If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New Yorker)   NY Times cans Jill Abramson as executive editor after she finds out her male predecessor was far better compensated for the same work. In tomorrow's paper, a Paul Krugman column smugsplaining how the Koch Bros. are to blame for the situation   (newyorker.com) divider line 68
    More: Asinine, Jill Abramson, New York Times, City University Journalism School, Paul Krugman, Dean Baquet  
•       •       •

1390 clicks; posted to Business » on 15 May 2014 at 10:43 AM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-15 09:24:54 AM
If a man is tough and callous, he is looked at differently than a woman. I have no doubt that she was all that and more, and probably had to be in her line of work. Still, this is an issue with a company using social 'norms' to take advantage of an employee to help save them some money. Regardless of her demeanor, she should have been paid equally if they expected the same results as her predecessor.
 
2014-05-15 09:57:29 AM
It seems like there is a lot more involved here than her pay.
 
2014-05-15 10:24:07 AM

Nadie_AZ: If a man is tough and callous, he is looked at differently than a woman. I have no doubt that she was all that and more, and probably had to be in her line of work. Still, this is an issue with a company using social 'norms' to take advantage of an employee to help save them some money. Regardless of her demeanor, she should have been paid equally if they expected the same results as her predecessor.


If only there was somebody in her line of work who could have found out her predecessor's compensation when she sought out the job.
 
2014-05-15 10:51:06 AM
I wonder if a sex discrimination lawsuit is possible under these specific circumstances (assuming this story is accurate).  There certainly will be bad press here; I wouldn't be surprised if there is blowback from women's groups or the like.
 
2014-05-15 10:52:10 AM

Gulper Eel: Nadie_AZ: If a man is tough and callous, he is looked at differently than a woman. I have no doubt that she was all that and more, and probably had to be in her line of work. Still, this is an issue with a company using social 'norms' to take advantage of an employee to help save them some money. Regardless of her demeanor, she should have been paid equally if they expected the same results as her predecessor.

If only there was somebody in her line of work who could have found out her predecessor's compensation when she sought out the job.



Like a report...smith? Newser? Something like that.
 
2014-05-15 10:53:08 AM

Gulper Eel: Nadie_AZ: If a man is tough and callous, he is looked at differently than a woman. I have no doubt that she was all that and more, and probably had to be in her line of work. Still, this is an issue with a company using social 'norms' to take advantage of an employee to help save them some money. Regardless of her demeanor, she should have been paid equally if they expected the same results as her predecessor.

If only there was somebody in her line of work who could have found out her predecessor's compensation when she sought out the job.


I said this in the other thread, but isn't the salary of someone as high up as executive editor already a matter of public disclosure for a publicly traded company like the NYT?
 
2014-05-15 11:01:09 AM
If she didn't like the comp they offered her when she was offered the job, why did she take it?
 
2014-05-15 11:02:08 AM

Snarfangel: Gulper Eel: Nadie_AZ: If a man is tough and callous, he is looked at differently than a woman. I have no doubt that she was all that and more, and probably had to be in her line of work. Still, this is an issue with a company using social 'norms' to take advantage of an employee to help save them some money. Regardless of her demeanor, she should have been paid equally if they expected the same results as her predecessor.

If only there was somebody in her line of work who could have found out her predecessor's compensation when she sought out the job.


Like a report...smith? Newser? Something like that.


Journalimist
 
2014-05-15 11:04:08 AM

Geotpf: I wonder if a sex discrimination lawsuit is possible under these specific circumstances (assuming this story is accurate).  There certainly will be bad press here; I wouldn't be surprised if there is blowback from women's groups or the like.


If the left forgave the New York Times for Judith Miller, they'll forgive the times for this.
 
2014-05-15 11:04:57 AM
smugsplaining (Teatardese): using librul tactics such as facts and reality to tell people that lowering taxes, the minimum wage and spending doesn't lead to magic Jeezuzland.
 
2014-05-15 11:08:29 AM

Geotpf: I wonder if a sex discrimination lawsuit is possible under these specific circumstances (assuming this story is accurate).  There certainly will be bad press here; I wouldn't be surprised if there is blowback from women's groups or the like.


It should be noted that TFA says the Times actually did agree to her request for the raise:

Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for the Times, said that Jill Abramson's total compensation as executive editor "was directly comparable to Bill Keller's"-though it was not actually the same.I was also told by another friend of Abramson's that the pay gap with Keller was only closed after she complained.
 
