Darth Vader: “You are in command now, Admiral Plett”
Plett: (nervously) “Thank you, Lord Vader”
Boeing managed to wave enough money to entice Kelly Ortberg to be their new CEO. Surely UHC can do similar.
Ortberg knows he’s there to be the scapegoat. He’ll eat crow in front of the media and Congress. He’ll push layoffs and cost cutting and draw the ire of the unions. When he leaves, the next CEO will point the finger at Ortberg for any remaining problems. And he negotiated a salary to match.
No one shot the Boeing CEO yet.
Every Boeing issue in the history of flight combined haven’t shortened as many lives as insurance CEOs on any given week of the year.
Yeah there’s a mountain of difference between getting publicly chewed out and getting publicly executed
Yet
“Golly gee, getting reprimanded that one time sure did stink. Oh well.”
“You will be shot!”
“More like chewed out. I’ve been chewed out before.”
He’ll push layoffs and cost cutting and draw the ire of the unions.
Nope they pay McKinsey to recommend it, then use the excuse that “as CEO I have to do what is best”
If you want to know more about McKinsey ask Pete Butteigig, he was one of their “whiz kids”.
No…greed will prevail
Now how they act might be a different story.
I think we need about two more within the next month to have an impact on CEO risk calculation. Of course the guy is definitely going to get caught if he strikes again.
Cops have one singular mission: protect rich folks. They will pull out stops we’ve never seen before to get this guy if he looks like he won’t stop on his own. He’ll probably get caught anyway, but if he’s smart he’ll take the W and disappear.
Of course, the most likely result isn’t a change of behavior, but having bodyguards be part of the standard CEO compensation package.
Leaders at Allied Universal, which provides security services for 80 percent of Fortune 500 companies, said their phones were “ringing off the hook” on Wednesday with potential clients. Allied covers a wide spectrum of services — including stationing guards outside offices, chauffeuring executives, surveilling their homes and tracking their families.
Protecting a chief executive full time costs roughly $250,000 a year, said Glen Kucera, who runs Allied’s enhanced protection services.
Protecting a chief executive full time cost roughly $250,000 a year
So it costs less than one major life saving surgery then.
$250k a year?
That’s it?
Sounds like it needs to get a bit more expensive.
If assassins started going after the guards, those guards might want more danger money.
For legal reasons, this is an observation not a suggestion.
If I ever wanted to ruin a megacorporation for ruining my life, I’d start going after the lowest wrung of the ladder. Give two warnings and then execute the plan on them. Non-fatal accidents and the like. Warn again. Move on to the next one. Warn them etc. Repeat as long as necessary. Never go for the higher ups that can afford security.
This will probably never happen to me, because I don’t live in the late stage capitalist hell-scape.
Removed by mod
My hope is prospective school shooters see praise given to The Adjuster and change their MO so innocent children are spared.
That’s a great perspective! I love it.
1 is an off chance. Two more and their will legit be fear that the poor are rising up to eat the rich.
Imagine holding the title of “CEO of the healthcare company whose CEO got fucking iced last week”
They literally don’t care. They aren’t like us. They don’t care what working class people think. They don’t care if we suffer. They don’t care if they die. We aren’t worth anything to them beyond what they can extort from us.
“I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.”
–Jay Gould
This statement reflects Gould’s view of exploiting divisions within the labor force to maintain control and suppress labor movements during the Gilded Age. Their attitude since then hasn’t changed, except to become even further entrenched in their apathetic greed.
I was interested in that quote, since it seems incredible:
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/10/29/hire-half/?amp=1
tldr: it originally appeared in slightly different form in a newspaper article by a critic of Jay Gould about his failure to get a particular policy through, and was probably not something Gould said in so many words.
Interesting though!
No, some other psychopath will just demand the company provide 24/7 private security and take the job with a raise. Then (likely he) will just kill more people to pay for it.
So many CEOs on LinkedIn calling for more security for executives. None of them have the self awareness to think “is my company doing anything that would warrant such a response?”. Maybe stop being evil fucks?
Nah, money is money… but they’ll probably need to include a security detail in the package.
Passed on to the insurance premiums
I’ll take the job. But, fair warning, a lot of people will receive free healthcare.
Yea… That is what is the most funny. A CEO that knows how to play his cards could easily turn the system around and still have a profit… Like of 30% instead of 98%…
Not at all. They’ll just beef up security.
No doubt the other insurance companies are doing the same. CEOs are probably hiring personal body guards to follow them too. I’d imagine this extends to CEOs of other industries outside of insurance too. They know they’re all seen as unpopular with most people.
Step 1, get hired by security company…
:D
I was going to say, no fucking way does this work like they hope it will.
Numbers are against them. Far, far against them.
I think they forget that people below them value their own lives. I don’t know any security guards who are willing to lay down their own lives for some CEO for moderate pay. If it’s that or continuing to live? Idk, it’s a feel good measure in my book.
The security these people hire aren’t the same security you are thinking of.
These are PMCs. PMCs make quite a bit more cash, and have military training to ignore some of that self-preservation.
That being said - it’s still a game of numbers.
Removed by mod
Countries have dead leaders that get replaced all the time, what makes corporations replacing CEOs any different?
Trouble? No, but they’ll raise the compensation to compensate for risk, which will only attract greedier more sadistic candidates.
Or…
They’ll hire a woman to clean up the mess (possibly at reduced compensation), because that’s the virtue signaling what corporations do when they are in a tight spot. Then, once she has turned things back around, they’ll swap a man back in and give him a bonus for all her hard work.
Not if this was an isolated incident. If it turns out to be something else then maybe.
Contrary to popular belief, CEOs aren’t necessary for a company to run, but they do maximize the profits while they’re there
They’ll just keep a security detail. It won’t even be a consideration. They’ll just do it, and not even care that it happened.
No, and they will find ways to screw users more. Corpos are not anyone’s friends.
They should make a whistleblower the ceo so they can have plausible deniability when the ceo is murdered
What?
They are referencing the “coincidental” Boeing whistleblower deaths this year. If a whistleblower was made CEO and subsequently murdered, then being the CEO of a hated corporation is now a plausible reason that could mask that of being a whistleblower.
I see, thanks!
Boeing joke?
Not until 3 or 4 replacements are murdered. Then they will attempt to operate without one. (For as long as legal.)
