This is the guy that publicly fired someone during a conference call without a moment's thought, at the snap of a neuron, and without whatever procedures were in place at his company. You should expect this kind of behavior from him 24/7.
Is this the same AOL that still gets a good chunk of money each year from people that never cancelled their 56k internet subscription when they got ADSL?
It's not that they're "leaving it up to its customers to be responsible", it's strategically employing black patterns to exploit specific mistakes people make.
Are you 100% on top of your every bill? Do you know everything going in and going out of your bank account? Have you made any mistakes in looking over something? My friend's dad is a CFO of a Fortune 500 company (and is a generally well-reputed guy) - I recently found out that he's pretty bad at managing his home finances - forgets to pay credit bills and all that.
This shit just happens. I'd rather that I deal with a company that doesn't try to actively exploit me on my weaknesses. The companies that do this have a bad character and I wish they just didn't exist.
If I wasn't, I sure wouldn't blame anyone but myself for it. I wouldn't blame the company I willingly gave money to due to my own oversight. And I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't call me and ask me to stop paying them.
If the customers are actively paying for a service that AOL is providing, despite not needing that service anymore, AOL has an obligation to mention that to them. Otherwise AOL is exploiting the technological ignorance of their own customers, which is immoral.
If AOL's logs show that a customer hasn't used their service in more than a year, it would be trivial to send out a 'are you sure you still need us?' letter to each of them.
I think he was just using that as one example of AOL's questionable business practices. The company has been known for things like charging customers for service they don't need, making it difficult to cancel service, and pumping out a large volume of low quality content (pulled from original sources) to get higher search rankings.
They make 1.04 billion in profit each year and 9 million has him worried? It also seems to be a breech of trust that he outed 2 women and their children in this. I wonder if coworkers will have any backlash against these women. If that does happen it then it could easily become grounds for a lawsuit against AOL.
Yes, I was thinking the same. Clearly in a company, everyone will eventually find out who these women are, so although he didnt break any laws by revealing their names, these women are probably feeling pretty targeted right now.
If you want to make a political statement against Obama... fine... I get it.
But why drag two innocent families into this? What were these people supposed to do??? NOT try to help their children???
That was a very classless maneuver on AOL's part. Just state that your medical benefit costs were higher than expected this year. Don't be a douche about the whole thing.
I apologize for the rant... just rubbed me the wrong way.
The entire REASON we're outraged is because we REALIZE it was nothing more than political! If that is a technique they teach... all I can say is that it doesn't work very well here on HN. Benefit cuts for political action has lost A LOT of support around the tech industry today.
because AOL has all of hacker news audience. i cant stand all the threads here everytime aol sites have any downtime...
but you are missing the point. your words say you are not even condoning the political move anymore because now you are outraged by the asshole baby comment.
Well, the "distressed babies" comment is par for the course from Mr. Armstrong. He is not doing any other tech companies CEO any favors. He does remind me of the one psycho that attends a peaceful protest, but gets all of the press coverage to show the protest in a bad light. He says foolish things so he is the representative of all tech CEOs in an unfriendly, as of late, press.
As to the health insurance, yes, its going to go up for most and with higher deductible and premiums. All the rhetoric now meets the pavement.
Health insurance has been increasing by ~9% a year since the late 1990s. Obamacare is predicted by the CBO to bend the cost curve in the right direction but it's not going to 0% or sub-inflation anytime soon. Anybody blaming their cost structure on Obamacare is just being opportunistic, although I guess I can't blame them. Getting a multi-billion dollar media machine pushing a message makes it persuasive.
Your pointing to an article based on a Kaiser Family Foundation survey of employers for 2013 without any guidance on 2014 when the ACA changes occur for businesses. A study about a year that the ACA doesn't affect the group being studied is not very informative.
Its not the bias, its the timing - you are using numbers under one system to prove numbers under a future different system. If anything, these numbers show that the ACA wasn't needed as it came into effect years after in passed. Look at the implementation dates to ACA and see what years the data in the graph is for.
It's not really the insurers that are causing the cost rise, its the systemic imbalances and cost shifting - by taking cost shifting out, we can reduce the cost for each person who is actually paying.
Apparently the national numbers aren't as bad as I thought, closer to 9%. I've edited my post upthread.