2014-05-15 11:09:10 AM
Old and busted:  SOROS!
New hotness:  KRUGMAN!
 
2014-05-15 11:09:58 AM
I blame global warming.
 
2014-05-15 11:12:35 AM

Arkanaut: Gulper Eel: Nadie_AZ: If a man is tough and callous, he is looked at differently than a woman. I have no doubt that she was all that and more, and probably had to be in her line of work. Still, this is an issue with a company using social 'norms' to take advantage of an employee to help save them some money. Regardless of her demeanor, she should have been paid equally if they expected the same results as her predecessor.

If only there was somebody in her line of work who could have found out her predecessor's compensation when she sought out the job.

I said this in the other thread, but isn't the salary of someone as high up as executive editor already a matter of public disclosure for a publicly traded company like the NYT?


Here are the executive salaries at the Times, as far as we know:

http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyOfficers?symbol=NYT.N

Name Fiscal Year Total
Arthur Sulzberger 5,311,510
Mark Thompson 4,575,420
Michael Golden 1,979,960
James Follo 1,789,650
Kenneth Richieri 1,296,810

Nothing for Abramson or the new guy, not sure why that is.
 
2014-05-15 11:24:23 AM
You are trying to tell me that a company losing revenue may think about hiring people for less money in the future. Thanks for the useful information.
 
2014-05-15 11:27:26 AM
Maybe its because he NYT has changed its voice to be more neocon friendly, reduced interactivity with articles and more or less lost its agitator Cache. I know I stopped reading for the above reasons. I am guessing she is not only not delivering readers she is losing them - and the pay part of this tail is a distraction.
 
2014-05-15 11:32:33 AM

Mahhughes: Maybe its because he NYT has changed its voice to be more neocon friendly, reduced interactivity with articles and more or less lost its agitator Cache. I know I stopped reading for the above reasons. I am guessing she is not only not delivering readers she is losing them - and the pay part of this tail is a distraction.


Financially, the NYT is much more sound now than when she started as executive editor, and I believe their online readership is actually higher. That said the pay part could still be a distraction -- it sounds like there's a lot of boardroom intrigue going on about the direction of the company and which executive gets more important roles.
 
2014-05-15 11:42:16 AM
I'll bet he gave better head.
 
2014-05-15 11:54:57 AM
It is amusing to watch the majority of the Fark Left who chose to comment on this come out in defense of the NYT and dismissing the blatent hypocrisy of the organization, soley because the NYT is on "their same side."
 
2014-05-15 11:58:20 AM
If the left forgave the New York Times for Judith Miller, they'll forgive the times for this.

1. The Left is far more fractious than the Right in the US. So, they have many opinions, not one.

2. We haven't. The NYT is regularly derided as a joke on liberal forums.
 
2014-05-15 12:03:20 PM

Jjaro: It is amusing to watch the majority of the Fark Left who chose to comment on this come out in defense of the NYT and dismissing the blatent hypocrisy of the organization, soley because the NYT is on "their same side."


Only 4 commenters out of 18 said anything that could be remotely considered pro-NYT. The rest were jokes, or anti-NYT.

Not clear how 4 people constitute the "majority of the Fark Left who chose to comment on this", in your opinion, but then math is another one of those Librul lies foisted off on Jesus-fearin' peeple of the USA USA USA.
 
2014-05-15 12:04:56 PM

Jjaro: It is amusing to watch the majority of the Fark Left who chose to comment on this come out in defense of the NYT and dismissing the blatent hypocrisy of the organization, soley because the NYT is on "their same side."


There's been 20 comments on this thread and 9 on the other, and there are repeat commenters. The "majority of the Fark Left" (whatever happened to "Fark Libs"?) is less than 30 people?
 
2014-05-15 12:05:57 PM

Broom: If the left forgave the New York Times for Judith Miller, they'll forgive the times for this.

1. The Left is far more fractious than the Right in the US. So, they have many opinions, not one.

2. We haven't. The NYT is regularly derided as a joke on liberal forums.


How about the White House; another liberal institution that pays women less? Do you guys mock them too?
 
2014-05-15 12:13:06 PM

Jjaro: It is amusing to watch the majority of the Fark Left who chose to comment on this come out in defense of the NYT and dismissing the blatent hypocrisy of the organization, soley because the NYT is on "their same side."


...or, some of us are waiting to see what all the facts were before claiming shenanigans.

