• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sexist New York Times Fires Woman For Demanding Equal Pay

I don't get why this is an issue at all. You get what you negotiate. To me it sounds like she negotiated, got pissed that it wasn't enough and then started playing hardball. They got sick of it (after raising her compensation already) and that was that. Happens all the time.
 
Because she's a woman, apparently. If the person in question were a man I doubt they would've gotten as much latitude as she had, and they would have been fired earlier. And no one would have heard about this.
 
newyorkguy said:
Before somebody writes the Times gave no reasons shouldn't they at least look? The Google search only took 0.31 seconds....and it returned 93,200,000 hits! ;)
Click to expand...

Right and none of those gave any positive evidence. Something specific like "sleeping on the job" is not listed as a reason for being fired. Vague phrases like "management disagreements"

You'd think if there was an actual answer, rather than draw on about how quick a google search yields results, my question could've simply been answered. ;)
 
Arthur Sulzberger (the publisher of the Times, the chairman of the Times' corporate board and a member of the family who owns the Times) released a statement several days ago (and it was linked here) detailing why he fired Abramson. Sulzberger made it clear -- if you believe him -- that Jill Abramson's firing had nothing to do with her asking for more money and emphatically denied it was a gender issue.

Until Saturday, Mr. Sulzberger had said only that her removal was due to “an issue with management in the newsroom.” His new statement cited a pattern of behavior that included “arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues.” Link
Click to expand...

With comments circulating last summer in Newsweek that Abramson's leadership style was at times condescending and abrasive it appears that this was basically a falling out over management philosophy. That Abramson's vision of how to run the newsroom was not what Sulzberger and the board of directors wanted. Sulzberger said he had previously made that plain to her and warned her if she didn't modify her style she could be replaced. I guess she didn't change her style to the satisfaction of management.

It happens. Executive editor is a top position and they have to share the same management philosophy as the owners do. If there's a serious conflict that can't be settled the editor is the one who is going to be leaving.

The other thought I have is, when the Boss is warning you he is not happy with your performance, and seriously thinking about canning you, that's not a real good time to ask for more money! :cool:
 
newyorkguy said:
It happens. Executive editor is a top position and they have to share the same management philosophy as the owners do. If there's a serious conflict that can't be settled the editor is the one who is going to be leaving.
Click to expand...

What hurts is that those who ignore unequal treatment of women will point to this as an example of how women claim unequal treatment where there is none and those who are working for equal treatment of women will continue to press that this is a women's issue instead of just a bad fit for the job.
 
colander said:
Thank you, shuttlt. Now that you've provided a link to the full text, I'm sure that John Jones will read it attentively and post many cogent insights re: its contents. ;)
Click to expand...
No problem. I had a go at interpreting it. Experiment 3 looks like the one where it gets interesting. The ANOVA table they showed in table 6 made me think that maybe the claim didn't stack up. It then goes on with some more analysis which seems to be the root of the claim, but no ANOVA and I'm too tired to unpick it all.
 
OK, here's an interesting thing... if I'm understanding it correctly...

The effect of an ask from a female candidate to a male evaluator is almost exactly the same as for the male candidate with the female evaluator. Where there is some difference is beteen men evaluating men and women evaluating women. Both of them seem to react negatively to an Ask from the other gender. I'm not up to the task of determining whether the difference is significant.

I'd be amazed if somebody else can't do better with this.
 
newyorkguy said:
Arthur Sulzberger (the publisher of the Times, the chairman of the Times' corporate board and a member of the family who owns the Times) released a statement several days ago (and it was linked here) detailing why he fired Abramson. Sulzberger made it clear -- if you believe him -- that Jill Abramson's firing had nothing to do with her asking for more money and emphatically denied it was a gender issue.

Until Saturday, Mr. Sulzberger had said only that her removal was due to “an issue with management in the newsroom.” His new statement cited a pattern of behavior that included “arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues.” Link
Click to expand...
<snip>
Click to expand...


If it were a guy these traits would usually be phrased in a more flattering light, and praised as leadership qualities.

How often do you hear about a male senior executive being fired for things like “arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult, ..."?

More frequently these would be described as something like 'independent thinker, decisive, ...' .

If it were a guy, that is.

A guy is "forceful". A woman is "pushy". And so on.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
If it were a guy these traits would usually be phrased in a more flattering light, and praised as leadership qualities.

How often do you hear about a male senior executive being fired for things like “arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult, ..."?

More frequently these would be described as something like 'independent thinker, decisive, ...' .

If it were a guy, that is.

A guy is "forceful". A woman is "pushy". And so on.
Click to expand...

Evidence?
 
newyorkguy said:
The other thought I have is, when the Boss is warning you he is not happy with your performance, and seriously thinking about canning you, that's not a real good time to ask for more money! :cool:
Click to expand...

Apparently if you're a woman, it's a brilliant time to ask for more money. Then when they fire you for sucking at your job, you can claim it's because of sexism in executive compensation.
 
Personally, I would be interested to hear the opinion of anybody who is familiar enough with statistics to say whether the analysis of experiment 3, in the paper that was recently discussed (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf), is ligitimate or not. I'm an amateur in these things, but I'm wondering whether there is some trawling for significance in subgroups going on after their initial experiment doesn't show the result they are looking for.

They also do a lot of significance tests, but not for the main result they seem to claim for experiment 3 - that there is a higher social cost to women asking for more pay from men, than for men asking for more pay from women. I wonder whether if there was a significant result there, it would have shown up in their initial table 6 ANOVA?

Anyway, as I say.... I'm no expert on this.
 
quadraginta said:
If it were a guy these traits would usually be phrased in a more flattering light, and praised as leadership qualities.

How often do you hear about a male senior executive being fired for things like “arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult, ..."?

More frequently these would be described as something like 'independent thinker, decisive, ...' .

If it were a guy, that is.

A guy is "forceful". A woman is "pushy". And so on.
Click to expand...

Bull. Total.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom