Sexist New York Times Fires Woman For Demanding Equal Pay

[wareyin]

Not quite. The NYT said, “It is simply not true that Jill’s compensation was significantly less than her predecessors”. So in other words, she was paid less.

Perhaps I misread, but didn't they also say she was paid 10% more than her predecessor?

 

[Ziggurat]

Perhaps I misread, but didn't they also say she was paid 10% more than her predecessor?

The NYT claimed her total compensation package was 10% more. But that includes non-salary expenses (such as health care, etc), so the total compensation package could be higher even if the salary was lower.

 

[wareyin]

Ok, 10% more total compensation. They didn't say salary. Still not seeing it as an admission of paying less.

 

[Hellbound]

Just a thought to throw in here.

If I was replacing someone in a job, wouldn't I expect to be making less than they were? My assumption would be they had been in the job longer, and thus had recieved various raises and such based on how long they'd been there. I wouldnh't expect to make as much, just starting out, as someone who had been in the position for (for example) five years.

Don't know the details in this case, but I haven't seen any similar point brought up, so am I somehow way off in my thinking here?

 

[Ziggurat]

Just a thought to throw in here.

If I was replacing someone in a job, wouldn't I expect to be making less than they were? My assumption would be they had been in the job longer, and thus had recieved various raises and such based on how long they'd been there. I wouldnh't expect to make as much, just starting out, as someone who had been in the position for (for example) five years.

Don't know the details in this case, but I haven't seen any similar point brought up, so am I somehow way off in my thinking here?

Your thinking isn't off. But in this case, it's not much of a defense for the NYT. The problem isn't really that they didn't pay her enough, it's that their entire stance on the issue of the "gender pay gap" has been a farce, and it's poetic justice that it's now biting them on the ass.

You are correct that two people working the same job won't necessarily be paid the same, and there are lots of legitimate factors that can lead to this discrepancy. But that's precisely why most analysis of the "gender pay gap" is bogus: these factors get largely ignored. They often correlate to gender because of gender differences in the preferences of men and women. Men often seek out higher-paying (and more dangerous) jobs, women often defer career advancement to have children, etc, etc. This leads to differences in pay which have nothing to do with gender discrimination. Now, gender discrimination can and does still happen, but you can't find it by just looking at these aggregate numbers, you need to consider it on a case-by-case basis. And in this case, I wouldn't be at all surprised if her gender had nothing to do with her pay, whatever it was. But again, the NYT often hasn't taken that approach to the issue in its coverage of the topic, so I don't feel bad not giving them the benefit of the doubt in return.

 

[Francesca R]

In the Times' defense, it might have something to do with the fact that newspapers don't make nearly as much money as they did in the good old days, and hence can no longer afford to pay employees, whether men or women, as much as they used to.

Except this is a whole lot narrower than employees, it is the editor. A fairly normal trend in contracting industries is that headcount falls but not the pay of the top people, since the latter is a very different competitive market with way more bargaining power in the hands of the candidates.

Anyway I didn't find more than this on editorial compensation; it only compares two years and its old, but it outlines reasons why the duties (and thus expected talents) of editors may have increased.

 

[Francesca R]

The NYT claimed her total compensation package was 10% more. But that includes non-salary expenses (such as health care, etc), so the total compensation package could be higher even if the salary was lower.

Right--why don't they throw in the cost of her office as a "benefit" and point out that the lease was just renewed at 10% higher rent.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

The story just came out today, and facts are in short supply. But I have no doubt the SJWs are already convinced that she was the victim of sexism. I see lots of opportunities for comedy ahead.

 

[Zelenius]

Your thinking isn't off. But in this case, it's not much of a defense for the NYT. The problem isn't really that they didn't pay her enough, it's that their entire stance on the issue of the "gender pay gap" has been a farce, and it's poetic justice that it's now biting them on the ass. You are correct that two people working the same job won't necessarily be paid the same, and there are lots of legitimate factors that can lead to this discrepancy. But that's precisely why most analysis of the "gender pay gap" is bogus: these factors get largely ignored. They often correlate to gender because of gender differences in the preferences of men and women. Men often seek out higher-paying (and more dangerous) jobs, women often defer career advancement to have children, etc, etc. This leads to differences in pay which have nothing to do with gender discrimination. Now, gender discrimination can and does still happen, but you can't find it by just looking at these aggregate numbers, you need to consider it on a case-by-case basis. And in this case, I wouldn't be at all surprised if her gender had nothing to do with her pay, whatever it was. But again, the NYT often hasn't taken that approach to the issue in its coverage of the topic, so I don't feel bad not giving them the benefit of the doubt in return.

