Black Hair Media Forum Homepage
BHM BHM BHM
Forum Home Forum Home > Lets Talk > Talk, Talk, and More Talk
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Female Editor's Pay Was 100K Less Than Counterpart
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login
Perfect Hair Collection
 

Female Editor's Pay Was 100K Less Than Counterpart

 
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 10>




The Best Human Hair Available with No Service Match

Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 2 Votes, Average 3.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
bindy View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member
Avatar

Joined: Feb 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 94716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bindy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Female Editor's Pay Was 100K Less Than Counterpart
    Posted: May 16 2014 at 10:34am

Ousted New York Times editor Jill Abramson's salary 'was $100,000 less than one male counterpart and fell behind those of male colleagues for 14 years'

  • Abramson was abruptly fired on Wednesday after having a lawyer look into pay discrepancies
  • New reports reveal Bill Keller, the executive editor she took over for in 2011, was paid $559,000 when he left and her starting salary was $475,000
  • Her salary was eventually increased to $503,000 
  • When she complained after learning that it was less than her male predecessor, it was increased to $525,000
  • Comes hours after The Times published put out a statement saying it was 'simply not true that Jill's compensation was significantly less'
  • She later learned she had also been paid less than her male colleagues in her two prior posts as co-managing editor and Washington bureau chief

By MEGHAN KENEALLY

PUBLISHED: 07:54 EST, 16 May 2014 UPDATED: 09:52 EST, 16 May 2014

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
36 shares

23

View 
comments


Fired: Jill Abramson was paid significantly less than her male counterparts for the past 13 years
+3

Fired: Jill Abramson was paid significantly less than her male counterparts for the past 13 years

The recently-ousted executive editor of The New York Times had been paid more than a hundred thousand dollars less throughout her career at the paper than her male counterparts, new reports reveal today. 

Jill Abramson's unexpected removal from the paper of record came as a shock to many and once speculation began to swirl that she had raised concerns about gender pay discrepancies before her firing, the owner of The Times tried to dismiss those claims by saying that she was paid more than her male predecessor- a statement that has now been proven untrue.

Bill Keller was the paper's executive editor from July 2003 until he resigned and Abramson replaced him in September 2011. Her starting salary at that point was $475,000 while Keller's salary in 2011, after eight years as editor, was $559,000.

The New Yorker reports that her salary was raised at some point in the past three years to $503,000 and then when she complained about the discrepancy recently, it was raised again to $525,000- but that still left her $34,000 short of Keller's final salary.

This is a direct contradiction to what Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr, said in a public statement that he released to attempt to tamper the fires once word got out that pay discrepancy was a factor in Abramson's dismissal.

Scroll down for video

Succession plan: Bill Keller (right) left the executive editor spot in September 2011 and Abramson (center) replaced him- though she was paid nearly $85,000 less at the time. Dean Baquet (left) has since replaced her
+3

Succession plan: Bill Keller (right) left the executive editor spot in September 2011 and Abramson (center) replaced him- though she was paid nearly $85,000 less at the time. Dean Baquet (left) has since replaced her

'Her pay is comparable to that of earlier executive editors. In fact, in 2013, her last full year in the role, her total compensation package was more than 10% higher than that of her predecessor, Bill Keller, in his last full year as Executive Editor, which was 2010,' Sulzberger said in the statement. 

'It was also higher than his total compensation in any previous year.'

TIMELINE OF TIMES PAY: MORE THAN A DECADE OF DISCREPANCIES

December 2000: Jill Abramson becomes the Washington bureau chief, taking over after Phil Taubman. He was reportedly paid at least $100,000 more than she was

July 2003: Abramson and John Geddes were appointed as co-managing editors by Bill Keller, who had just been appointed as the paper's executive editor. Abramson earned $398,000 which was less than Geddes, though it is unclear how much he earned

September 2011: Keller stepped down and Abramson took his place, making her the first female executive editor of the paper. Keller's salary was $559,000 at the time and Abramson's starting salary was $475,000

If The New Yorker's figures are true, Sulzberger's statement is factually incorrect.

Behind closed doors before her dismissal, Abramson was reportedly angered further when she later discovered that the pay discrepancy did not just start when she reached the top of the masthead.

