[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by scottiB 

This entire notion is laughable. The idea that the CEO is bigger than the company or can affect it that much is ridiculous. That's why there are boards of directors to provide a balance. All companies have contingency plans for death at the executive level.

I agree, but the way CEOs are paid suggests otherwise. If you argue that employees are paid based on their overall influence and impact on the company, CEOs would be judged as pretty important.

Of course, since Jobs's salary is $1, this point is moot. (Ignoring stock awards...)

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Wouldn't the board step in if these things started occurring?

You'd think, but what if they don't?

And it's actually quite interesting that you brought it up. Apparently, Jobs didn't want to have surgery at all, but the Apple board pleaded with him to have it done. He didn't, and then reportedly went off for several months getting alternative treatment instead.

Anyways, the board wondered if they could get away without saying anything, and the lawyers said yes, so they didn't. But they themselves knew it was a difficult situation, and that AAPL's investors would want to know.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The question is not "Do I want to know?" Lots of people want to know things they haven't any right to. The question is, do you feel obligated to offer your personal information to complete strangers just because they want to know it?

Yes, to an extent... if they happened to own part of the company I run.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I agree, but the way CEOs are paid suggests otherwise. If you argue that employees are paid based on their overall influence and impact on the company, CEOs would be judged as pretty important.

Of course, since Jobs's salary is $1, this point is moot. (Ignoring stock awards...)

Last year, Jobs was the highest paid CEO in the US of A if you don't ignore everything else but the salary.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Eug 

You'd think, but what if they don't?

Then I'd say your problem is more than a CEO.
You see what I'm getting at here? If the CEO were operating in a power vacuum, I could be more sympathetic, but as long as he answers to (and informs) the board, I feel as if there is a safety net, if you will.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Then I'd say your problem is more than a CEO.
You see what I'm getting at here? If the CEO were operating in a power vacuum, I could be more sympathetic, but as long as he answers to (and informs) the board, I feel as if there is a safety net, if you will.

Hmmm... My uninformed read of the situation is that the board felt obliged to disclosed Jobs' health, but didn't because Jobs didn't want to. Some may interpret their actions as pandering to the CEO too much.

If it were another CEO and another board, this may very well have been disclosed. An example would be Warren Buffet. He's quick to disclose potential health issues he may have. Some say he's probably too quick, but that's a different story.

So, is there a problem because of this? Cuz Apple in many ways IS Steve Jobs. Should there be more consultation? More of a "safety net" as it were? Well, maybe not, because many in the company simply don't have the same vision he has, so it makes sense for him to wield so much power. But along with that is the realization that his loss is a huge blow to the company.

[Eug]

http://origin.mercurynews.com/ci_9968065

Corporate governance experts say companies must quickly report health problems that impair a chief executive's ability to fulfill his or her duties. On the other hand, they say, Apple is not required to answer every rumor about Jobs' health.

No hard rules guide how companies handle health issues of their executives. But corporate governance experts say companies need to be forthcoming when health issues affect the ability of executives to perform.

That does not mean, though, that Jobs has to submit details of his health simply to allay the worries of investors, said Charles Elson, director of the Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware.

"If his health is such that he can't carry out his job, the company must disclose that," he said. "It's only material if it affects his ability to carry out his responsibilities. Up to that point, it's up to him."

But it is the board's role to keep tabs on the health of its chief executive and have emergency, and long-term, succession plans in place, said Nell Minow, editor of the Corporate Library, a corporate governance research group.

"The primary issue is, the board needs to be on top of it," she said.

---

Of interest is the fact that Jobs never told the Pixar board that he had a pancreatic tumour. They found out after his surgery.

"All I know is I didn't [know]" - Pixar director, Joseph Graziano

[freudling]

I don't know what the laws are in the US, but in Canada nobody is entitled to your medical records but you and your health practitioners. Asking people about their health in the context of employment can actually net you a lawsuit for discrimination. With this, and having followed this thread, I agree with Apple's own people: Steve's health is a private matter, period. Nobody is entitled to this information... shareholders are just people like you and I. If somebody's health slips and they die, to bad so sad for your investment... that's life in that, life is not guaranteed, and neither is your investment.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by freudling 

I don't know what the laws are in the US, but in Canada nobody is entitled to your medical records but you and your health practitioners. Asking people about their health in the context of employment can actually net you a lawsuit for discrimination. With this, and having followed this thread, I agree with Apple's own people: Steve's health is a private matter, period. Nobody is entitled to this information... shareholders are just people like you and I. If somebody's health slips and they die, to bad so sad for your investment... that's life in that, life is not guaranteed, and neither is your investment.

That's a very simplistic assessment of Canadian business practice.

If the head of Saskatchewan Potash was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumour, you can be 100% sure that you'd have an investor revolt if he died on the operating table if the board had not disclosed beforehand this was all happening. Not only would the stock get pummeled because he died, you'd have lawsuits galore for non-disclosure.

[freudling]

Eug

So u live in Saskatchewan?