Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RandySF

(59,606 posts)
Sun Feb 9, 2014, 03:13 PM Feb 2014

America Online CEO blames "distressed babies" for benefit cuts.

Late last week, Tim Armstrong, the chief executive officer of AOL, landed himself in a media firestorm when he held a town hall with employees to explain why he was paring their retirement benefits. After initially blaming Obamacare for driving up the company’s health care costs, he pointed the finger at an unlikely target: babies.

Specifically, my baby.

“Two things that happened in 2012,” Armstrong said. “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. And those are the things that add up into our benefits cost. So when we had the final decision about what benefits to cut because of the increased healthcare costs, we made the decision, and I made the decision, to basically change the 401(k) plan.”

Within hours, that quote was all over the Internet. On Friday, Armstrong’s logic was the subject of lengthy discussions on CNN, MSNBC, and other outlets. Mothers’ advocates scolded him for gross insensitivity. Lawyers debated whether he had violated his employees’ privacy. Health care experts noted that his accounting of these “million-dollar babies” seemed, at best, fuzzy.

Plenty of smart, witty people took to Twitter to express their outrage—or mock outrage. The phrase “distressed babies” became practically an inside joke, as in, “How many distressed babies does AOL pay this guy?” A few AOL employees made cracks like this: “I swear I didn't have any babies in 2012. Don't hate me for messing up your 401(k).”

For the record: It was me. I don’t work for AOL; my husband does. One of those “distressed babies” was our daughter. We pay our premiums for a family health plan through AOL, which is why we had coverage on the morning I woke up in acute pain, only five months into what had been a completely smooth pregnancy.


http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/02/tim_armstrong_blames_distressed_babies_for_aol_benefit_cuts_he_s_talking.html

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
America Online CEO blames "distressed babies" for benefit cuts. (Original Post) RandySF Feb 2014 OP
The 1% will eventually push too far. liberal_at_heart Feb 2014 #1
I agree. Laelth Feb 2014 #7
Awww poor CEO. He's confused. underthematrix Feb 2014 #2
AOL self-insures? HockeyMom Feb 2014 #3
AOL chief reverses changes to 401(k) policy after a week of bad publicity Ellipsis Feb 2014 #4
Good. Turbineguy Feb 2014 #5
k&r for exposure. n/t Laelth Feb 2014 #6

Laelth

(32,017 posts)
7. I agree.
Sun Feb 9, 2014, 03:59 PM
Feb 2014

But Mexico demonstrates that people will take a lot more torture and abuse before they revolt.



-Laelth

underthematrix

(5,811 posts)
2. Awww poor CEO. He's confused.
Sun Feb 9, 2014, 03:22 PM
Feb 2014

He thinks he's a job creator. Let's disabuse him of that falsity. If you use AOL, I would suggest not using it.

 

HockeyMom

(14,337 posts)
3. AOL self-insures?
Sun Feb 9, 2014, 03:25 PM
Feb 2014

If so, that stinks because I know what that is like. They think they can do anything they damn well please. If they don't, they can find another insurer. When I worked at a NON-PROFIT, the insurer dropped their coverage due to a million dollar "distressed" baby. The agency head (former Nun) just searched around for another insurer who would charge the same rates. She did find one.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»America Online CEO blames...