Posted on 05/24/2016 7:14:50 AM PDT by rktman
Yahoo said Chief Executive Marissa Mayer faced “specific security threats” in 2015 — and the company accordingly spent more than a half-million dollars on her personal security.
Last year’s tab came to $544,061 — more than 20 times the $26,891 Yahoo had spent a year earlier on protecting Mayer and her immediate family, according to a Monday filing.
“During 2015 Ms. Mayer faced specific security threats that we believed were credible,” Yahoo said in the filing. The company didn’t elaborate on the threats.
By comparison, Facebook said last month it spent $6.5 million on bodyguards and other security for its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Surely not, most of these limousine liberals are vehemently anti-gun so they certainly would require their security details be armed only with an eco-friendly pepper spray, wouldn't they?
Probably security threats from yahoo shareholders whose share prices have been raped and pillaged under her leadership.
leadership? LOL! Could she find her way out of a paper bag without help? Probably not.
Was she shopping at Target? She probably needed extra security for the changing room there.
All major companies will provide armed or unarmed security for its executives if there is a viable threat. It happens every day.
Someone has to protect her from shareholders.
$500K is not that much for security for a VIP.
I’ve been an oil company executive in some pretty crappy countries and the company exceeded $1MMM on just our little group — and that was at turd world prices (and all of us packing our own sidearms under suits).
In Gun Free Zones? What’s wrong with you. You coulda got shot or something cleaning your gun. LOL! So, you too have seen the crappy underbelly of the world. Agree that the ‘dainty, easily offended, snowflakes’ should be kissing the ground every morning for being “lucky” enough to have been born here? That’s why I refer to them as ungrateful snots.
From what I understand the threat is coming from disgruntled employees.
In Zuckerberg’s case, angry spouses of people who hooked-up with old flames on Facebook.
I don’t care. It is a private company and if they want to ensure the safety of the CEO, it is not our business. If it was a government agency then we have a say.
No doubt. It’s seems to me though that their self importance and opinion of themselves is just a tad exaggerated. Or is it the “bored” of directors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.