Related to the topic of Obamacare, cost inflation has actually slowed down the last few years. So that makes basically everyone complaining about Obamacare costs a big fat liar.
Once again, the system that the numbers were dropping under is changing and going by the law and trend from the individual plans, we are going to see a big increase. Papa John's lawyers already looked at the numbers and are doing what other businesses are doing. This is a national trend.
Armstrong is an ass, but that goes well beyond the whole health care thing and his excuse is foolish.
"However, would you be making the same point if the numbers were different? Fox News would be having a field day."
Well, no, I couldn't make the point if the numbers were different as my point relies on the actual numbers and not some made up crap.
I don't watch Fox News nor MSNBC or CNN as I am not fond of pundit television, so I have no opinion or trend on what they are saying.
I agree, except for your comment about higher deductibles and premiums. I think we may see that as a brief and temporary phenomenon, but the trend will be toward lower cost care.
Can someone please explain what a "distressed baby" is in this context? And why did AOL foot a million dollar bill for each and then blame the mothers?
It may relate to prematurity. The cost of hospitalization of a premature baby can be 500K to 1.5 million on average given a 20-40 day stay in the NICU.
AOL's insurance would cover it and rates might rise slightly, but it is disingenuous to blame the women.
I should point out however, that this 401K match at the end of year practice is already a standard at IBM, which is probably the worst place to work at in the Silicon Valley today.
It's pretty distressing to me that these people are like "eh, I'll just cut a few million in benefits for ALL MY EMPLOYEES, blame obamacare and pocket it myself." Because we need to get people angry at the idea that their fellow man is getting adequate healthcare!
We have had similar discussions in our own company, which is much much smaller than AOL. It's definitely not directly caused by Obamacare, but we've watched healthcare costs significantly rise over the last few years. And it's mostly these "catastrophic" cases - major surgeries, expensive pregnancies etc. We are try to figure out how we can continue offering great benefits but we'll probably have to make a change. Not to save our billion dollar profits (I wish), but so we can continue to function as a company and employ some great people...
Health insurance costs rose by 131% from 1999-2009[1], which comes out to just under 9% inflation. That's in comparison to an average 2.5% inflation for all goods including healthcare since 2000[2]. 2.5% inflation turns $100 into $128.01 over 10 years. Instead, we got 231.
About 10 years ago I was in local government, we laid off teachers every single year in order to keep paying health insurance premiums for the rest of them. More money for less bodies.
That's mostly because there not being any restrictions on health care pricings (as far as I know); the insurance companies don't pressure hospitals to keep costs manageable, the government doesn't prevent health care institutions from charging widely different prices, and nobody stops pharmacy companies from charging exorbitant prices for medication.
I don't understand what you're suggesting. If insurance costs were rising at ~15% annually while total expenditures were rising at ~6% annually, you'd expect to see insurance administration/profits become the #1 expenditure in short order. But per the CMS data I linked, those were only 6% in 2012 ("Net Cost of Health Insurance").
Healthcare premiums up 131% in 10 years.. that comes out closer to 9% than 6%. And doesn't include co-pays or anything that insurance doesn't cover.
EDIT: For the record, this kind of industry BS is why liberals support single-payer healthcare. It's not that we're commies or even that we don't understand the inefficiency of government bureaucracy. It's that we'd prefer the dumb public bureaucracy to our current even dumber private bureaucracy. Something being 'private' without pricing pressure isn't capitalism.
Why's it have to come out as profits? Couldn't they just be a big lumbering bureaucracy that never gets cut because they never have pricing pressure?
Sure, but that would show up in the CMS numbers, and it doesn't.
Insurers are absolutely price-conscious, both of what they pay for and what they charge. It's not as if businesses will accept year after year double digit increases without shopping around. If there were big money to be made undercutting existing insurers, someone would go after that market, but there isn't: Health insurance profit margins are low single digits at best.
> Why's it have to come out as profits? Couldn't they just be a big lumbering bureaucracy that never gets cut because they never have pricing pressure?
Not with the ACA limits on share of premium costs not going to care they couldn't. Before the ACA, they certainly could.
