According to Armstrong, Obamacare forced them to increase benefits for employees in healthcare. So reducing retirement benefits commensurately seems like a reasonable way to make sure comp stays the same.

This is exactly what you should expect when you mandate employers provide a benefit to employees - they will cut something else to make up the difference. Employees who liked the other thing more are screwed.

A single good quarter is NOT a reason to increase employee comp. Maybe a bonus (note: AOL has bonuses which are based mainly on profit sharing, not individual performance), but not a permanent comp increase.

It also says a lot about armstrong that he saw fit to comment on this in the way he did. by the time you get to the executive level, you should know when to check yourself, or at least to run comments by a good PR team.

This seems to be the modus operandi of both government and corporations nowadays. First a short-sighted idea is implemented then if an uproar ensues, apologize and reverse. Thus it is important to ensure a shit-storm of public opinions in response to crappy policies or bit by bit ones personal (and financial) liberties are eroded.

He tried to pull a change that suggests that some more staff reductions are in the offing and he tried to use and excuse that doesn't even fly if you hate the ACA. I am constantly amazed that he has a job, but I guess the fiscals will forgive a lot.