
AOL chief reverses changes to 401(k) policy after a week of bad publicity - _pius
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/aol-chief-reverses-changes-to-401k-policy-after-a-week-of-bad-publicity/2014/02/08/0aec4056-911f-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost
======
twotwotwo
The "distressed babies" line was incredibly lame. First, statistically, a
company with thousands of workers will have some people with expensive health
problems and get hit with some insurance surcharges. It sucks, but it's how
today's system is. Second, even if it weren't so, it's hard for it not to
sound like you're blaming babies. It's beyond sleazy at a human level, which
is what got him, publicity-wise. And, not entirely unrelatedly, it's the sound
of a CEO trying not to take responsibility for what happens at their company,
which is always a bad sign.

</picking-on-easy-targets>

------
nil_is_me
Sounds like his remarks are grounds for a HIPAA violation lawsuit. I would
certainty be traumatized if company leadership referenced my health conditions
as grounds for a new HR policy.

~~~
patio11
AOL is likely not a covered entity under HIPAA. Do they furnish health care in
the ordinary course of business? No? Then stop there, they're not covered.

Supposing they were covered, "an employee of AOL" is likely not specific
enough to make any statement you make about them personally identifying.

You can certainly claim that your boss talking about you in public was a
traumatic experience, but that's kind of thin gruel in a court of law. (IANAL
but I have to know just enough about HIPAA to be dangerous, due to (probably)
actually being covered by it, by means of BAAs with some clients of mine which
explicitly transfer their HIPAA obligations to me with regards to data under
my care.)

------
ulfw
It's easy to take away stuff like 401(k) by paycheck when you make $12M
yourself. Because at that level you don't care about mundane stuff like saving
for your retirement. It's time to change how compensation works in America. No
wonder the Gini coefficient is out of whack.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/aol-401k_n_4738649....](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/aol-401k_n_4738649.html)

------
pcurve
Can you imagine the feelings those two employees must've endured when
Armstrong made the remark? I would've felt sick to my stomach.

Armstrong runs enterprise like it's game; a game where people are just
interchangeable cogs. He comes across as borderline sociopath with distressed
mind.

~~~
rsobers
Totally agree. Being a parent with a sick child is one of the most emotionally
draining and heartbreaking things in the world. The last thing you need is
your CEO using you as an example for why your colleagues have to endure
benefit cuts in the face of record profits. Pretty disgusting. I would never
work for an Armstrong-led company.

------
ohashi
I hope all of the AOL employees are considering their job options elsewhere.

------
cowmix
The funny thing is that this CEO is, I'm guessing, against a single payer
system too. If a single payer system was in place these "distressed babies"
costs wouldn't have even impacted AOL at all.

------
ableal
Backstory: [http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/aols-
mil...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/aols-million-
dollar-distressed-baby-claim-could-it-possibly-be-true/283690/)

------
iends
IBM made this change last year. There was outcry from employees, but nothing
changed.

~~~
jobu
The change to the policy would have been understandable if Armstrong blamed it
on the financial hit the company took for his $200 million blunder with Patch.
He could have apologized and taken a pay cut himself, and most people would
have been understanding and possibly even praised him.

Blaming it on Obamacare is a pointless political statement, and publicly
blaming it on sick babies means Armstrong is a sociopathic asshole.

~~~
dragonwriter
Both blamings probably stem from the common PR rule that any decisions which
negatively impacts anyone must be portrayed as a necessity mandated by some
external event or force so as to diminish the apparent responsibility of the
actor who actually made the decision.

------
dmead
that policy is status quo at IBM