Amen. This reminds me of Obama pontificating about the "unfairness" of the gender pay gap. He then proposed some changes to how the federal government does business with private contractors to help fix this issue. Then it was revealed that the White House has its own gender pay gap problem. Obama responded using the very same arguments that he ignored or dismissed from his detractors - that it's about work habits, and men choosing higher paying career paths. The aggregate numbers are not evidence of sexism or discrimination, yet so many people continue to use them as such.

I love it when the sanctimonious finger pointers get exposed as the dishonest, opportunistic hypocrites that they are. So I'm happy the NY Times is having this blow up in their face.

 

[casebro]

Before I got pushy about pay, I would have another option lined up.

Any hints what her's is? Author? Edit for a different employer? Politics?

I've always felt that quit or get fired, they are both mutual.

Total benefits 10% higher? Is inflation figured in there? It's been years since the 'he' held that job?

 

[Information Analyst]

Just a thought to throw in here.

If I was replacing someone in a job, wouldn't I expect to be making less than they were? My assumption would be they had been in the job longer, and thus had recieved various raises and such based on how long they'd been there. I wouldnh't expect to make as much, just starting out, as someone who had been in the position for (for example) five years.

Don't know the details in this case, but I haven't seen any similar point brought up, so am I somehow way off in my thinking here?

That was the first thing that occured to me, and in fact Abramson edited the newspaper for less than three years, her predecessor over eight.

 

[wareyin]

Before I got pushy about pay, I would have another option lined up.

Any hints what her's is? Author? Edit for a different employer? Politics?

I've always felt that quit or get fired, they are both mutual.

Total benefits 10% higher? Is inflation figured in there? It's been years since the 'he' held that job?

It was 3 years, he left in 2010, the comparison is to her 'compensation' in 2013. I don't think inflation accounts for a 10% increase in three years, especially given the state of the economy and newspaper readership over those three years.

 

[Tony]

The story just came out today, and facts are in short supply. But I have no doubt the SJWs are already convinced that she was the victim of sexism. I see lots of opportunities for comedy ahead.

Ohh? You want SJW comedy? I got your fix right here:

http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/

You're welcome.

 

[Fizil]

Right--why don't they throw in the cost of her office as a "benefit" and point out that the lease was just renewed at 10% higher rent.

Why don't we? Compensation is compensation, and from the NYT point of view it is the total cost of employing her. People will sacrifice direct pay other benefits. From the employers point of view though, they are paying out the sum of the two.

If her total compensation package was 10% higher than her predecessor (whom, given the hubub, I assume was a man), no real claim can be made that she was paid less because she is a woman.

Now that doesn't mean sexism had nothing to do with her getting fired, I have no idea whether it did or didn't. That also doesn't mean there isn't a problem with women generally being paid less for the same work, there is. However you can't point to this case as an example of that (assuming of course it is true that her compensation package was indeed higher than her predecessors).

 

[Francesca R]

Why don't we?

Well because that's a bit bogus.

Fizil's boss: Hey there. Good news! This year you're getting an inflation-busting 10% increase in total comp. I'm afraid that it is all swallowed up in premises cost increases and the hike in business rates levied by our bankrupt municipality but there you go--we still have to pay that. And it's for YOU!

Fizil: Whoop!! Yay!!

 

[The_Animus]

I first heard about his on the radio today and it started out by saying she was fired. I assumed they were only reporting that a major news media organization was replacing their editor. Then they went on add the discrimination against women in journalism aspect.

Something about it just seemed like there was no sexism, it was just a standard firing but that the media had decided to invent the sexist part because it makes better news.