> For the record, this kind of industry BS is why liberals support single-payer healthcare. It's not that we're commies or even that we don't understand the inefficiency of government bureaucracy. It's that we'd prefer the dumb public bureaucracy to our current even dumber private bureaucracy.
> Something being 'private' without pricing pressure isn't capitalism.
Yes, it is capitalism. Its not free, efficient, competitive market, but its certainly capitalism.
When I was serving my community, for 0 pay for the record, I was not looking for reasons to lay off teachers. We took the money we had coming in, looked at our cost increases for the following year (utterly dominated by healthcare), and laid of the number of people we had to in order to pay all our bills. No, it wasn't 15% of the workforce.
Taken to the extreme, you get Vallejo, California.
Great article by Michael Lewis on how healthcare and retirement costs grow to consume such a large share of a city's budget that very little is left for actual public services.
Eighty percent of the city’s budget—and the lion’s share of the claims that had
thrown it into bankruptcy—were wrapped up in the pay and benefits of public-safety
workers... The public-safety workers thought that the city was out to screw
them on their contracts; the citizenry thought that the public-safety
workers were using fear as a tool to extort money from them... the police and
fire departments have been cut in half; some number
of the citizens ... say they no longer felt safe in their own homes. All
other city services had been reduced effectively to zero. “Do you know
that some cities actually pave their streets? That’s not here.”
This is why all the functioning welfare states have healthcare systems that are in large part state-run. I'd go as far as to say that privatization of health care and bundling health care with employment only ever make things worse.
Health care is an issue where you _cannot_ ignore the low-probability worst case scenarios but instead must always be ready to respond to them. So the bigger the group of people that are insured together, the better, which obvious leaves one scenario as best: Every citizen of a state pays into and recieves from one single health care pool.
Anyway, I wish you best of luck. I hope you find a way to make things work.
The worst part might be him putting part of the blame as an aside to the women with "distressed babies." It seems awfully small for a CEO of a Fortune 1000 to pin this cost-cutting decision, even partially, on two people.
Actually I'm in that boat, too, but of my own doing. At where I work (a large utility in the midwest), we match 75 cents on the dollar up to 6%, so essentially 4.5%. I stopped contributing a few years back to try to get out of debt faster, but kept finding creative ways to add new expenses: wife, new daughter, another new daughter, repair that leaky roof, etc.
Still, my point was obvious: 3% is free money that shouldn't be turned down if it's available, but to laud it as something to brag on is really grasping at straws. 6% was the industry standard in my area... and I once worked for a company AOL bought out.
The distressed babies thing is bizarre since when does a company have to pay extra out of pocket for something like that like Armstrong is claiming? Isn't that the whole point of Insurance, in case something bad happens insurance pays?
More like the cost of that company's plan goes up, but I somehow doubt a company as large as AOL has significant cost increases due to a baby or two that had some special surgeries.
Wow ! Obviously sexual discrimination and workplace bullying are in favor at AOL.
Seriously, this sounds like another 'top notch tough businessman' appointed at immense salary.
My experience has been the first person normally claiming they are top notch is none other than themselves, and otherwise prosperous companies with generally good prospects seem to bleed money shortly after their arrival (normally into their pockets) and end up as burned out shells being sold off piecemean with some golden parachute to the outgoing top notch guy before he repeats the performance or retires to a recently purchased, by a tax haven based company, island in the Carribean.
And as proof of true sexual equality, there are examples where the he is a she.
Of course. The entire company's "hit" from the ACA (I'm making myself a pact now to refuse to call it "Obamacare" again) could have been covered by half of his salary ($12MM before bonuses or stock options).
Wow. A billion dollars in profit, 12 million in his pocket each year...but the 7 million for health care has to come out of the employees' other pocket.
Also, the fact that he's blaming two babies - I find it highly unlikely, statistically, that two such cases blew the cost of premiums for a group as large as AOL. I'm pretty sure they had more employees with cancer that year, for example, and that's also super-expensive.
On a group the size of AOL statistics would clearly imply at least two expensive cases per year. To single those cases out is inexcusable.
In 2000 I worked at a relatively small company of 50 employees. One person had a baby that cost millions sic. Being a small group we all knew who it was and anticipated our insurance rates increasing.
