4 ms·

AOL chief reverses changes to 401(k) policy after a week of bad publicity

22 points by _pius 13y ago

ulfw 13y ago
It's easy to take away stuff like 401(k) by paycheck when you make $12M yourself. Because at that level you don't care about mundane stuff like saving for your retirement. It's time to change how compensation works in America. No wonder the Gini coefficient is out of whack. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/aol-401k_n_4738649.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/aol-401k_n_4738649....
twotwotwo 13y ago
The "distressed babies" line was incredibly lame. First, statistically, a company with thousands of workers will have some people with expensive health problems and get hit with some insurance surcharges. It sucks, but it's how today's system is. Second, even if it weren't so, it's hard for it not to sound like you're blaming babies. It's beyond sleazy at a human level, which is what got him, publicity-wise. And, not entirely unrelatedly, it's the sound of a CEO trying not to take responsibility for what happens at their company, which is always a bad sign. </picking-on-easy-targets>
dmead 13y ago
that policy is status quo at IBM
ohashi 13y ago
I hope all of the AOL employees are considering their job options elsewhere.
ableal 13y ago
Backstory: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/aols-million-dollar-distressed-baby-claim-could-it-possibly-be-true/283690/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/aols-mil...
pcurve 13y ago
Can you imagine the feelings those two employees must've endured when Armstrong made the remark? I would've felt sick to my stomach. Armstrong runs enterprise like it's game; a game where people are just interchangeable cogs. He comes across as borderline sociopath with distressed mind.
- rsobers 13y ago
  Totally agree. Being a parent with a sick child is one of the most emotionally draining and heartbreaking things in the world. The last thing you need is your CEO using you as an example for why your colleagues have to endure benefit cuts in the face of record profits. Pretty disgusting. I would never work for an Armstrong-led company.
nil_is_me 13y ago
Sounds like his remarks are grounds for a HIPAA violation lawsuit. I would certainty be traumatized if company leadership referenced my health conditions as grounds for a new HR policy.
- patio11 13y ago
  AOL is likely not a covered entity under HIPAA. Do they furnish health care in the ordinary course of business? No? Then stop there, they're not covered. Supposing they were covered, "an employee of AOL" is likely not specific enough to make any statement you make about them personally identifying. You can certainly claim that your boss talking about you in public was a traumatic experience, but that's kind of thin gruel in a court of law. (IANAL but I have to know just enough about HIPAA to be dangerous, due to (probably) actually being covered by it, by means of BAAs with some clients of mine which explicitly transfer their HIPAA obligations to me with regards to data under my care.)
cowmix 13y ago
The funny thing is that this CEO is, I'm guessing, against a single payer system too. If a single payer system was in place these "distressed babies" costs wouldn't have even impacted AOL at all.
iends 13y ago
IBM made this change last year. There was outcry from employees, but nothing changed.
- jobu 13y ago
  The change to the policy would have been understandable if Armstrong blamed it on the financial hit the company took for his $200 million blunder with Patch. He could have apologized and taken a pay cut himself, and most people would have been understanding and possibly even praised him. Blaming it on Obamacare is a pointless political statement, and publicly blaming it on sick babies means Armstrong is a sociopathic asshole.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    Both blamings probably stem from the common PR rule that any decisions which negatively impacts anyone must be portrayed as a necessity mandated by some external event or force so as to diminish the apparent responsibility of the actor who actually made the decision.

22 points by _pius 13y ago

ulfw 13y ago

It's easy to take away stuff like 401(k) by paycheck when you make $12M yourself. Because at that level you don't care about mundane stuff like saving for your retirement. It's time to change how compensation works in America. No wonder the Gini coefficient is out of whack. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/aol-401k_n_4738649.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/aol-401k_n_4738649....

twotwotwo 13y ago

The "distressed babies" line was incredibly lame. First, statistically, a company with thousands of workers will have some people with expensive health problems and get hit with some insurance surcharges. It sucks, but it's how today's system is. Second, even if it weren't so, it's hard for it not to sound like you're blaming babies. It's beyond sleazy at a human level, which is what got him, publicity-wise. And, not entirely unrelatedly, it's the sound of a CEO trying not to take responsibility for what happens at their company, which is always a bad sign. </picking-on-easy-targets>

dmead 13y ago

that policy is status quo at IBM

ohashi 13y ago

I hope all of the AOL employees are considering their job options elsewhere.

ableal 13y ago

Backstory: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/aols-million-dollar-distressed-baby-claim-could-it-possibly-be-true/283690/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/aols-mil...

pcurve 13y ago

Can you imagine the feelings those two employees must've endured when Armstrong made the remark? I would've felt sick to my stomach. Armstrong runs enterprise like it's game; a game where people are just interchangeable cogs. He comes across as borderline sociopath with distressed mind.

rsobers 13y ago
Totally agree. Being a parent with a sick child is one of the most emotionally draining and heartbreaking things in the world. The last thing you need is your CEO using you as an example for why your colleagues have to endure benefit cuts in the face of record profits. Pretty disgusting. I would never work for an Armstrong-led company.

nil_is_me 13y ago

Sounds like his remarks are grounds for a HIPAA violation lawsuit. I would certainty be traumatized if company leadership referenced my health conditions as grounds for a new HR policy.

patio11 13y ago
AOL is likely not a covered entity under HIPAA. Do they furnish health care in the ordinary course of business? No? Then stop there, they're not covered. Supposing they were covered, "an employee of AOL" is likely not specific enough to make any statement you make about them personally identifying. You can certainly claim that your boss talking about you in public was a traumatic experience, but that's kind of thin gruel in a court of law. (IANAL but I have to know just enough about HIPAA to be dangerous, due to (probably) actually being covered by it, by means of BAAs with some clients of mine which explicitly transfer their HIPAA obligations to me with regards to data under my care.)

cowmix 13y ago

The funny thing is that this CEO is, I'm guessing, against a single payer system too. If a single payer system was in place these "distressed babies" costs wouldn't have even impacted AOL at all.

iends 13y ago

IBM made this change last year. There was outcry from employees, but nothing changed.

jobu 13y ago
The change to the policy would have been understandable if Armstrong blamed it on the financial hit the company took for his $200 million blunder with Patch. He could have apologized and taken a pay cut himself, and most people would have been understanding and possibly even praised him. Blaming it on Obamacare is a pointless political statement, and publicly blaming it on sick babies means Armstrong is a sociopathic asshole.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Both blamings probably stem from the common PR rule that any decisions which negatively impacts anyone must be portrayed as a necessity mandated by some external event or force so as to diminish the apparent responsibility of the actor who actually made the decision.