RadiumOne CEO Has Been Fired(sfgate.com)
sfgate.com
RadiumOne CEO Has Been Fired
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/RadiumOne-CEO-Has-Been-Fired-5433484.php
25 comments
It's a programmatic advertising exchange. There are many fitting the same description out there.
Is this case domestic violence or domestic dispute? The police allege that he hit the woman 117 times in 30 minutes. Supposedly, the video would have condemned him. Yet there is not a medical examination nor photographic evidence of physical damage. I would imagine there is usually no video evidence in such cases and that should not prevent such a case from being prosecuted. He did plead "guilty" but it involves no jail time and we know that in the current legal climate a guilty plea is more pragmatic despite innocence.
Now, I am not defending him but I want to understand why everyone is taking the SF police's allegations at face value and running wild with accusations rather than investigating the truth? I have yet to read a single article that is balanced with original reporting (asking the woman in question and those around her, did she have a black eye?).
Now, I am not defending him but I want to understand why everyone is taking the SF police's allegations at face value and running wild with accusations rather than investigating the truth? I have yet to read a single article that is balanced with original reporting (asking the woman in question and those around her, did she have a black eye?).
This is blog-spam of the re/code piece.Some other links have more context on the allegations and the response. EG,
http://time.com/78572/radiumone-ceo-fired/
The now-former CEO defended himself in a blog post Sunday, saying that he merely had a “normal argument” with his girlfriend after he discovered she was having “unprotected sex for money with other people.” Chahal denied injuring his girlfriend in the argument.
The whole thing seems bizarre. If the counter-allegations are true (and not just a smear) it may foreshadow credibility issues in any open-court prosecution. It may also explain a delay in seeking medical attention or documentary proof of injury.
Maybe someone can chime in if the victim or the police was on the hook for the evidentiary issue.
The BOD at some level may have been forced into a position to act simply because, no matter who was right, this looks like a bizzare and potentially compromising situation. Although I guess it would just be tabloid fodder if the injuries were truly non-existent.
http://time.com/78572/radiumone-ceo-fired/
The now-former CEO defended himself in a blog post Sunday, saying that he merely had a “normal argument” with his girlfriend after he discovered she was having “unprotected sex for money with other people.” Chahal denied injuring his girlfriend in the argument.
The whole thing seems bizarre. If the counter-allegations are true (and not just a smear) it may foreshadow credibility issues in any open-court prosecution. It may also explain a delay in seeking medical attention or documentary proof of injury.
Maybe someone can chime in if the victim or the police was on the hook for the evidentiary issue.
The BOD at some level may have been forced into a position to act simply because, no matter who was right, this looks like a bizzare and potentially compromising situation. Although I guess it would just be tabloid fodder if the injuries were truly non-existent.
I really wish he'd release the tapes so we can actually see what happened. On his blog he states that the tapes were "bullshit" but I have a feeling they are otherwise.
However, video evidence isn't the only admissible type. If the victim has injuries these can be corroborated by photographs and medical examinations. Otherwise, no cases would see the light of day. She didn't seem to get any medical attention despite police being on the scene. Also, the woman submitted "photographic proof of an unblemished complexion to the SFPD and filed an affidavit requesting the investigation be terminated."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurbaksh_Chahal
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurbaksh_Chahal
> She didn't seem to get any medical attention despite police being on the scene.
TechCrunch disagrees:
"What if it was your child who was kicked and beaten so many times she suffered a hematoma after the attack (according to the medical report we received)?"
-- http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/26/a-letter-to-the-board-membe...
TechCrunch disagrees:
"What if it was your child who was kicked and beaten so many times she suffered a hematoma after the attack (according to the medical report we received)?"
-- http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/26/a-letter-to-the-board-membe...
But again where is this report? It is a quote and so far as we can tell the only source of this. A hematoma can vary widely and the lack of information doesn't help.
Again, it's not this person's actions but the hysteria of the spectators. There is really no objective coverage and your link is a good example (if someone has the medical report they should publish the relevant bits).
Again, it's not this person's actions but the hysteria of the spectators. There is really no objective coverage and your link is a good example (if someone has the medical report they should publish the relevant bits).
Eich: Participated in one side of a political/moral debate on his personal time.
G: Beat his girlfriend.
Both: "Bosses should be fireable due to personal beliefs and actions"
So, then, do we agree that employees also should be fireable due to their political opinions and misdemeanor crimes?
G: Beat his girlfriend.
Both: "Bosses should be fireable due to personal beliefs and actions"
So, then, do we agree that employees also should be fireable due to their political opinions and misdemeanor crimes?
Are you saying CEOs and employees are the same? I assume you'll get a lot of blowback for other reasons for this comment, but just logically - what are you talking about?
As a side note: in Eich's case, he didn't "deserve" to be fired the same way G did - it just became apparent that he wasn't going to be a good fit for the community, and for Mozilla the community is their employees (basically)
As a side note: in Eich's case, he didn't "deserve" to be fired the same way G did - it just became apparent that he wasn't going to be a good fit for the community, and for Mozilla the community is their employees (basically)
Logically, if an employee was fired for either of these reasons, would it be acceptable?
