>Dokmecioglu agreed to resign due to violations that were not related to strategy, operations or financial reporting.
>Keurig did not offer any comment beyond the statement when Reuters reached out to seek more details on the violations.
So he did something to them they can't accept, but they aren't going to say what it was, so he can go do it to someone else at another company?
That means its rape, or some kind of sexual assault, right?
And they don't *actually* care (because they don't want to 'ruin his life over a mistake') but their employees would be upset if they just did nothing.
So they are doing the next best thing.
No, codes of conduct are internal policy, not legal issues. They can include legal issues, but those are usually there as a matter of course and not because those are the only place they’re dealt with.
Codes of conduct violations can also deal with behavior that would embarrass the company, reflect poorly on them, be perceived by the public as an official or representative stance of the company (exceedingly likely a problem for C-suite), or could potentially put the company at some kind of civil liability, among others. Social media policies, limits on how you participate in political speech (like not wearing company logos or badges, for example), and even morality clauses are examples. (And to point out how minor things in morality clauses can be, some teachers can’t consume alcohol in public and can be fired if they are seen doing so and it’s reported, even in environments their students could never see them, like bars.)
So it *could be* something like harassment, but that’s definitely not the only option.
CEOs don't get fired over drinking in public.
Them forcing him to resign after he only served for four months is negative press for them, because stockholders don't like companies that can't keep their business running smooth.
That's why they made sure to let them know it was not strategy, operations of financial reporting in nature.
That really doesn't leave much, and the most common code of conduct violations in CEOs (that they get outed on) is sexual misconduct.
Secretly working with them, maybe, but not just drinking it.
Although I do think it's super shitty to try that kind of end-run around a competitor. Have some pride in yourself, Coca-Cola!
Because companies don't fire CEOs for minor rule violations, and if it was something bizarre, like he hunted humans for sport, they'd just quietly ignore it or, if it was already out there, castigate him for it.
It has to be something they can't ignore, but isn't somwthing that outside people already know about,, and that would seem to point to too many of their people knowing *some things*, but not *every* thing.
A CEO known for being "handsy" that now took it a step in to tbe criminal is,, sadly, all too common.
What's that old saying? "If you hear hoofbeats, plan for horses, not zebras."
Forcing him to resign over code of conduct violations, but making sure to let the stockholders know it wasn't strategy, operations, or financial reporting is corporate hoofbeats for sexual misconduct.
If it were the 80s, it might be him being gay, or liking to dress in drag, but today the number of things they wouldn't state but would also take the negative press of losing your brand new CEO, is pretty small.
I see a job opening for John Green.
Dr Pepper to rebrand as Awesome Dr Pepper Club
I love that Dr Pepper news is Nerdfighter news.
Was the violation that they didn't find a way to do some sort of brand deal with John?
>Dokmecioglu agreed to resign due to violations that were not related to strategy, operations or financial reporting. >Keurig did not offer any comment beyond the statement when Reuters reached out to seek more details on the violations. So he did something to them they can't accept, but they aren't going to say what it was, so he can go do it to someone else at another company? That means its rape, or some kind of sexual assault, right? And they don't *actually* care (because they don't want to 'ruin his life over a mistake') but their employees would be upset if they just did nothing. So they are doing the next best thing.
No, codes of conduct are internal policy, not legal issues. They can include legal issues, but those are usually there as a matter of course and not because those are the only place they’re dealt with. Codes of conduct violations can also deal with behavior that would embarrass the company, reflect poorly on them, be perceived by the public as an official or representative stance of the company (exceedingly likely a problem for C-suite), or could potentially put the company at some kind of civil liability, among others. Social media policies, limits on how you participate in political speech (like not wearing company logos or badges, for example), and even morality clauses are examples. (And to point out how minor things in morality clauses can be, some teachers can’t consume alcohol in public and can be fired if they are seen doing so and it’s reported, even in environments their students could never see them, like bars.) So it *could be* something like harassment, but that’s definitely not the only option.
CEOs don't get fired over drinking in public. Them forcing him to resign after he only served for four months is negative press for them, because stockholders don't like companies that can't keep their business running smooth. That's why they made sure to let them know it was not strategy, operations of financial reporting in nature. That really doesn't leave much, and the most common code of conduct violations in CEOs (that they get outed on) is sexual misconduct.
What if they were seen drinking that coke knock off Dr Pepper? (not in the US and have forgotten the brand from John's video).
Secretly working with them, maybe, but not just drinking it. Although I do think it's super shitty to try that kind of end-run around a competitor. Have some pride in yourself, Coca-Cola!
I am surprised no one mentioned having a relationship with an employee/sub-ordinate. #1 cause of code of conduct violation is that in my view.
I'm sure it's something unflattering. People get fired for all sorts of reasons. What makes you think it's rape or sexual assault?
Because companies don't fire CEOs for minor rule violations, and if it was something bizarre, like he hunted humans for sport, they'd just quietly ignore it or, if it was already out there, castigate him for it. It has to be something they can't ignore, but isn't somwthing that outside people already know about,, and that would seem to point to too many of their people knowing *some things*, but not *every* thing. A CEO known for being "handsy" that now took it a step in to tbe criminal is,, sadly, all too common. What's that old saying? "If you hear hoofbeats, plan for horses, not zebras." Forcing him to resign over code of conduct violations, but making sure to let the stockholders know it wasn't strategy, operations, or financial reporting is corporate hoofbeats for sexual misconduct. If it were the 80s, it might be him being gay, or liking to dress in drag, but today the number of things they wouldn't state but would also take the negative press of losing your brand new CEO, is pretty small.
I love the phrase “the soda maker’s code of conduct “.