Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   AOL CEO: "I know you're upset that I cut retirement benefits after our best year ever, but my hand was forced after Obama used his time machine to make us insure a couple of babies two years ago for $7M"   ( divider line
    More: Unlikely, Obama, obamacare, CEO, reinsurance, benefit cost, AOL, financial risk, parent company  
•       •       •

2839 clicks; posted to Business » on 07 Feb 2014 at 9:40 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-07 08:21:49 AM  
9 votes:
what the CEO actually means is: 'hey the company is doing fine, but I think I need an extra hundred million in my bank account because well..f*ck you.  so anyways, I can't just up and snarf all yer money without a reason so i'm blaming obamacare and hope that y'all will be pissed off at the black guy while I quietly loot your retirement funds.  oh, and pretend I said something about Jesus, capitalism and waved the flag real hard.  thanks guys and get back to work!"
2014-02-07 09:35:49 AM  
2 votes:

James!: Notabunny: Here's a fun idea: Instead of insuring retirement security with state-run non-profit mandatory defined-benefit pensions, let's idolize this douchebag for his "business acumen" and ridicule the employees for their foolishness.

Haha, you trusted them! You farking morons!

Pensions, bad.
Health benefits, bad.
Personal retirement funds, bad.

But it's Obamacare that's killing the incentive to work.
2014-02-07 08:46:02 PM  
1 vote:
"Obamacare is an additional $7.1 million expense for us as a company, so we have to decide whether or not to pass that expense to employees or whether to cut other benefits," AOL's Chairman and CEO Tim Armstrong told CNBC Thursday morning.

o either the employees pay it, or . . . the employees pay it?
2014-02-07 04:09:28 PM  
1 vote:

dywed88: Even if we can assume that programmers and such can get a job in the same locations with minimal difficulties because they are in high demand. Many other people in all the other roles at the company won't have the same opportunities.

I feel like "high demand" is only actually truthful if you're counting the employers who expect Google programmers but won't even pay for "Hello World".
2014-02-07 02:22:06 PM  
1 vote:

joness0154: White knight?  I'm just telling people how 401(k) plans work.  It's not my opinion.

No I agree with your.  My point is that until the plan is changed, with forewarning, it is owed to me.  Just like I know that my employer can decided to cut my wage if they want (but with a few more caveats).  But they can't do it at the end of the pay period.  I have to be notified prior to logging hours at the newly reduced wage.  In either case, I am owed it as a defined benefit for the prior I exchanged my hours of labor for the agreed upon compensation.  And if I don't agree to those new compensation terms, I can freely go pound sand.
2014-02-07 01:14:09 PM  
1 vote:
Pretty funny that we HAVE to keep raising executive compensation because otherwise how will you attract high quality talent, but at the same time can continually cut benefits and real compensation for the rank and file because who gives a shiat if they're high quality.  That should end well.
2014-02-07 01:03:37 PM  
1 vote:

joness0154: wingnut396: joness0154: I have no problem with this at all, but I must be one of the few that realize my employer does not OWE it to me.

Well, it is part of my compensation package, so yes, they do owe it to me. It is part of my pay.

EvilEgg: joness0154: wingnut396: Unless you leave during the year before those matches are paid, in which case you get jack.

You just may not get the match.  You still get your contributions however.

dywed88: Is AOL paying a reasonable return on the payments they are now withholding for up to 12 months? The very statement that this is to save AOL money means that it must be taking money out of the employees' pockets (including the 401(k)s will have no impact on .payroll processing costs).

Why would they need to pay a reasonable return?  They're still getting a match - it's just thrown in at one time versus split over 12 monthly payments.

I have no problem with this at all, but I must be one of the few that realize my employer does not OWE it to me.  They match well when times are good and the match is less when times are bad.

Hell, half of companies don't even offer a 401(k) match.

My company owes it to me, it's what we agreed when I started working there.

And if I got my 401k match in December last year, I would have missed the 25% return on the money, just in time for the -8% return.

You guys have obviously not read your employment documents.  Employers, for the most part, are free to change the retirement plan at any time or also provide a discretionary match.  Nondiscretionary matches can be changed by amending the plan.

You're being paid to white knight for your betters like this I hope.
2014-02-07 12:59:04 PM  
1 vote:

joness0154: Here's a novel idea - how about everyone live below their means and at least give a shot at providing for their own retirement.

By what standard? People's "means" have been shrinking for going on forty years as their effective take home pay has failed to keep pace with increasing costs of living. Company-paid benefits are decreasing and pensions - for those who still get ANY retirement benefit - have been widely replaced with 401Ks which require the employee to absorb yet another cost. Healthcare costs are spiraling out of control even as fewer companies pay insurance benefits and those that do pay less on average. Still, even with all that and laws passed during the Bush era that made it much, much harder to have outstanding debts wiped, household debt is down about $1.5 trillion since the start of the Great Recession.

All this and productivity is way up from the 1970s, corporate profits recently hit record levels and professional investors are reaping huge rewards. Executive compensation is at record levels with seven figure "bonuses" not at all uncommon. The U.S. taxpayer also just got done funding the largest corporate and bank bailout in U.S. history while social safety net programs have seen numerous, substantial cuts in the last 4 years.

At what point, exactly, can we turn our attention to all those things instead of blaming it on Mr. and Mrs. Jones because they had the audacity to buy a new TV?
2014-02-07 11:28:45 AM  
1 vote:

joness0154: I have no problem with this at all, but I must be one of the few that realize my employer does not OWE it to me.

Well, it is part of my compensation package, so yes, they do owe it to me. It is part of my pay.
2014-02-07 11:01:01 AM  
1 vote:
Can this be where Obamacare blaming jumps the shark?
2014-02-07 09:59:39 AM  
1 vote:
My Xbox 360 showed up with the RROD last week.

2014-02-07 09:20:59 AM  
1 vote:
Two babies in 2012 are to blame for your benefits being cut now. What an asshole.
2014-02-07 09:16:10 AM  
1 vote:
Social safety nets are bad.  So let's make it harder for people to fund personal retirement savings?
2014-02-07 08:29:36 AM  
1 vote:
I really wish I could say it better than Weaver95 just did.
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.