Apparently she did get less. Maybe she deserved less -- there's a lot of leeway in those top positions based on experience, skills, and frankly, negotiating tactics, and you don't automatically pay the new person like the old one. For example, the current CEO at Intel has a significantly lower base salary than the previous one; at Microsoft the opposite is true. (And for the record, all four people there have penises). Of course, for those jobs, base salary is only a small fraction of the package, but it's illustrative.

And maybe she did get ripped off, or even deceived. There's certainly some overt sexism going on at the NYT if you look at the language (men are "assertive", women are "pushy").

But personally, I'd like to know more before cranking up my outrage machine at either side.
 
2014-05-15 12:15:27 PM

Broom: So, they have many opinions, not one.


They have Democrats, liberals, leftists, progressives, public-sector apologists, race/gender/gun scolds, and David Brooks. 

Yay, diversity?
 
2014-05-15 12:20:28 PM
I find it funny that THE NEW YORKER has taken up the mantle of chronicler of the backstage soap opera
at the Old Gray Lady that has been unworn since the first iteration of SPY magazine went under.
 
2014-05-15 12:20:49 PM

pkellmey: You are trying to tell me that a company losing revenue may think about hiring people for less money in the future. Thanks for the useful information.


Really?  Wall Street would look at revenue loss and say "GODDAMN we need a business ROCK STAR in here!  Set aside 20M for his yearly compensation!".

See Lampert, Edward.
 
2014-05-15 12:29:03 PM
this really is a dick move.  after years of complaints about executive pay being out sync with everybody else's pay, they finally decide to reduce executive pay, but they do it at a time when they hire a woman.

"We demand lower more reaonable executive compensation!"
"We demand equal opportunities for women!"
"We demand equal pay for equal work!"

Times:"Ok, we can give you any two of those you want."
 
2014-05-15 12:31:53 PM

pkellmey: You are trying to tell me that a company losing revenue may think about hiring people for less money in the future. Thanks for the useful information.


CEO Mark Thompson's replacement at the BBC, also male, was paid far less and his replacement (first guy only lasted a month) was paid even less.
 
2014-05-15 12:34:31 PM

Arkanaut: Arkanaut: Gulper Eel: Nadie_AZ: If a man is tough and callous, he is looked at differently than a woman. I have no doubt that she was all that and more, and probably had to be in her line of work. Still, this is an issue with a company using social 'norms' to take advantage of an employee to help save them some money. Regardless of her demeanor, she should have been paid equally if they expected the same results as her predecessor.

If only there was somebody in her line of work who could have found out her predecessor's compensation when she sought out the job.

I said this in the other thread, but isn't the salary of someone as high up as executive editor already a matter of public disclosure for a publicly traded company like the NYT?

Here are the executive salaries at the Times, as far as we know:

http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyOfficers?symbol=NYT.N

Name Fiscal Year Total
Arthur Sulzberger 5,311,510
Mark Thompson 4,575,420
Michael Golden 1,979,960
James Follo 1,789,650
Kenneth Richieri 1,296,810

Nothing for Abramson or the new guy, not sure why that is.


Officers of a company have to be listed with their salary on legal filings. Managers do not. There is a legal difference. Officers have a legal duty to ensure the company obeys laws, files accounts etc and can be sued if the company doesn't. Managers are merely employees.
 
2014-05-15 12:35:31 PM

czetie: There's certainly some overt sexism going on at the NYT if you look at the language (men are "assertive", women are "pushy").


Is there?

I've met pushy men. Douchebags that call me up trying to sell things to my business who won't take no for an answer and get impolitely hung up on.

And demanding things because of predecessors is pushy behaviour. Like douchebag salespeople who just want your money, you aren't making a case for why you should be paid more, you're just pissed that you sold yourself too cheaply, or maybe that you weren't up to the talents of the previous guy, or maybe that the value of newspapers means that editors have far less responsibility than they did before.

You can earn more elsewhere? Well done, there's the door, leave and go work for them.
 
2014-05-15 12:53:54 PM

Jjaro: It is amusing to watch the majority of the Fark Left who chose to comment on this come out in defense of the NYT and dismissing the blatent hypocrisy of the organization, soley because the NYT is on "their same side."




You're so precious.

i73.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-15 01:03:13 PM

Flint Ironstag: pkellmey: You are trying to tell me that a company losing revenue may think about hiring people for less money in the future. Thanks for the useful information.

CEO Mark Thompson's replacement at the BBC, also male, was paid far less and his replacement (first guy only lasted a month) was paid even less.


