AOL CEO cites baby as reason for retirement cuts

NoSoup4You

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

Long story short, AOL's CEO places part of the blame for the recent retirement cuts on the costs the company incurred for an employee's "distressed baby."  (Born 4 months early and required expensive NICU stay before heading home)

It blows me away that someone can (supposedly) be intelligent enough to lead a major corporation but can't know what is and isn't appropriate to talk about in this situation.  And really, two "distressed babies" over the course of the year altered the bottom line of AOL enough to help justify retirement cuts.  C'mon man!

wiggyslilsis

I saw that on the news last night. Yuck.

shadypines

Yet another clueless CEO.

 

ASmallWonder

Forgive my possible ignorance but, isn't it the INSURANCE company that paid for this care anyway?  I get that high claims can raise rates but it's not like this guy had to write two $1M checks to the hospital out of petty cash, kwim?

Bottom line: jackass.

ASmallWonder

pobrecita said:

elmoali said:

Forgive my possible ignorance but, isn't it the INSURANCE company that paid for this care anyway?  I get that high claims can raise rates but it's not like this guy had to write two $1M checks to the hospital out of petty cash, kwim?

Bottom line: jackass.

Plus he made $12 million last year. Asswipe.

No shit.  He could have written a check out of his personal account FFS.

ByeBabyBunting

elmoali said:

Forgive my possible ignorance but, isn't it the INSURANCE company that paid for this care anyway?  I get that high claims can raise rates but it's not like this guy had to write two $1M checks to the hospital out of petty cash, kwim?

Bottom line: jackass.

It depends on what kind of plan they have. Our plan is set up through an insurance company and is administered by them, but the company just pays a very small per employee administration fee and then also pays for the cost of care directly. They don't know what kind of care people are getting though, just how much the cost is each month. 

Saying the increased cost was directly related to specific people is totally inappropriate though, and I think that the only way he would know that kind of detail is if it came from the employee. At least that is how it would work here.

theimpossibleastronaut

Team he's an asshole. That piece was very moving. It sucks that that family has to deal with this after going through so much. 

NoSoup4You

RiverSong82 said:

Team he's an asshole. That piece was very moving. It sucks that that family has to deal with this after going through so much. 

Agreed.  It was very brave of her to do considering her husband is still an employee there.  I read a follow up article that said the CEO called her personally and apologized.  Appreciated I'm sure, but I can't imagine any amount of apologizing could make up for targeting a child like that.

theimpossibleastronaut

NoSoup4You said:

RiverSong82 said:

Team he's an asshole. That piece was very moving. It sucks that that family has to deal with this after going through so much. 

Agreed.  It was very brave of her to do considering her husband is still an employee there.  I read a follow up article that said the CEO called her personally and apologized.  Appreciated I'm sure, but I can't imagine any amount of apologizing could make up for targeting a child like that.

I'm sure he just doesn't want to get sued at this point. I don't know anything about the legality of the situation, but I'm assuming that saying stuff about your employees' personal medical issues in such a public way is probably not a good idea. 

sshole

Asshole!

Blaming innocent babies and families who have suffered because he can't get his shit together and take care of his company's finances is total bull shit.  Did he think blaming a baby or two would lessen the blow to the employees invested in the 401(k)!  Cut his damn pay to cover the difference!