Our rates went up some but not much, and the company president decided to cover 100% of the increase. I greatly admired the company for doing that and now 14 years later I find myself working with the same team on a new startup. The company president has been able to get back most of the top talent from a decade ago because we all respect and admire his leadership.
He didn't have to say what those events were. Now everyone in the office knows who is "responsible" for these cuts - two poor parents with sick babies. There was no reason for the CEO to create this kind of resentment for those parents.
it's small-ball management, certainly not appropriate for a firm of their size and stature.
we've seen some crazy unprofessional behavior from armstrong before - the spot firing conference call is also classic amateur hour. not a good sign for AOL.
A) How did AOL end up paying "a million dollars each" if they have insurance?
B) Everyone close to those parents would know who they were. A baby in the hospital is something that people hear about. So now those parents get to feel singled out, guilty, blamed, etc. for "screwing things up" for the rest of the company.
Like many companies - they are likely self-insured. If that is true, then they pay the actual costs of the claims right out of their pockets rather than participating in a larger risk pool.
I agree - it's completely disgusting to bring these costs up in that context.
Agree with you on the ass part. But to give you some information:
A) AOL most likely self-insures... Why? Exactly because of catastrophic events like this increasing your premiums for all of your thousands of employees, even though most of them are probably healthy and low risk. Insurance companies don't care! It's usually better to self-insure until you run into these catastrophic insurance events.
B) Agreed. It's disgraceful for any executive of any company to publicly share any type of individual insurance information. Also, borderline illegal.
The company isn't a church or a charity or an example of excellent morality. It is for profit. There are places to work that offer no benefits mind you. Somewhere along the lines people ought to realize that their negative reactions from this stem from two things: Going from more to less bothers people. Someone who has more than others taking more those with nothing also, bothers people. If employees (those two babies by proxy) are costing the company more (big assumption if that is the case), it makes a lot of sense to adjust employee related costs to compensate for such events, as opposed to re-appropriating the money from somewhere else despite what your sense of morality dictates.
I find it equally hilarious that everyone blames the 'singling out' as the criminal act here. Singling out only works if the mob (other AOL employees) actually target those two women, and how fucked up would that be? Are you really going to ignore the employees moral responsibilities to not target women with children in need but call out only the CEO?
Guys, there are worse places to work with no benefits, therefore anything that AOL does is morally A-OK so long as they're higher than the ridiculously low bar of current employment standards.
And hey, this is a for profit company, therefore they have no moral obligation to do anything other than make a profit. In fact they should refuse all healthcare obligations, remove pensions and outsource all their employees to gain more profits. There's absolutely no societal obligation toward a populace on a corporation's behalf. The company just pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and didn't benefit from society to get where they are today at all.
Eh, that's a murky sarcastic point you're making. It's about a contract/compensation in the end. Benefits that were in place, are now removed but the work expected from individuals is the same, that upsets people and the contractual balance, whereas if they gave raises to everyone for the same amount of work, all workers are happy! It's morally (to me) arbitrary. 'good change' is morally acceptable 'bad change' is not. How sad.
Eh, high-tech yeah, since the products they create depend on it. So I agree, but I don't consider AOL high-tech anymore. On the other hand, Apple by extension employs FOXCONN it's laborers, and I don't know how much their happiness effects profitability.
To everyone who's saying "they make X billions in profit each year and can't afford Y million!", that's not the point. It'd be irresponsible of him to simply eat the extra costs. Hopefully, people wake up and realize what a horrible law Obamacare is and demand it be repealed.
From my view, this is a case where random big box mgt consulting firm (McKinsey, PWC, Booz) found some loose cash on $xM engagement.
Tim then publicly regurgitated much of the internal deck logic. Obamacare may have been his own (questionable) addition - but the two distressed babies was definitely in the deck.
Whichever consulting firm it was obviously need's to coach those CxO's better on implementation.
And here I was being sympathetic to "healthcare problems" until he threw those two mothers under the bus with that backhanded remark. Has this guy shown no class while at AOL?
I'd like to think AOL has made a meteoric turnaround with HuffPost and Patch especially (the content is better than the local papers in my suburban hellhole, which isn't saying much) but maybe I spoke too soon.
