31–40 of 49 posts
Or calculate how much you lost by the decision and go ask for a raise for 4 times as much. Tell them you gave $100 to someone down the street because their baby was sick and so now you need more money because your wife doesn't like the way the quarterlies are going to look after you spent $200 million at the bar getting drunk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luckily, thanks to "Obamacare" they can leave AOL and know they will be able to have affordable insurance.
They will be able to get insurance, but it won't be affordable.
In general, if a law like the Affordable Care Act, or a product, has an adjective in its name, you won't find that adjective anywhere in the law or product except right there, in the name.
This seems more like a political statement than an actual explanation. Armstrong pissed away $200 million on Patch, and is still blaming the $7.1 million in Obamacare costs for reducing employee benefits.
Here's the thing, it's a hot market, if you work at AOL, just walk out the door. It's Feb so you're not missing much contribution. Or calculate how much you lost by the decision and go ask for a raise for 4 times as much. Tell them you gave $100 to someone down the street because their baby was sick and so now you need more money because your wife doesn't like the way the quarterlies are going to look after you spent…
Here's the thing, it's a hot market, if you work at AOL, just walk out the door. It's Feb so you're not missing much contribution. Or calculate how much you lost by the decision and go ask for a raise for 4 times as much. Tell them you gave $100 to someone down the street because their baby was sick and so now you need more money because your wife doesn't like the way the quarterlies are going to look after you spent…
Now that we don't use CDs to install software anymore, what does AOL produce?
I'm surprised the company (not the insurance) had to pay that much for the babies medical bills. I had a friend die to leukemia a year ago (she had just turned 27). 6 months prior to that, her first month in Stanford Hospital for chemo led to a bill to the insurance on the order of one million dollars. I don't know how much the insurance billed the company (a small one without AOL's income), but they upheld it. Tim A…
>I'm surprised the company (not the insurance) had to pay that much for the babies medical bills. my understanding that AOL self-insures for medical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He'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.
They 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 c…
That was the choice being made here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They 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 c…
The 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.