Boeing for the past week or two and the next three days.

ETA specifically, an 8-K.

Hi, person with 8-K questions!

through the looking glass

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Sweet thing, given the way this was announced, they've already negotiated his termination/severance package. Check the SEC filings for Boeing for the past week or two and the next three days.

ETA specifically, an 8-K.

Hi, person with 8-K questions!

I don't have time to check the filings, but I would be very surprised if that is the case. Had they settled, they would not have outed him this way. They would have allowed him to resign gracefully.

through the looking glass

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't have time to check the filings, but I would be very surprised if that is the case. Had they settled, they would not have outed him this way. They would have allowed him to resign gracefully.

I bet you that they have come to some kind of decision regarding his parting gifts, or are in serious discussions. He did resign, technically. I checked and they haven't yet filed his resignation (or, it isn't up on Edgar yet) but they have to shortly and I bet it will have something in it about his employment contract or severance or whatever. I would go look up his employment agmt but I have shit to do and can only afford the relatively minor procrastination of this. http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...r_050307a.html

ETA the CNN story says: "Stonecipher will get the normal retirement package to which he would have been entitled with no additional payments to encourage his resignation, Platt said. But he did not detail the amount of severance or separation pay he will receive."

I'm thinking he has already agreed not to sue. But hey, you go, guy, with your theories.

EA to say, look, Boeing really did not need bad ethics press right this second:

Quote:

March 4, 2005
By Peter Pae
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

The Air Force is expected today to lift an 18-month-long suspension order that had prevented Boeing Co. from seeking multibillion-dollar rocket contracts, industry and government sources said.

In a major boost to the aerospace giant, the Air Force will reinstate Boeing as a "good corporate citizen" so it can once again bid for rocket orders potentially worth as much as $4 billion, sources said.

The Air Force in July 2003 suspended Boeing from seeking rocket contracts and took away about $1 billion of rocket orders after federal investigators found that two Boeing employees had stolen proprietary rocket documents from rival Lockheed Martin Corp.

In the late 1990s, the two defense contractors competed to win contracts to build a new generation of rockets, known as Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles, or EELVs, to launch military satellites. Boeing won a lion's share of the rocket orders, but the Air Force later took away seven of the 21 orders the company had won and gave them to Lockheed.

A criminal trial is slated for this month for the two former Boeing employees, who worked on the company's Delta rocket program in Huntington Beach.

Sources said the suspension would be lifted after a 25-page administrative agreement was reached with Boeing that could include a financial settlement of $170 million to cover the cost that the Air Force says it incurred because of the rocket suspensions. Boeing also could face the possibility of paying a portion of the $200 million that the Air Force is paying Lockheed to build a West Coast launch pad for the rockets.

Boeing already has implemented other elements of the agreement including hiring compliance officers and creating an internal ethics office.

A government source cautioned that the announcement could be delayed pending review of the administrative agreement by the Pentagon's general counsel but that there were no "show stoppers" as of late Thursday.

An Air Force spokeswoman declined to comment. Boeing spokesman Dan Beck said the company was not aware of the pending decision but had been eagerly waiting for the day when it can again begin to provide its rockets to the Air Force.

"We've got a great rocket," Beck said. "All we want to do is get back making these rockets."

The suspension was initially expected to last only a few months, but another ethics scandal erupted involving the company's chief financial officer and a top Air Force acquisition official. Former Boeing finance chief Michael Sears was sentenced last week to four months in prison for illegally offering a job to the Air Force official.

The Pentagon official, Darleen Druyun, was sentenced to nine months in prison last fall after admitting that she favored Boeing on several defense contracts because the company gave jobs to members of her family at her request.

Boeing shares rose $2.12 on Thursday to a 3 1/2 -year high of $57.42 on the New York Stock Exchange.

through the looking glass

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I bet you that they have come to some kind of decision regarding his parting gifts, or are in serious discussions. He did resign, technically. I checked and they haven't yet filed his resignation (or, it isn't up on Edgar yet) but they have to shortly and I bet it will have something in it about his employment contract or severance or whatever. I would go look up his employment agmt but I have shit to do and can only afford the relatively minor procrastination of this. http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...r_050307a.html

If you read between the lines, this wasn't voluntary. The board asked for his resignation, meaning that if he didn't give it, he was toast.

There are two other things going on here, I think.

First, this was based on an blind tip, and given board sensitivity to suits these days, they may have felt they had no choice. In other words, if they didn't can him, the info would leak, and then they'd have to face investors.

The more likely reason, in my mind, is as Ty said earlier. They wanted him out and this gave them cause.

I would be extremely surprised if this guy's lawyer would agree, as a negotiated settlement, to allow the company to out him like this. My bet is they couldn't reach agreement and this was a shot accross the bow ahead of the litigation that will result. Also, if this was negotiated already, they would (or should) have mentioned that in the release. That way, idiots like me and you wouldn't have to speculate.

through the looking glass

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
If you read between the lines, this wasn't voluntary. The board asked for his resignation, meaning that if he didn't give it, he was toast.