I'm neither defending nor attacking the position. If, say, a coworker was accused of beating his girlfriend then returned to work, would you a) doubt his character, but accept his skill as required, b) do nithing, or c) demand he be fired?
If you found out at lunch that your coworker put $1000 into a political campaign to ban gay marriage, would you ask your office mates to start a twitter campaign to request his resignation?
I'm neither defending nor attacking the position. If, say, a coworker was accused of beating his girlfriend then returned to work, would you a) doubt his character, but accept his skill as required, b) do nithing, or c) demand he be fired?
If you found out at lunch that your coworker put $1000 into a political campaign to ban gay marriage, would you ask your office mates to start a twitter campaign to request his resignation?
Accused of beating GF? I don't know. Depends on whether I believed it and other factors. Plead guilty + police say he's on tape doing it worse than he plead to? Fired. Every time.
Political donations would never have an effect on my employees. If any of them are reading this, consider this my word. CEOs are different.
Political donations would never have an effect on my employees. If any of them are reading this, consider this my word. CEOs are different.
Freedom of speech and religion does not entitle people to open bigotry and harming others. People need to stop bastardizing the First Amendment to justify everything. You are allowed to say what you want and the government can't jail you for it. It doesn't mean anybody else has to listen to you or tolerate you.
To answer your question, yes an employee that refuses to work with African American employees due to their personal beliefs and bigotry should be fired. Why is bigotry towards sexual orientation different? If an employee is a public face of the company (such as the CEO), then he or she can and should be held to an even higher standard.
To answer your question, yes an employee that refuses to work with African American employees due to their personal beliefs and bigotry should be fired. Why is bigotry towards sexual orientation different? If an employee is a public face of the company (such as the CEO), then he or she can and should be held to an even higher standard.
So, we agree on the accountability aspect.
Another part of my question, again without any position put forth on my part, is this: Was the method used acceptable, publically speaking out against them, and would that same method be acceptable if it was used on a rank-and-file or low-to-middle manager?
Another part of my question, again without any position put forth on my part, is this: Was the method used acceptable, publically speaking out against them, and would that same method be acceptable if it was used on a rank-and-file or low-to-middle manager?
> publically speaking out against them
You seem to be arguing that having an opinion about whether someone should remain CEO is bad and unacceptable, but the CEO having an opinion about gay people not marrying each other is good and sacrosanct. You might want to pick one.
You seem to be arguing that having an opinion about whether someone should remain CEO is bad and unacceptable, but the CEO having an opinion about gay people not marrying each other is good and sacrosanct. You might want to pick one.
I really think its time that we as a society sit down and think about banning analogies because they end up being absolute garbage like this so often.
The presentation was off. It does look like an analogy. It's intented as a question of how you'd respond if this happened with one of your coworkers.
I think it's reasonable for a professional driver to be fired over speeding tickets, even when they don't reach the severity of a misdemeanor.
I think it's reasonable for employees doing public relations (say, "community managers") to be fired over bigotry and hateful speech, even though these can be cast as "political opinions".
I'm sure we can both find examples in the other direction too, however - there's a huge spectrum of circumstances under those umbrellas. "It's complicated" -- and likely not as simple as "yes" or "no".
I think it's reasonable for employees doing public relations (say, "community managers") to be fired over bigotry and hateful speech, even though these can be cast as "political opinions".
I'm sure we can both find examples in the other direction too, however - there's a huge spectrum of circumstances under those umbrellas. "It's complicated" -- and likely not as simple as "yes" or "no".
It's a little late, and I'm not able to put time into looking into it tonight, but I imagine that towards the end of slavery, Northern business owners who claimed that paying free men to work would put their businesses under and that those same owners were looked down upon in their community. We may be looking at the same phenomenon occuring.
And, yes, the spectrum is huge. This covers everything from speeding tickets to domestic violence, and beyond.
And, yes, the spectrum is huge. This covers everything from speeding tickets to domestic violence, and beyond.
Uh, they always have been. Fantastic straw-man, though!!
I'm glad they made the right decision. Someone like that is too unethical to be allowed to run a business. I'm not saying -no one- should employ him, just it should be put some place where he has no authority over other human beings.
"I'm glad they made the right decision."
How could you or any of us sitting here reading the article know what the right decision was when as presented it is just one party's word against the other? Based on the article there seems to be video and photo documentation of what actually happened but it doesn't sound like that is available to any impartial party to review.
How could you or any of us sitting here reading the article know what the right decision was when as presented it is just one party's word against the other? Based on the article there seems to be video and photo documentation of what actually happened but it doesn't sound like that is available to any impartial party to review.
RadiumOne uses programmatic advertising to connect brands to their next customers by incorporating valuable first-party data about behaviors, actions and interests demonstrated by consumers across web and mobile touch points."
wut? And i thought the hbo SV show was satire...