What matters is if he gets an obscene exit deal which essentially rewards him for overseeing the destruction of the Gulf of Fucking Mexico, or if he is tossed out on his ear and disgraced. I don’t expect BP to do the right thing, but they will apparently do something soon.

Comments

  1. #1 Snarkyxanf
    July 25, 2010

    Obviously, Hayward was going to be fired as soon as they were absolutely sure that the leak was over. I suspect he’ll be fired about a week after they finish the relief well project, and cement the well shut forever.

    Then his replacement will be able to oversee the PR-favorable (if desultory) cleanup efforts, and keep the oil off of his own reputation. No doubt he’ll be rewarded generously for pretending to be a scapegoat.

  2. #2 Greg Laden
    July 25, 2010

    I think he’s going to be out by the end of business day Monday.

  3. #3 Albatross
    July 25, 2010

    I don’t think you phrased that properly. Mexico hasn’t done anything wrong. It ought to be the Fucking Gulf of Mexico.

  4. #4 sailor
    July 26, 2010

    He will be awarded what certainly seems like an obscene sum of money and pension benefits. But it will probably be what is legally due to him according to the originally obscene contract. I doubt they would dare vote him any kind of additional bonus given the scrutiny they are under.

  5. #5 Greg Laden
    July 26, 2010

    I doubt they would dare vote him any kind of additional bonus given the scrutiny they are under.

    Sure. A major corporation under detailed scrutiny from the US government, the press, and the general populous would never vote to give any bonuses not absolutely required by contract for it’s upper level henchmen, I mean, officers.

    http://tinyurl.com/2fu7xuu

    oops.

  6. #6 MadScientist
    July 26, 2010

    Of course he’ll get an obscene payout – but it will be for his service, excluding the goddamned mess in the Gulf of Mexico. After all, he wasn’t directly responsible for the mess. (That’s the great thing about large organizations – nobody is directly responsible for anything.) For folks like myself who had met Tony, he’s not some huge evil creature whose sole purpose for existence is to make up a list of reasons why BP’s cock-up in the gulf is a Good Thing. He just happens to have been CEO at a time when the corporation had its worst environmental disaster to date (and it happens to make all other publicized Oil and Gas industry disasters look trivial in comparison). So – The Bad Guy? Not at all, but no longer someone the company wants as their figurehead – but I suspect that’s nothing but for publicity’s sake. Unfortunately for him, as CEO he’ll take all the blame and this incident has got to be very bad for his career in management.

  7. #7 sailor
    July 26, 2010

    “He just happens to have been CEO”
    However, a CEO bears responsibility for corporate attitude and direction. From the news reports there does seem to have been a culture of profit over caution and safety. If true, he has to responsible for that.

  8. #8 Eric Lund
    July 26, 2010

    He just happens to have been CEO

    The Cossacks work for the Czar.

  9. #9 elle
    July 26, 2010

    i find it interesting that bp retained possession of it’s Alaska assets. However, bp is, or at least has been consistently ranked as a PR favorable company from Alaskans. It is a bp strong hold, so maybe i’m not SO surprised they held on. what else from the state that brings you s Palin?

    CNN talked about the pipeline tonight, as a bp asset. Where they got it mostly wrong is that it isn’t the bp attitude that is bleeding over. It is the Alyeska (pipeline operator) attitude of arrogance that is disheartening .

  10. #10 symball
    July 27, 2010

    He is getting a £1m payout and a £10.8m pension, as well as going to the board of a russian company that is half owned by BP- nice work if you can get it.

    But I would like to point out that with all of the righteous anger against BP you seem to be forgetting that this spill was caused by the american arm of the company (what used to be AMOCO) as well as two other american companies who were actually running the rig and supplying the components that failed.

    I’m not trying to downplay BP’s role as a global corporate entity in this- they have been criminally irresponsible, but by ignoring the other homegrown contributors you risk falling into the trap of assuming that this was caused by foreigners. It was the US government who failed to do their regulatory duty and protect themselves, forgetting this just lets the people who are responsible shift the blame elsewhere.

  11. #11 MadScientist
    July 27, 2010

    @sailor #7: Gee – profits above all else – sounds like any other corporation to me. Personally I think that is wrong even though it has been the historical custom in many nations. However it remains silly to think that Tony Hayward should somehow be personally responsible for the disaster. Now let’s see if governments do something sensible and demand more responsibility from corporations. Now that’s a can of worms. Just mention to a mine operator that they will have to bear 100% of the cleanup costs when a mine is abandoned.

  12. #12 sailor
    July 27, 2010

    “Gee – profits above all else – sounds like any other corporation to me.”
    Yes but it does seem that BP’s actions in this were far worse than the practices in other oil companies, who are more than a little horrified about this mess. It is the CEO’s job to direct corporate culture and attitude, so he does bear responsibility.

  13. #13 Greg Laden
    July 27, 2010

    He’s stepping down on October 1st.

Current ye@r *