The BBC isn't even really a "company" that has "revenue"-it's a government agency that is almost completely funded by taxes/fees.  And it's in the UK, and not in the US.  And it's a TV network, not a newspaper.
 
2014-05-15 01:12:09 PM
Rapmaster2000:
New hotness:  KLUGMAN!

i1.cdnds.net
 
2014-05-15 01:18:46 PM

Arkanaut: Jjaro: It is amusing to watch the majority of the Fark Left who chose to comment on this come out in defense of the NYT and dismissing the blatent hypocrisy of the organization, soley because the NYT is on "their same side."

There's been 20 comments on this thread and 9 on the other, and there are repeat commenters. The "majority of the Fark Left" (whatever happened to "Fark Libs"?) is less than 30 people?


"Fark Libs" is my proprietary copyright. He'd have to pay me royalties if he used it.
 
2014-05-15 01:24:14 PM

Flint Ironstag: Arkanaut: Arkanaut: Gulper Eel: Nadie_AZ: If a man is tough and callous, he is looked at differently than a woman. I have no doubt that she was all that and more, and probably had to be in her line of work. Still, this is an issue with a company using social 'norms' to take advantage of an employee to help save them some money. Regardless of her demeanor, she should have been paid equally if they expected the same results as her predecessor.

If only there was somebody in her line of work who could have found out her predecessor's compensation when she sought out the job.

I said this in the other thread, but isn't the salary of someone as high up as executive editor already a matter of public disclosure for a publicly traded company like the NYT?

Here are the executive salaries at the Times, as far as we know:

http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyOfficers?symbol=NYT.N

Name Fiscal Year Total
Arthur Sulzberger 5,311,510
Mark Thompson 4,575,420
Michael Golden 1,979,960
James Follo 1,789,650
Kenneth Richieri 1,296,810

Nothing for Abramson or the new guy, not sure why that is.

Officers of a company have to be listed with their salary on legal filings. Managers do not. There is a legal difference. Officers have a legal duty to ensure the company obeys laws, files accounts etc and can be sued if the company doesn't. Managers are merely employees.


Ah. I thought that her position was much higher than it actually was, like almost equal to a CEO, but it seems that there's a whole another level of management above her.
 
2014-05-15 01:25:51 PM

Geotpf: Flint Ironstag: pkellmey: You are trying to tell me that a company losing revenue may think about hiring people for less money in the future. Thanks for the useful information.

CEO Mark Thompson's replacement at the BBC, also male, was paid far less and his replacement (first guy only lasted a month) was paid even less.

The BBC isn't even really a "company" that has "revenue"-it's a government agency that is almost completely funded by taxes/fees.  And it's in the UK, and not in the US.  And it's a TV network, not a newspaper.


It is a company, not a government agency. And it has had its income cut by a six year freeze of the licence fee, forcing it to make serious cuts like losing exclusive live F1 coverage to Sky.
 
2014-05-15 01:27:52 PM

llortcM_yllort: Geotpf: I wonder if a sex discrimination lawsuit is possible under these specific circumstances (assuming this story is accurate).  There certainly will be bad press here; I wouldn't be surprised if there is blowback from women's groups or the like.

If the left forgave the New York Times for Judith Miller, they'll forgive the times for this.


And they'll forgive media matters for opposing organization of its employees. Hypocrisy is their favorite trait.
 
2014-05-15 01:36:09 PM

Broom: If the left forgave the New York Times for Judith Miller, they'll forgive the times for this.

1. The Left is far more fractious than the Right in the US. So, they have many opinions, not one.

2. We haven't. The NYT is regularly derided as a joke on liberal forums.


On number one... umm every article is talking about the divide between Tea Party and establishment. What the fark are you smoking. Democrats vote in lockstep for the most part.
 
2014-05-15 02:05:17 PM

MyRandomName: Democrats vote in lockstep for the most part.


Your assumption is not backed up by actual data; it's refuted by it, in fact.

And, yes, the GOP has famously developed one faction within its party. That still doesn't mean that they aren't less factious than the Dems, who couldn't agree on an evacuation plan if they were all standing at the doorway of a burning building.
 
2014-05-15 02:42:36 PM

dfenstrate: Broom: If the left forgave the New York Times for Judith Miller, they'll forgive the times for this.

1. The Left is far more fractious than the Right in the US. So, they have many opinions, not one.

2. We haven't. The NYT is regularly derided as a joke on liberal forums.

How about the White House; another liberal institution that pays women less? Do you guys mock them too?