It disappoints me to read the knee-jerk reactions here by those who obviously have not gone through childbirth. To help some of you along, a "distressed baby" would be his way of saying that the mother or baby experienced trauma or were under life-threatening duress either during childbirth or prior. This is not that unusual - things like umbilical cords wrapped around a neck, a small birth canal, and other reasons can cause significant problems during childbirth. How many millions of women and babies have died during childbirth? Half of the commenters here are acting as though childbirth is always a safe process.
The guy used a term that the writer of the article took offense to and you guys are making a huge deal of it. Get over it. Imagine yourself having to tell the same story to 100 reporters 100 times over two days. You'd try different ways of saying it and, no doubt, at least one of those times you'd use a word or phrase you wished you could take back.
If you're unhappy that he's bitching about paying for healthcare, fine - let that be why you complain. But stop falling for the buzzfeed/linkbait BS titles and "tricks" that authors use to try to make stories facebook-worthy.
It's not about whether the babies are having a bad time, it's about the breach in privacy involved in referring to the health issues that two of his employees underwent, and directly blaming them for the health premiums.
From what I've read, people who have to tell once.the dame story 100 times over two days are supposed to have a list of talking points that they memorize and refuse to deviate from the list, and/or hold a press conference to tell everyone at once.
"For employees leaving to go to other employers, not matching those programs was probably the last thing on the list for us in terms of employee benefits that we wanted to keep."
I can't imagine what must be at the top of the list if "no healthcare" is a the bottom.
Sounds like even the CEO agrees that AOL is a shitty, shitty place to work for.
Someone at work gave me her email address, and it was an AOL address. I felt like I had discovered a new living fossil, still in her thirties (guessing).
And that's how I know that AOL, somehow, is still kicking.
I love how he starts the video posted in the article off with "We are in the most intense talent space in the world" Well good sir don't expect to keep any of that talent. This sickens me.
On a semi-related note, what makes fetal distress cost a million dollars to recover from? I would have thought by now this should have been part of every pediatricians runbook. I am not any where savvy with medicine and also apologize in advance if this sounds insensitive. That is not my intention. I am curious as to what would make these costs be so high.
109 comments
[ 7.9 ms ] story [ 258 ms ] threadI think AOL is one large moral-free zone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/technology/29link.html?pag...
I think they might have changed things in recent years, but it's still not easy to cancel your AOL subscription.
Are you 100% on top of your every bill? Do you know everything going in and going out of your bank account? Have you made any mistakes in looking over something? My friend's dad is a CFO of a Fortune 500 company (and is a generally well-reputed guy) - I recently found out that he's pretty bad at managing his home finances - forgets to pay credit bills and all that.
This shit just happens. I'd rather that I deal with a company that doesn't try to actively exploit me on my weaknesses. The companies that do this have a bad character and I wish they just didn't exist.
If I wasn't, I sure wouldn't blame anyone but myself for it. I wouldn't blame the company I willingly gave money to due to my own oversight. And I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't call me and ask me to stop paying them.
If AOL's logs show that a customer hasn't used their service in more than a year, it would be trivial to send out a 'are you sure you still need us?' letter to each of them.
Also they spent $405 million on an acquisition in August (8 months ago): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_AOL
the baby thing really bothered me.
If you want to make a political statement against Obama... fine... I get it.
But why drag two innocent families into this? What were these people supposed to do??? NOT try to help their children???
That was a very classless maneuver on AOL's part. Just state that your medical benefit costs were higher than expected this year. Don't be a douche about the whole thing.
I apologize for the rant... just rubbed me the wrong way.
Now instead of getting everyone outraged against benefit cuts for political action, you think that is fine but want reparation for the baby comment.
forgot the name of this discourse diatribe, but apparently it's effective.
The entire REASON we're outraged is because we REALIZE it was nothing more than political! If that is a technique they teach... all I can say is that it doesn't work very well here on HN. Benefit cuts for political action has lost A LOT of support around the tech industry today.
but you are missing the point. your words say you are not even condoning the political move anymore because now you are outraged by the asshole baby comment.
so, the baby comment served its purpose.
As to the health insurance, yes, its going to go up for most and with higher deductible and premiums. All the rhetoric now meets the pavement.
edit: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/21/business/survey-finds-mode...
study: http://kff.org/private-insurance/report/2013-employer-health...
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353475/slowdown-health-...
