AOL chief cuts 401(k) benefits, blames Obamacare and two “distressed babies”
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: AOL chief cuts 401(k) benefits, blames Obamacare and two “distressed babies”
#2The worst thing about a struggling company is the petty, demoralizing measures management takes to cut costs. Save a few million in 401k costs but waste eight figures in decreased productivity, increased employee turnover, and lower morale overall. This seems shortsighted.
Re: AOL chief cuts 401(k) benefits, blames Obamacare and two “distressed babies”
#3The worst thing about a struggling company is the petty, demoralizing measures management takes to cut costs. Save a few million in 401k costs but waste eight figures in decreased productivity, increased employee turnover, and lower morale overall. This seems shortsighted.
The worst part is it doesn't appear to be struggling, but the CEO painted the only two options of dealing with $7M in increased healthcare cost as either passing it on to the employees, or decreasing some benefit.
Re: AOL chief cuts 401(k) benefits, blames Obamacare and two “distressed babies”
#4"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.
Re: AOL chief cuts 401(k) benefits, blames Obamacare and two “distressed babies”
#5The worst thing about a struggling company is the petty, demoralizing measures management takes to cut costs. Save a few million in 401k costs but waste eight figures in decreased productivity, increased employee turnover, and lower morale overall. This seems shortsighted.
I'm confused as to how this will actually save them any money over time. Won't it just encourage everyone who wants to quit to wait until the 401k payout date to the extent possible and then do it all at once?
Re: AOL chief cuts 401(k) benefits, blames Obamacare and two “distressed babies”
#6The worst thing about a struggling company is the petty, demoralizing measures management takes to cut costs. Save a few million in 401k costs but waste eight figures in decreased productivity, increased employee turnover, and lower morale overall. This seems shortsighted.
The worst part is it doesn't appear to be struggling, but the CEO painted the only two options of dealing with $7M in increased healthcare cost as either passing it on to the employees, or decreasing some benefit.
If management is going to do something to anger the workforce, it's in their interest to get workers angry at each other instead of management.
Re: AOL chief cuts 401(k) benefits, blames Obamacare and two “distressed babies”
#7I feel for those poor women whose colleagues probably know about their "distressed" babies.
Re: AOL chief cuts 401(k) benefits, blames Obamacare and two “distressed babies”
#8"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.
Blaming this on distressed babies is disgusting.
Re: AOL chief cuts 401(k) benefits, blames Obamacare and two “distressed babies”
#9Tim Armstrong already has a reputation as being a bit of a jerk: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6197081
Previously, though, he was head of advertising at Google (1999-2009), and I don't remember him causing much negative publicity in that role.
Re: AOL chief cuts 401(k) benefits, blames Obamacare and two “distressed babies”
#10"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.
... And would be fully insured. That's literally the reason why insurance exists.