There are two other things going on here, I think.

First, this was based on an blind tip, and given board sensitivity to suits these days, they may have felt they had no choice. In other words, if they didn't can him, the info would leak, and then they'd have to face investors.

The more likely reason, in my mind, is as Ty said earlier. They wanted him out and this gave them cause.

I would be extremely surprised if this guy's lawyer would agree, as a negotiated settlement, to allow the company to out him like this. My bet is they couldn't reach agreement and this was a shot accross the bow ahead of the litigation that will result. Also, if this was negotiated already, they would (or should) have mentioned that in the release. That way, idiots like me and you wouldn't have to speculate.

Um, whatever.

ETA you do KNOW that this guy KNEW he was brought in to clean stuff up, right? In light of the many ethics problems? Now I really do want to go look up his employment agreement.

through the looking glass

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
only it's fiction

Michael Crichton or Michael Moore?
Because I've heard Crichton does a lot of research to make sure the facts underneath his stories are pretty accurate.

through the looking glass

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Um, whatever.

ETA you do KNOW that this guy KNEW he was brought in to clean stuff up, right? In light of the many ethics problems? Now I really do want to go look up his employment agreement.

What's his employment agreement going to tell you? I'll bet you a doughnut that it says a breach of company policy is terminable for "cause."

through the looking glass

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
What's his employment agreement going to tell you? I'll bet you a doughnut that it says a breach of company policy is terminable for "cause."

And this gives him grounds to sue how? I'm saying I think he's agreed to walk a whole 12 (possibly 14) months earlier than he was planning to for no extra money, given that he was a bad bad boy. He's got a fucking obscene* exec pension entitlement.

You are the one claiming he's planning to sue for extra money.

I looked up his employment agreement (or, what's been filed, but I think there must be something else out there, b/c what's been filed is from 1997) and they neglected to file the exhibit that shows what he gets on termination (oopsie).

*as compared to normal people, not as compared to corp execs.

through the looking glass

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Michael Crichton or Michael Moore?
Because I've heard Crichton does a lot of research to make sure the facts underneath his stories are pretty accurate.

Kinda like Dan Rather, you mean?

through the looking glass

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
And this gives him grounds to sue how? I'm saying I think he's agreed to walk a whole 12 (possibly 14) months earlier than he was planning to for no extra money, given that he was a bad bad boy. He's got a fucking obscene* exec pension entitlement.

You are the one claiming he's planning to sue for extra money.

I looked up his employment agreement (or, what's been filed, but I think there must be something else out there, b/c what's been filed is from 1997) and they neglected to file the exhibit that shows what he gets on termination (oopsie).

*as compared to normal people, not as compared to corp execs.

i guess you don't do Federal labor law, because if you did you'd know that Boeing submits to MSPB and 5 CFR by taking the governemnt $$$$$. the guy was toast, but he's better off-

5CFR4.2 TITLE 5--ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL

CHAPTER I--OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

PART 4--PROHIBITED PRACTICES (RULE IV)--Table of Contents

Sec. 4.2 Prohibition against racial, political or religious discrimination.

No person employed in the executive branch of the Federal Government
who has authority to take or recommend any personnel action with respect
to any person who is an employee in the competitive service or any
eligible or applicant for a position in the competitive service shall
make any inquiry concerning the race, sex, political affiliation, or
religious beliefs of any such employee, eligible, or applicant. All
disclosures concerning such matters shall be ignored, except as to such
membership in political parties or organizations as constitutes by law a
disqualification for Government employment. No discrimination shall be
exercised, threatened, or promised by any person in the executive branch
of the Federal Government against or in favor of any employee in the
competitive service, or any eligible or applicant for a position in the
competitive service because of his race, political affiliation, or
religious beliefs, except as may be authorized or required by law.

but here's what worse Fringe- they have to let blind people run their snack bars

(x) "Vending facility" means automatic vending machines, cafeterias, snack bars, cart service, shelters, counters, and such other appropriate auxiliary equipment which may be operated by blind licensees and which is necessary for the sale of newspapers, periodicals, confections, tobacco products, foods, beverages, and other articles or services dispensed automatically or manually and prepared on or off the premises in accordance with all applicable health laws, and including the vending or exchange of changes for any lottery authorized by State law and conducted by an agency of a State within such State.

see Section 395.1 (x)

Do you get that? Blind people run their food facility, and make all the decisions- LIKE- its up to a blind guy to decide what kind of donuts to stock- do you think they get anything particularly exciting? They can't tell if the suppliers is giving them a bunch of plain fry cakes- you want angel creams at the caf get your ass out of a government Contracting company. You think the local Krispy Kreme isn't saving the good donuts to sell to the next company- where the buyers are properly equipped to make this decision?
WTTW. The guy's better off- I'm he can find another company with hot execs and less stricture.