She learned that she consistently earned less than her male counterparts when she was both managing editor and the Washington bureau chief.

As managing editor, she earned $398,000 which the New Yorker reports is less than what John Geddes, her male co-managing editor, earned.

Phil Taubman was paid at least $100,000 more than Abramson when he served as Washington bureau chief before she did from 2000 to 2003. 

These figures, reported late Thursday by The New Yorker's media reporter Ken Auletta, contradict what Sulzberger Jr said in the public statement that he released to attempt to tamper the fires once word got out that pay discrepancy was a factor in Abramson's dismissal.

'It is simply not true that Jill’s compensation was significantly less than her predecessors,' he said in the statement released Thursday afternoon, one day after he announced the removal of Abramson. 

 

The Times' spokeswoman Eileen Murphy has made the point repeatedly that the editors' compensation levels cannot be looked at as one solitary figure because the editors also receive bonuses, stock grants, and unspecified long-term incentives.

#pushy: Recently canned New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson is using her newly discovered free time to take up boxing...and to fuel rumors she was fired for being #pushy with this Instagram photo posted by her daughter
+3

#pushy: Recently canned New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson is using her newly discovered free time to take up boxing...and to fuel rumors she was fired for being #pushy with this Instagram photo posted by her daughter

According to The New Yorker reporter Ken Auletta, Ms Murphy 'conceded' that Abramson's recent decision to hire a lawyer to look into the discrepancy issue did play a role in her firing- not because of the famously-liberal company's lack of dedication to equal pay but because 'it was part of a pattern'. 

Sulzberger has consistently tried to paint the firing as a result of conflicting management styles- Abramson's allegedly being too brusque and, as quoted in one report, 'pushy', as opposed to her replacement Dean Baquet who is known for being well-liked in the newsroom and more approachable than his female predecessor.  


NYT Publisher: Pay Had No Part In Abramson Ouster

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of the New York Times and chairman of its parent company, is denying media reports that executive editor Jill Abramson's dismissal had to do with her complaints over unequal pay....

< style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: line; border-width: 0px; border-top-left-radius: 0px; border-top-right-radius: 0px; border-bottom-right-radius: 0px; border-bottom-left-radius: 0px; width: 0px; height: 0px;">

'IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE': NYT PUBLISHER ARTHUR SULZBERGER JR. ASSERTS THAT ABRAMSON WAS PAID MORE THAN KELLER IN STATEMENT

Memo from Arthur Sulzberger Jr. obtained by POLITICO

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to you because I am concerned about the misinformation that has been widely circulating in the media since I announced Jill Abramson’s departure yesterday.  I particularly want to set the record straight about Jill’s pay as Executive Editor of The Times.

Pushback: NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. has already swung back with a Thursday memo to employees that said not only was Abramson not paid less than her male predecessor, but was compensated more

Pushback: NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. has already swung back with a Thursday memo to employees that said not only was Abramson not paid less than her male predecessor, but was compensated more

It is simply not true that Jill’s compensation was significantly less than her predecessors.  Her pay is comparable to that of earlier executive editors.  In fact, in 2013, her last full year in the role, her total compensation package was more than 10% higher than that of her predecessor, Bill Keller, in his last full year as Executive Editor, which was 2010.  It was also higher than his total compensation in any previous year.

Comparisons between the pensions of different executive editors are difficult for several reasons.  Pensions are based upon years of service with the Company.  Jill’s years of service were significantly fewer than those of many of her predecessors.  Secondly, as you may know, pension plans for all managers at The New York Times were frozen in 2009.  But this and all other pension changes at the Company have been applied without any gender bias and Jill was not singled out or differentially disadvantaged in any way.

Compensation played no part whatsoever in my decision that Jill could not remain as executive editor. Nor did any discussion about compensation.  The reason — the only reason — for that decision was concerns I had about some aspects of Jill’s management of our newsroom, which I had previously made clear to her, both face-to-face and in my annual assessment.

This Company is fully committed to equal treatment of all its employees, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation or any other characteristic. We are working hard to live up to that principle in every part of our organization.  I am satisfied that we fully lived up to that commitment with regard to Jill.

