How to Fire Rupert Murdoch

The board of News Corporation needs to act. And if it doesn't, shareholders might.

Really? He's in charge?!? That was a common response for many who watched Rupert Murdoch bumble through today's U.K. Parliamentary hearings. (OK, to be fair, they also talked about the humble pie to the face.) The 80 year-old media mogul took long pauses, spoke out at odd moments, gesticulated wildly, and forgot a lot of details.

He seemed far more like Junior Soprano on the witness stand than the formidable business visionary and CEO of News Corporation. He denied any wrongdoing, claimed he didn't hear about any of the illegal phone hacking or pay offs until well after the fact, and passed the buck to his "trusted" executives. After watching Murdoch handle phone hacking questions, some reports say that the News Corp board may be considering re-assigning him. That would be an incredible step, because firing Murdoch is nearly impossible, no matter what he does. That's just part of our corporate system.

Assuming his distance from the details wasn't an act, he might be innocent and out of it. Or as one member of parliament suggested, Murdoch and his son might be willfully blind to the dark side of News Corp's operations. Either way, is he fit to lead the company? And if he isn't, why hasn't he been fired already?

Well, it's his company for one. Murdoch owns almost 40 percent of the voting shares, so if his board did kick him out of the corner office, he could replace them with even more loyal factotums. "The board is hamstrung by the fact that it is Murdoch's board... they're all either insiders, friends, or former colleagues of Murdoch in one form or another," said John Paul Hodgson of Governance Metrics International.

GMI rates companies on their governance practices and News Corp hasn't scored so well. "When we first started our ratings in 2003 we gave the News Corp board and F, and we have given and F rating every single rating since then. It was not a dysfunctional board it was a non-functional board," Hodgson tells GOOD.

That's all fine as long as the company is earning profits, but this scandal has obliterated about $6 billion value from News Corp shareholders. Class-action lawyers are already lining up. Standard and Poors has lowered the company's debt rating. Its stock price has tumbled about 15 percent since a peak on July 5. The only reason the share price didn't dip further? Murdoch propped it up with a multi-billion dollar buy. (Paradoxically, today's hearing seemed to help. Shares of News Corp were up more than 5 percent at the time of the humble pie incident.) These financial management criticisms don't even take into account Murdoch's recently blown deals like the British Sky Broadcasting TV network acquisition, and the fact that he was forced to close a 168-year-old paper in shame.
Hodgson says it's common for CEOs to be shown the door, even in family-owned trusts like News Corp, when they damage a company's value and reputation so thoroughly. So why can't the board fire Rupert Murdoch? Well, they can. They just don't seem to want to. And it's not just the fact that they're cronies. The members of the hand-picked board of directors are handsomely paid, between $200,000 and $1.8 million a year for their very part-time service, according to GMI. Firing Murdoch would likely lead him to find a new board, forcing the current members to hop off the gravy train.

So if public shareholders lose 15 percent of their holdings, or perhaps even more if the scandal drags on, they'll have to sue to get it back. That's what's happening.

"News Corp's behavior has become an egregious collection of nepotism and corporate governance failures, with a board completely unwilling to provide even the slightest level of adult supervision," Jay Eisenhofer, co-lead counsel to shareholders, said in a statement announcing an amended lawsuit.

Even if they win, Murdoch will still control News Corp. He'll just be poorer for it.

via David Leavitt / Twitter and RealTargetTori / Twitter

Last Friday, GOOD reported on an infuriating incident that went down at a Massachusetts Target.

A Target manager who's come to be known as "Target Tori," was harassed by Twitter troll David Leavitt for not selling him an $89 Oral-B Pro 5000 toothbrush for a penny.

He describes himself as a "multimedia journalist who has worked for CBS, AXS, Yahoo, and others."

Keep Reading
via David Leavitt / Twitter

Anyone who has ever worked in retail knows that the worst thing about the job, right after the pay, are the unreasonable cheapskates who "want to talk to your manager" to get some money off an item.

They think that throwing a tantrum will save them a few bucks and don't care if they completely embarrass themselves in the process. Sometimes that involves belittling the poor employee who's just trying to get through their day with an ounce of dignity.

Twitter is rallying around a gal named Tori who works at a Target in Massachusetts after she was tweet-shamed by irate chapekate, journalist, and Twitter troll, David Leavitt.

Keep Reading
via Haldean Brown / Flickr

In a typical work day, people who smoke take more breaks than those who do not. Every few hours they pop outside to have a smoke and usually take a coworker with them.

Don Bryden, Managing director at KCJ Training and Employment Solutions in Swindon, England, thinks that nonsmokers and smokers should be treated equally, so he's giving those who refrain from smoking four extra days to compensate.

Funny enough, Bryden is a smoker himself.

Keep Reading