Also, article points to same http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/assessing-the-effect... - same group
It's not really the insurers that are causing the cost rise, its the systemic imbalances and cost shifting - by taking cost shifting out, we can reduce the cost for each person who is actually paying.
Related to the topic of Obamacare, cost inflation has actually slowed down the last few years. So that makes basically everyone complaining about Obamacare costs a big fat liar.
Here's a conservative blog for a source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353475/slowdown-health-...
What about this jackass Armstrong's reasoning, in light of the current numbers? How about Papa John?
Armstrong is an ass, but that goes well beyond the whole health care thing and his excuse is foolish.
"However, would you be making the same point if the numbers were different? Fox News would be having a field day."
Well, no, I couldn't make the point if the numbers were different as my point relies on the actual numbers and not some made up crap.
I don't watch Fox News nor MSNBC or CNN as I am not fond of pundit television, so I have no opinion or trend on what they are saying.
Given what has been happening with Medicaid, I don't see this a temporary phenomenon.
I'm just really sad that we, the programmers and engineers, keep letting people like him climb up the ladder.
http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/programmers-d...
Serfs, not Morlocks.
AOL's insurance would cover it and rates might rise slightly, but it is disingenuous to blame the women.
AOL might be self-insured, but I doubt it.
What a shitty company.
Also, my read is that Armstrong thought he was going to sound like a great guy ... doing everything they could to help the distressed babies.
About 10 years ago I was in local government, we laid off teachers every single year in order to keep paying health insurance premiums for the rest of them. More money for less bodies.
[1]http://business.time.com/2009/09/16/health-insurance-premium...
[2]http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Long_Term_...
(edit: fixed my numbers thanks to twoodfin)
Not even close[1].
CAGR of U.S. health care expenditures 1990-2012: 6.05%
CAGR of U.S. health care expenditures 2000-2012: 5.59%
And that's total spending, not accounting for population growth.
Health care expenditures have grown faster than inflation, but not anywhere near 15% annually.
[1] http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Stat...
Paying a bunch of idiots to run around and generate paperwork isn't profitable, but the money's still gone.
http://business.time.com/2009/09/16/health-insurance-premium...
Healthcare premiums up 131% in 10 years.. that comes out closer to 9% than 6%. And doesn't include co-pays or anything that insurance doesn't cover.
EDIT: For the record, this kind of industry BS is why liberals support single-payer healthcare. It's not that we're commies or even that we don't understand the inefficiency of government bureaucracy. It's that we'd prefer the dumb public bureaucracy to our current even dumber private bureaucracy. Something being 'private' without pricing pressure isn't capitalism.
Sure, but that would show up in the CMS numbers, and it doesn't.
Insurers are absolutely price-conscious, both of what they pay for and what they charge. It's not as if businesses will accept year after year double digit increases without shopping around. If there were big money to be made undercutting existing insurers, someone would go after that market, but there isn't: Health insurance profit margins are low single digits at best.
Not with the ACA limits on share of premium costs not going to care they couldn't. Before the ACA, they certainly could.
> For the record, this kind of industry BS is why liberals support single-payer healthcare. It's not that we're commies or even that we don't understand the inefficiency of government bureaucracy. It's that we'd prefer the dumb public bureaucracy to our current even dumber private bureaucracy.
> Something being 'private' without pricing pressure isn't capitalism.
Yes, it is capitalism. Its not free, efficient, competitive market, but its certainly capitalism.
How does that cost-of-healthcare increase change the overall cost of employing someone? Clue: it's a lot less than 15%.
If you're laying off employees just for this reason, you're either doing something wrong or you're making political excuses.
Great article by Michael Lewis on how healthcare and retirement costs grow to consume such a large share of a city's budget that very little is left for actual public services.
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/11/michael-...(Starting on page 4)
Health care is an issue where you _cannot_ ignore the low-probability worst case scenarios but instead must always be ready to respond to them. So the bigger the group of people that are insured together, the better, which obvious leaves one scenario as best: Every citizen of a state pays into and recieves from one single health care pool.
Anyway, I wish you best of luck. I hope you find a way to make things work.
Or a smaller but not insignificant number for whom a 401k at all is something dreamt of.
