I don't see how you were disagreeing with me? He was making the 401k plan marginally worse, not cutting benefits in general. I wasn't saying anything about his ability to lead going forward, just that if their medical policy is going to continue to be willing to pay for these unusual events in the future that he probably doesn't view them as unacceptable.

He is cutting benefits overall, not completely, but it is still a cut. AOL decided to keep medical benefits high at the expense of retirement benefits. This is probably the right call, but the way that it was presented just made the entire thing look awful.

Regardless of what benefits were cut, citing specific instances of medical care as a cause for the cuts is such a horrendous mistake that it will be difficult for him to effectively lead. That was my addition. When your employees turn against you, and you have made such a blunder publicly so as to make potential employees not want to join AOL, it will be hard to lead. And the worst part is, it's not necessarily the cut itself that is the issue, but how it was presented and rationalized. Had he just said that healthcare costs are increasing, so to avoid cutting health benefits we are reducing (marginally) your retirement benefits, he might have been okay.

I mean, look at the way this sounds: Why is my 401k contribution lower this year? Because your coworkers had babies.

That may not be what he said, but that's where the story went.