I heard more on the way home from work but nothing about why she was fired or any evidence at all. It seems that is still the case. No evidence. So until evidence is presented I'm chalking this up to the media inventing a story.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The story just came out today, and facts are in short supply. But I have no doubt the SJWs are already convinced that she was the victim of sexism. I see lots of opportunities for comedy ahead.

Oh well, as you say the facts are in short supply but good thing you are helping to draw the battle lines and give those SJWs Hell for whinging about "sexism" as if that was a real thing and "equal pay" as if such a thing ought to matter to anyone anyhow.

Drunken SJW Elyse Andrews has already made up her mind:

So will NYT pay Dean Baquet man-pay or black-person pay? Will it be more than woman-pay? And if he asks for a raise, will he be a thug?

And a commenter on the FT Bully site weighs in:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/15/lounge-461/comment-page-1/#comment-797172

Damn I'm good!!!

 

[Morrigan]

[qimg]http://i59.tinypic.com/29uwrhd.jpg[/qimg]

Wow

 

[Fizil]

Well because that's a bit bogus.

Fizil's boss: Hey there. Good news! This year you're getting an inflation-busting 10% increase in total comp. I'm afraid that it is all swallowed up in premises cost increases and the hike in business rates levied by our bankrupt municipality but there you go--we still have to pay that. And it's for YOU!

Fizil: Whoop!! Yay!!

And if I'm not happy with that, then I can find a job elsewhere.

Look I'm not saying office costs should generally be part of what is considered an employees compensation, but I could certainly see it being so in some cases. When I used to work in Denver I was in an office like 25 stories up, with offices looking straight out at the Rockies. Would I have taken some sort of salary cut to work in one of those offices instead of in a cubicle? Damn straight I would.

Besides the entire argument is stupid, the NYT is not saying they are including her office costs as part of her compensation. They are talking all the standard stuff that is usually part of such a high level position's compensation: Salary, retirement plan, health insurance, paid vacation, and probably some sort of stock options. These are real costs that are really involved in employing a specific person. The costs of owning the New York Times Building are not associated with any specific employee.

Tell me, what do you think pays more, a job where I take home a $60,000 a year salary, or a job where I take home a $50,000 a year salary and get an $8,000 contribution to a retirement account from my employer? Who is more highly compensated someone making $60,000 a year, with employer provided health insurance at 80% coinsurance and a $5,000 deductible, or someone making $50,000 a year with employer provided health insurance at 90% coinsurance and a $1,000 deductible? Would you rather make $60,000 a year with 2 weeks of paid vacation, or $58,000 with 4 weeks of paid vacation?

All that extra stuff, that is real compensation to the employee, with real associated costs to the company.

 

[Francesca R]

Look I'm not saying office costs should generally be part of what is considered an employees compensation, but I could certainly see it being so in some cases.

I've never heard of it being used--I made it up to highlight the spectrum of intellectual honesty-->dishonesty in respect of statements about employee compensation. I think in the hypothetical I wrote with you and your boss, virtually everyone in your position would experience a sharp fall in the respect they had for their boss (unless it was already on the floor)

I did once--more than a decade ago--get a statement from my then employer that showed me a compensation total that included employers' social insurance contribution (similar to employer's FICA in the US). That was a stretch.

When I used to work in Denver I was in an office like 25 stories up, with offices looking straight out at the Rockies. Would I have taken some sort of salary cut to work in one of those offices instead of in a cubicle? Damn straight I would

And maybe--if I could fly economy class to the US instead of business and keep the (approx) GBP2,500 fare differential as personal cash--I'd have been tempted to do that on one or other of the trips I've made this year. But that is not the way things work. If I chose to fly economy, then the firm would keep the saving.

And if anyone tried to tell me: "Well Francesca, that's a £12,500 increase in your compensation in just four months, equivalent to £30k/year, because of your travel in Jan-->April.", I would tell them straight away that I regarded that as disingenuous of them.

Besides the entire argument is stupid, the NYT is not saying they are including her office costs as part of her compensation. They are talking all the standard stuff that is usually part of such a high level position's compensation: Salary, retirement plan, health insurance, paid vacation, and probably some sort of stock options. These are real costs that are really involved in employing a specific person.

I know/agree.