Actually I'm in that boat, too, but of my own doing. At where I work (a large utility in the midwest), we match 75 cents on the dollar up to 6%, so essentially 4.5%. I stopped contributing a few years back to try to get out of debt faster, but kept finding creative ways to add new expenses: wife, new daughter, another new daughter, repair that leaky roof, etc.
Still, my point was obvious: 3% is free money that shouldn't be turned down if it's available, but to laud it as something to brag on is really grasping at straws. 6% was the industry standard in my area... and I once worked for a company AOL bought out.
Seriously, this sounds like another 'top notch tough businessman' appointed at immense salary.
My experience has been the first person normally claiming they are top notch is none other than themselves, and otherwise prosperous companies with generally good prospects seem to bleed money shortly after their arrival (normally into their pockets) and end up as burned out shells being sold off piecemean with some golden parachute to the outgoing top notch guy before he repeats the performance or retires to a recently purchased, by a tax haven based company, island in the Carribean.
And as proof of true sexual equality, there are examples where the he is a she.
Also, the fact that he's blaming two babies - I find it highly unlikely, statistically, that two such cases blew the cost of premiums for a group as large as AOL. I'm pretty sure they had more employees with cancer that year, for example, and that's also super-expensive.
This guy is despicable.
He should have said, "The cost of our medical benefits package was higher than expected." FULL STOP.
I can't, for the life of me, see how anyone could possibly think what that man did was appropriate.
In 2000 I worked at a relatively small company of 50 employees. One person had a baby that cost millions sic. Being a small group we all knew who it was and anticipated our insurance rates increasing.
Our rates went up some but not much, and the company president decided to cover 100% of the increase. I greatly admired the company for doing that and now 14 years later I find myself working with the same team on a new startup. The company president has been able to get back most of the top talent from a decade ago because we all respect and admire his leadership.
we've seen some crazy unprofessional behavior from armstrong before - the spot firing conference call is also classic amateur hour. not a good sign for AOL.
What an ass
I agree - it's completely disgusting to bring these costs up in that context.
A) AOL most likely self-insures... Why? Exactly because of catastrophic events like this increasing your premiums for all of your thousands of employees, even though most of them are probably healthy and low risk. Insurance companies don't care! It's usually better to self-insure until you run into these catastrophic insurance events. B) Agreed. It's disgraceful for any executive of any company to publicly share any type of individual insurance information. Also, borderline illegal.
I find it equally hilarious that everyone blames the 'singling out' as the criminal act here. Singling out only works if the mob (other AOL employees) actually target those two women, and how fucked up would that be? Are you really going to ignore the employees moral responsibilities to not target women with children in need but call out only the CEO?
French revolution mentality.
And hey, this is a for profit company, therefore they have no moral obligation to do anything other than make a profit. In fact they should refuse all healthcare obligations, remove pensions and outsource all their employees to gain more profits. There's absolutely no societal obligation toward a populace on a corporation's behalf. The company just pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and didn't benefit from society to get where they are today at all.
/s
One of the best ways for-profit, high-tech companies maintain profitability is to ensure that they have happy workers.
This is dumb, all-around: it doesn't save much cost, and it creates animosity.
Tim then publicly regurgitated much of the internal deck logic. Obamacare may have been his own (questionable) addition - but the two distressed babies was definitely in the deck.
Whichever consulting firm it was obviously need's to coach those CxO's better on implementation.
I'd like to think AOL has made a meteoric turnaround with HuffPost and Patch especially (the content is better than the local papers in my suburban hellhole, which isn't saying much) but maybe I spoke too soon.
The guy used a term that the writer of the article took offense to and you guys are making a huge deal of it. Get over it. Imagine yourself having to tell the same story to 100 reporters 100 times over two days. You'd try different ways of saying it and, no doubt, at least one of those times you'd use a word or phrase you wished you could take back.
If you're unhappy that he's bitching about paying for healthcare, fine - let that be why you complain. But stop falling for the buzzfeed/linkbait BS titles and "tricks" that authors use to try to make stories facebook-worthy.
I can't imagine what must be at the top of the list if "no healthcare" is a the bottom.
Sounds like even the CEO agrees that AOL is a shitty, shitty place to work for.
And that's how I know that AOL, somehow, is still kicking.
https://twitter.com/timarmstrongaol