Arthur

Share or comment on this article



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630465/Jill-Abramsons-salary-100-000-counterpart-fell-male-colleagues-14-years.html#ixzz31tQ4E5IX 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
carolina cutie View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: Jun 28 2006
Location: StrwberryFields
Status: Offline
Points: 299951
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote carolina cutie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2014 at 10:43am
*Insert bindy 'lawsuit' gif*

Get money girl.

And here I thought the NYT was progressive.Ermm
Back to Top
ModelessDiva View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member
Avatar

Joined: Dec 31 2010
Location: <3 <3
Status: Offline
Points: 98209
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ModelessDiva Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2014 at 10:44am
keep ya eyes on your own paycheck..

Back to Top
melikey View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member
Avatar

Joined: Oct 03 2006
Location: venus
Status: Offline
Points: 98089
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (11) Thanks(11)   Quote melikey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2014 at 10:46am
I'm happy this issue is starting to get more attention. With so many working women contributing to the household income you'd think men would rally around their wives and their families but the male privilege is so deep they don't even see how short changing women affects them as well.
Back to Top
EPITOME View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: Feb 08 2007
Location: Escarpin
Status: Offline
Points: 446602
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (13) Thanks(13)   Quote EPITOME Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2014 at 10:50am
Y'all can thank Obama for the Lily Ledbetter Act....I believe it was one of the first, if not the first Act he signed into law, that helps women and other minorities and gives them more time to bring these actions.

Edited by EPITOME - May 16 2014 at 3:02pm
Back to Top
carolina cutie View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: Jun 28 2006
Location: StrwberryFields
Status: Offline
Points: 299951
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (14) Thanks(14)   Quote carolina cutie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2014 at 10:56am
@ Epitome: Yes ma'am. Repubs dragging their feet and voting against the Paycheck Fairness Act to allow workers to know what they are making in comparison to their peers.

Originally posted by ModelessDiva ModelessDiva wrote:

keep ya eyes on your own paycheck..

Guuurl no!

You know as a Black woman, you're paid about 63 cents to a yt mans' $1 right? That includes adjustments for child bearing, pt/ft work, etc. These businesses would love for you to keep your eyes on your own paycheck so you don't notice you're not getting paid fairly.Wink
Back to Top
ModelessDiva View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member
Avatar

Joined: Dec 31 2010
Location: <3 <3
Status: Offline
Points: 98209
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ModelessDiva Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2014 at 11:07am
Life isn't fair though. We aren't viewed as a white man's equal so you shouldn't be surprised the pay isn't equal.... But worrying about what other people are doing/making is the quickest way to lose what you already have.
Back to Top
ModelessDiva View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member
Avatar

Joined: Dec 31 2010
Location: <3 <3
Status: Offline
Points: 98209
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ModelessDiva Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2014 at 11:13am
Just my opinion though...If I feel like I'm not making enough I'm gonna step and do what I need to do to make more. I'm not factoring anyone else into it.
Back to Top
goodm3 View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member
Avatar

Joined: Aug 01 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 35368
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote goodm3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2014 at 11:14am
Originally posted by carolina cutie carolina cutie wrote:

@ Epitome: Yes ma'am. Repubs dragging their feet and voting against the Paycheck Fairness Act to allow workers to know what they are making in comparison to their peers.

Originally posted by ModelessDiva ModelessDiva wrote:

keep ya eyes on your own paycheck..

Guuurl no!

You know as a Black woman, you're paid about 63 cents to a yt mans' $1 right? That includes adjustments for child bearing, pt/ft work, etc. These businesses would love for you to keep your eyes on your own paycheck so you don't notice you're not getting paid fairly.Wink

exactly...which is why we should blink twice about changing jobs for money. 
Back to Top
melikey View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member
Avatar

Joined: Oct 03 2006
Location: venus
Status: Offline
Points: 98089
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote melikey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2014 at 11:15am
Nothing is given to women and minorities in the workplace. You have to demand it. You also need to be armed with knowledge.

Passively waiting for a white man to give you something will leave you at the bottom
Back to Top
Get Longer Healthier Faster Growing Hair
House of CB London
Get Healthier Stronger Longer Hair
The Elite Hair Care Sorority
Electric Cherry Hair
Hair Extensions Wefted Hair Wigs and More
Human Hair Wigs
Wefting Training
Dependable Quality Hair
Switch Up your Look with a protective Style
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down