9 ms·
"We had two AOL-ers that had distressed babies that were born that we paid a million dollars each to make sure those babies were OK in general," said Armstrong
by minimax 13y ago
"We had two AOL-ers that had distressed babies that were born that we paid a million dollars each to make sure those babies were OK in general," said Armstrong
AOL does something like $2 billion in revenue per year. This cost would have been a fraction of one tenth of one percent of revenue. What. a. shithead.
- throwaway1979 13y agoBlaming this on distressed babies is disgusting.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoWhat if he's trying to humblebrag?
- jonknee 13y ago... And would be fully insured. That's literally the reason why insurance exists.
- waterlesscloud 13y agoHe's saying he's cutting 401K matching for people who leave the company during a given year so that the company can continue paying for extraordinary medical costs for its employees. It's a tradeoff, and morally it looks like the right one to me. Pay less to people who left to the company so you can continue paying more in health benefits to those who remain.
- mikeryan 13y agoHe's also touting record profits. The morally correct decision is to do both.
- Jtsummers 13y agoThey aren't in a position where they actually need to choose one or the other. They can do both. Your position (penalize people for leaving before year end) will hurt the company. The article mentions the financial losses for both the people that leave (for a multitude of reasons), and the financial loss for those who stick around. But it's also a destruction of a very useful benefit that should help the company be competitive in hiring. 401k matching is one of the major tradeoffs people use for determining which job to take (or stay at). Now AOL is telling prospective employees: You'd better be loyal or we'll screw you over.
- waterlesscloud 13y agoThe financial loss for missing out on compounding of the matching funds for few months is likely much lower than the financial loss of passing on the increased cost to the employees. That was the choice being made here.
- Jtsummers 13y agoNo, the choice was between benefits and profit. They chose profits.
- wlievens 13y agoIt's a dumb choice to even have to make, if your profits are more than enough to not have to make it. However it's their right to make it. If they want to run their company into the ground like that, why not.
- icefox 13y agoUnless you leave on Jan 1st you will be "screwed over" even if you worked there for [long time]. Knowing that before you even start when you leave you will be taking a hit stinks.
- kmunoz 13y agoActually, this ruins 401k plans for folks who stick with the company too. Employees miss out on all the compounding throughout the year from the contributions. From WaPo: "In other words, employees will have to stay through the end of the year to get the match, and then the contribution won't even come during 2014. In a year like last year, where the stock market was roaring, the difference for an employee who left in December could amount to thousands of dollars in pay and added savings." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/04/aol-is-leading-the-way-to-make-401ks-worse-for-everyone/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/04/a...
- wlievens 13y agoNot just the compounding, but also the spreading of risk, if I understand well. Which is the point with any kind of conservative pension plan.