Are you trying to say that women in the White House are paid less than men for the same position like what the article is discussing?  Or are you saying that when viewed in the aggregate, salaries for women are lower because men occupy a larger percentage of the higher ranking positions?

Because one of those is correct but misleading while the other is a direct corollary to the current subject but is factually incorrect?  Which deception are you attempting at the moment?
 
2014-05-15 02:45:30 PM

Maud Dib: Jjaro: It is amusing to watch the majority of the Fark Left who chose to comment on this come out in defense of the NYT and dismissing the blatent hypocrisy of the organization, soley because the NYT is on "their same side."

You're so precious.

[i73.photobucket.com image 480x360]


Hah, you resemble that remark
 
2014-05-15 02:57:49 PM
What I'm getting from this thread is, having bravely exposed the hypocrisy of the Left, Jill Abramson will join the Republican Party and get a new job with Fox News or Twitchy.
 
2014-05-15 03:16:12 PM
So she is bad at managing and negotiating and therefore failed to negotiate a good contract. When she found out she got all butthurt and tried to back out of her contract and refused to work anymore when they wouldn't let her out of it.
 
2014-05-15 03:17:36 PM

Nadie_AZ: If a man is tough and callous, he is looked at differently than a woman. I have no doubt that she was all that and more, and probably had to be in her line of work. Still, this is an issue with a company using social 'norms' to take advantage of an employee to help save them some money. Regardless of her demeanor, she should have been paid equally if they expected the same results as her predecessor.


Yeah! We should remove negotiation and skill from the world.

Oh wait, that's utterly moronic.
 
2014-05-15 03:18:37 PM

Arkanaut: Gulper Eel: Nadie_AZ: If a man is tough and callous, he is looked at differently than a woman. I have no doubt that she was all that and more, and probably had to be in her line of work. Still, this is an issue with a company using social 'norms' to take advantage of an employee to help save them some money. Regardless of her demeanor, she should have been paid equally if they expected the same results as her predecessor.

If only there was somebody in her line of work who could have found out her predecessor's compensation when she sought out the job.

I said this in the other thread, but isn't the salary of someone as high up as executive editor already a matter of public disclosure for a publicly traded company like the NYT?


You can't expect journalists to do actual research. This is 2014! It is really hard to get information these days with the internet around.
 
2014-05-15 03:25:24 PM

Bullseyed: So she is bad at managing and negotiating and therefore failed to negotiate a good contract. When she found out she got all butthurt and tried to back out of her contract and refused to work anymore when they wouldn't let her out of it.


Ha! Another member of the Fark Left who chose to comment on this come out in defense of the NYT and dismissing the blatant hypocrisy of the organization, solely because the NYT is on "their same side." Me and my buddy Jjaro are onto the likes of you.
 
2014-05-15 03:32:06 PM

Arkanaut: Bullseyed: So she is bad at managing and negotiating and therefore failed to negotiate a good contract. When she found out she got all butthurt and tried to back out of her contract and refused to work anymore when they wouldn't let her out of it.

Ha! Another member of the Fark Left who chose to comment on this come out in defense of the NYT and dismissing the blatant hypocrisy of the organization, solely because the NYT is on "their same side." Me and my buddy Jjaro are onto the likes of you.


I assume you're being sarcastic because I'm as far from the Fark Left as they come heh.
 
2014-05-15 06:25:48 PM

pkellmey: You are trying to tell me that a company losing revenue may think about hiring people for less money in the future. Thanks for the useful information.


Except for this part from TFA:

A third associate told me, "She found out that a former deputy managing editor"-a man-"made more money than she did" while she was managing editor.

In other words, this wasn't about taking the opportunity to decrease pay for the executive editor; even while she was managing editor she apparently was paid less than one of her underlings.

\One ongoing problem is that when you're socialized differently, you might not have learned how to be as aggressive in negotiations, even if you are the "pushy" broad otherwise.
\\Or maybe it's that she didn't realize she was under-compensated because she had started out under-compensated and each step was indeed appropriately larger.
 
2014-05-15 06:26:54 PM

Jjaro: It is amusing to watch the majority of the Fark Left who chose to comment on this come out in defense of the NYT and dismissing the blatent hypocrisy of the organization, soley because the NYT is on "their same side."


1. Are we reading the same thread?

2. You need to wait a little longer.  There's not nearly enough replies for a trolly "look at all the predictable libs" post.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report