General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmerica 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 companys 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, Armstrongs 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 outrageor 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 dont 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
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)But Mexico demonstrates that people will take a lot more torture and abuse before they revolt.
-Laelth
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)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)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.
Ellipsis
(9,124 posts)Now all that remains is that AOL has an idiot in charge of the company.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth