Discussion for article #222812
Auletta also reported that a spokeswoman for the Times, Eileen Murphy, conceded that Abramson's decision to bring in a lawyer to raise her salary concerns to management was "a contributing factor" to her dismissal. Times reporter Ravi Somaiya contested that account, tweeting that Murphy said she was misquoted and never conceded that salary contributed to Abramson's ouster.
Ken, please tell me you recorded that interview…
1 Like
I don’t see why the NYT would pay a woman less than a man because she’s a woman. I believe salaries at that level are negotiated individually, and the actual package depends on many factors such as how much money the company wants to spend at that time, how much he company wants the candidate (and whether they are considering other candidates should negotiations fall apart), and how good the candidate’s lawyer is in negotiating salary. Companies (and candidates) also sometimes prefer to offer deferred compensation in lieu of higher upfront salary. I just find it hard to believe the publisher actually said to himself, well, since we’re hiring woman, we can pay her less.
Turns out my compensation was also greater in 2013 than in 2010… it’s called “inflation”. Don’t hurt your arm giving yourself that big pat on the back.
8 Likes
I most assuredly could believe it, though they would employ some sort of sophistry to justify it to themselves.
5 Likes
I could understand Abramson having a lower starting salary than Bill Keller made in his last year as editor–he is a star journalist, while she was less well-known outside the newsroom. But she should have caught up, at least partially. And the history over a decade and over several positions shows that she was consistently shortchanged, and in comparison to men in the same positions that she held. That’s a pretty compelling case.
11 Likes
Hey, expenses have gone down in recent years! Especially for women!
2 Likes
Women begin their careers earning less than men and continue to fall further behind. Primarily because we tend to accept what is offered to us and not ask for more. When we do gather the nerve to ask for more, we must have all the information at hand as to why we deserve a raise/promotion, and even then, we are required to jump through hoops that the men are not subject to.
6 Likes
In a high-level position like this, there is no “standard pay”. She has had the position for about 3 years. She replaced someone who was there for a long time. In such cases, you often start out at a lower level of pay than the person you are replacing, and get raises over the years. So, she is probably not going to be able to sue for discrimination.
Bold dumb ass move on Artie’s part. The optics are terrible and every woman in the world will take Jill’s side. This ought to only cost a few million to sort out cause I don’t think Jill is going to walk away from the one last king hell payday that he’ll have to pony up.
It will be interesting to watch this unfold and see exactly how much appetite for punishment Artie’s got.
2 Likes
She’s already settled.
I doubt any employer sits there and thinks “Oh, we can pay her less because she’s a woman.” It’s not a conscious choice. However, the fact that it’s not conscious doesn’t make it not a choice.
11 Likes
The Times’ publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., sent a memo to staff Thursday that assured his decision to dismiss Abramson had nothing to do with pay. He also denied that Abramson had received unequal compensation for the same job as her male predecessors.
Well, what would you expect him to say?
5 Likes
Oh you are so trusting. For a century, women were deliberately paid less than men for many cultural reasons - she doesn’t need it, she’ll just get pregnant and quit, she’s taking a job away from a male breadwinner and so on. There was also a widespread perception that a woman couldn’t possibly do the job as well as a man, so why pay her as much? In business, I heard these prejudices echoed over and over again. There are plenty of hiring managers and executives who still feel that way, even if they don’t say it out loud.
With salary secrecy, it was easier to hide this disparity, but it greatly hurt women’s economic security and earning potential. As a manager, I can tell you that pay raises are relative to current pay and what the employee will accept, not to what the job deserves.
Negotiation is a fine and acceptable practice, but the employee needs full information to negotiate fairly and wisely. According to the article, Abramson was being paid far less than male colleagues in a succession of jobs. That indicates a systematic discrimination.
13 Likes
Well, you’re right in the sense that the publisher, Pinch Sulzberger, is little better than a gibbering idiot, and is probably incapable of thinking to himself in whole sentences.
I am assuming salaries are secret at the NYT. I am also assuming other women work in the NYT newsroom and many of them are professional reporters who know how to find out information large companies want to keep secret. Question, why haven’t the crack female NYT reporters figured out if Sulzberger is systematically shorting women employees at the NYT? Do they believe they don’t deserve the same as men? Are they convinced Artie is a great guy who would never lie?
As a woman I experienced this often. However, in this case I have little sympathy for her. After working for 32 years, she was “only” making 16 times what I was earning instead of 19 times. I’m finding it difficult to care about any 1%er that squalls about being treated unfairly in their compensation – man, woman it doesn’t really matter.
2 Likes
And you call NYT LIBERAL?
1 Like
Salaries of people at this level are generally negotiated with a number of factors in play, including stock options, deferred compensation packages, etc. In addition, she replaced someone who had been there a long time and was probably being paid at the peak of what the market for his services would bear.
This isn’t some middle management position at Applebee’s Restaurants. So they make an offer, she accepts or negotiates until all parties are satisfied. She is now dissatisfied because she didn’t negotiate well enough is what I’m getting from this. I can’t weep too many tears for someone who is making that kind of money.
2 Likes
Nobody is weeping for her. The report raises a larger question, if the NYT shorted her, does it short its other female employees? Unlike Abramson most of them don’t have the clout to negotiate a big salary.
4 Likes