@CoopSter: I think you have it the other way around. Bert Cooper didn't want to fire Pete in one of the earlier episodes after he had pitched a client. Later on, when Pete tries to blackmail Don, Bert offers to fire him. I think, from Bert's perspective he was grooming Don to be his number two, and didn't want anything to get in the way of that -- not even Pete's family connections.

What does everybody else think?

The episode in which Pete is not fired because his family is influential is episode 4: New Amsterdam. The episode in which Pete unsuccessfully blackmails Don and Cooper says Pete can be fired is episode 12: Nixon vs. Kennedy.

Yes, Deb is correct. In episode 12, Bert tells Don to fire Pete if he wanted but that he should wait because one never knows how loyalty is born.

Bert has been in the business a bit longer--maybe Roger Sterling was his own Pete Campbell. The show really hasn't elaborated on the Sterling/Cooper relationship, but some people on the message boards have pointed out Bert having a picture of a young Roger Sterling with his father in his office.

I betcha Bert and Roger's dad were college lovers, a kinda of "Brideshead Revisited" thing. You know what them rich people used to get up to in fancy boy's only schools.

I just assumed that Roger's father founded the company with Bert and that Roger took over after him.

I have noticed that those who are at the top of the food chain (executives and owners) like to avoid making decisions. They like to let others make the big decisions that way if it is wrong they have someone to blame. They end up standing back and watching the person who made the bad decision crumble in shame. The bigger the corporation, the harder it is to get anything done. Everyone stands around waiting for someone to make a decision.

Hey, Twiggy, IF "Roger's dad and Bert were college lovers", wouldn't it be funny if Bert and Sal turned out to be lovers ever since Sal had joined the company? Maybe Bert is bi or something? Poor Sal needs to have some lovin' -- I think he's secretly hot for his neighbor--remember the sketch he did of him in the first (?) episode?

Egon that's an interesting theory about Bert and Roger's dad going to college. What about this? Roger is the son of a former girlfriend and never married? It has not been mentioned that Bert was or is married either way. I think egk719 is right Bert is keeping ole Pete around simply for the family influences. Never burn the bridges. Pete would have to pull a big one to get fired. I think they pulled that on him to shake him up and keep him in line. I think Pete is going to pull in a big client sale and perhaps that will get him some place. Maybe he'll feel better about himself and not take it out on everyone thats around him. His wife is way too nice to him. I must say at times he acts more mature than Roger.

Unfortunately I agree with Pat, that Pete will probably make himself indispensable in some way, despite being a despicable little whiner. He'll be the character that you both love to hate, and secretly feel sorry for.

And I hope poor Sal gets a little something. Everyone else is.

Well, I was commenting on this and who knows where it went......

Pete's blackmailing days aren't over, I don't think. I doubt that Bert Cooper would share that info with Roger, either. Something that IS important to Pete will have to come up again for him to play that card with new unsuspecting victims (Betty, Roger?). He's too unscrupulous not to try it again. Remember, Pete is so ambitious he was willing to practically prostitute his wife to an old boyfriend to assuage his ego.

Maybe Pete will try blackmail on someone else at the firm - but only if he could benefit. It'd be a hoot if someone blackmailed him over Peggy's pregnancy - like Peggy herself?

Actually, I could see blackmail potential for Pete regarding Roger and Joan's affair, if that's still going strong in 1962. Roger would be an even better catch for Pete in promotion possibilities than Don.

@CLAYTON NEUMAN: I think you have it right about why Pete isn't fired at those pivotal moments either time.

Cooper's "fire Pete" offer to Don Draper at the moment he promotes him, seems like a test of Don's wisdom and foresight as an executive.And Cooper's advice about an enemy becoming loyal, well isn't that the old maxim "keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer"?

I still think Pete wasn't fired because Bert knows you "don't burn your bridges". Pete is a bridge to money and you never know when SC will need to pull in everybody and everyone. I think Bert is also trying to tell Don, "it's not WHAT you know, but WHO you know" that will bring Don success. Don didn't quit SC because Roger told him "Don, here you can fire your clients, over there you can not". That really bothers Don and he can't seem to get past that. Don may have to suck it up and someday smooze Pete's relatives to gain more business for SC. Wouldn't Pete have a good time with that one?

In mentioning Bert, did you get the impression that he wasn't very pleased that Don chose that Duck guy for his replacement? Bert knows something about that guy, but it's like a training experience for Don if he hired the "wrong" guy - someone he can't manage.

It's also occured to me that maybe the reason Bert gives Pete so much latitude (because let's face it, Pete is a pain in the ass and not that productive) is because Bert has some connection to Pete's family? Not just that he knows them socially or that they're from "money" - I was thinking he had some other relationship to them, like maybe Pete's mother was an old girlfriend from Bert's youth?

I agree with you about Bert not liking the Duck and using it as a lesson to Don, jamm54!! Bert knows there are problems with Duck and it does go deep. Corporate executives, owners and partners are always using those stupid, "fall on your face in the name of experience" grooming methods. I always thought it was down right mean and nasty. Yes, they will learn a lesson, but is it really worth it in the name of experience? Oh well, I guess it must be because it still goes on and every company exec uses them. As far as Pete's connection to Bert...maybe it does go deeper than money and social status? It would make sense why Bert made the statement..."you never know where loyalties are born". That is definately a relationship comment made to Don about Pete.

