[joyeuse6701]

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?

French revolution mentality.

[gopher1]

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.

/s

[joyeuse6701]

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.

[VikingCoder]

Please tell me where you work, so I can make sure to never work there.

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.

[joyeuse6701]

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.