Yeah, luvmadmen, and the people who pay for living through that "experience" are the employees. It's not like it ever benefits the company and usually creates quite a bit of havoc in the work environment to boot!

I actually see Pete joining forces with Duck to bring Don down a notch, so that they can both advance. I see Pete and Duck both looking to "move up" if they work together. Pete gets the long-coveted position of Don's old job, and Duck moves to partner (though of course both Roger and Bert would block that).

Hey, maybe Pete is the result of an old affair between Bert and Pete's mom? He sure cuts him a lot of slack to not have something behind the fact he doesn't can him and puts up with his crap.

Pete really isn't that great of an account rep, that's why I wonder why Bert does cut him soooo much slack. It's not like Pete's "connections" are bringing in a half a million or million dollar account. There has to be an "old favor" or "old commitment" tied to Pete's family for Cooper to not sack him after a couple of years.

Of course, I also see Bert Cooper as being something of a chess player in business. He seems to like to throw different pieces (characters) on the board and see what moves they're going to make - for his own amusement, it seems. Though Bert certainly knows all of Roger's faults, and chides him on them, he never interferes or asks Roger to put more energy into the business rather than chasing the skirts.

Bert using SC as his own personal chess game and uses employees as pawns for his own amusement. That's a great one, jamm54!! You can see it in his face everytime he has a meeting with Don and Roger. His chinese office enviroment makes me think of Kung Fu. I am waiting for Bert to say to Don, "come on in, Grasshopper". Don stands there not understanding Bert just like Kung Fu didn't understand his teacher. The teacher and Bert stand back and watched while the lesson knocks them on their butts. Bert doesn't give Roger crap about sleeping around, because Roger knows to only chase employee skirts. Roger doesn't mess with the clients. Bert must have taught Roger well when he was his Grasshopper.

Bert definitely is philosphical, especially with his references to Ayn Rand.

It'd be interesting to know exactly what those philosophies are. Laid back, certainly, but what else? Bert's very detached, and mostly he doesn't want to be bothered with whatever he's doing in his office.

The only time Bert seems mildly irritated is when he has to involve himself in the business. I'm sure his motto has to be "Get Clients, Make Money, Don't Blow Up the Business and Leave Me Be". A nice change-up to the micro-managing tendencies of today.

I would love to have a boss like Bert Cooper!! You are so right jamm54, he DOESN'T want to be at SC. He wants Roger and Don to do the work and he will prune his fingernails and banzi trees. I work at a place that doesn't even allow you to drink coffee at your desk...and don't even think about eating at your desk!! They feel it is productive to spend 20 minutes asking you why there is a pencil laying on top of the file cabinet. Then they wonder why they put in 60-70 hours a week at the office. The word "empowerment" is just a buzz word that is flipped around in the office. No one allows empowerment to its employees, in fear that things might not be perfect. Management thinking is rather pathetic sometimes.

Well, luvmadmen, by the time I left the paper (quit after going out on strike), the corporate world had really deteriorated. My bosses at the end (boomers like me) were controlling, demeaning, micro-managing nuts in comparison to the start of my work life art in the '70s with bosses who were born in the 1910's, '20's, and '30's. Not a great testament to my own generation, but that's how it fell.

When I started in the 1970's, no boss would have dreamed of wasting their energy or time on inconsequential matters or in focusing on one or all of the lowly employees. To do so was beneath them - they were the boss and had bigger fish to fry. The boss' only desire was to be sure the workers were trained well, let them do their work, and stay out of the way. After all, the boss was there to manage, not beat them into submission/subjection. They didn't want to be bothered with minute details. There was a downside to that, it was hard to go up when you were one of many, but you were left alone to do your job - that was nice.

I saw it start to change with the widespread introduction of computers (late 1980's) and the increase in corporate greed. White collar desk jobs started to be treated like blue collar assembly line jobs with quotas, deadlines, bottom lines, and production goals. Because computers enabled workers to work "faster", the goals went up, the production increased and companies wanted more, more, more but gave less, less, less to workers. And the tactic was that workers needed to be leaned on every moment because they weren't producing enough. In the end, most people either are alcholic, on prozac or their bodies fail them. I know, I worked in a room with 100 people and that's how it was going for all of us, not just one or two here and there. It became one giant long assembly line - only on computers. We were hauling in lots of money for the company - I think in the end I brought in a little over $30 million in a 10 year period and my annual salary was under $40K. There were people bringing in alot more than me.

Wow, thanks for the insight jamm54. It does seem to be unbearable in the work place. I couldn't tell if it is because I am getting older and less tolerant of insignificant crap, or has it really changed? It seems like micro-managing is so fluent out there that it could be considered borderline harrassement to employees. I was listening to a John Tesh show that talked about laws being introduced that limited employers ability to abuse their employees. I am so tired of hearing about sexual harrassment and politically incorrect language. No one ever addresses the employee that is required to come in on their days off , denied bereavement or requesting maturnity leave of more than six weeks. I would love to see those companies in civil suits.

It's total mental/emotional abuse. You have these bastards that just go beserk because they're a "MANAGER", but most of them seem to confuse that title with "DICTACTOR-TORMENTOR" or "GOD". Take your pick. They don't manage, mentor or encourage employees to get the best out of them or enhance their performance. They seem to think their job title gives them free license to just crush the crap out of people, and that's going to achieve what? Greater productivity, better performance, elevate morale, create loyalty? Yeah, right.