Liberal NYT's fires female executive editor after she asked for equal pay
- Thread starter 2fast2see
- Start date
- Joined
- May 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,989
- Reaction score
- 0
I guess we'll be told we're banning "pushy" next.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 57,511
- Reaction score
- 21,592
Being ugly probably doesn't help.
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 32,721
- Reaction score
- 4,049
In what world does one inquire politely about employment discrimination through a lawyer?
That's the business-world equivalent of putting a 12 gauge shotgun in their face and pulling the trigger ... it's throwing down the gauntlet. Everybody knows this, which is why it's impossible for it to be an innocuous gesture.
That's the business-world equivalent of putting a 12 gauge shotgun in their face and pulling the trigger ... it's throwing down the gauntlet. Everybody knows this, which is why it's impossible for it to be an innocuous gesture.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 14,948
- Reaction score
- 0
Well I'm glad they made the right decision by... firing her for inquiring? What?
D
Deleted member 457759
Guest
Salaries are a contract by contract basis. Negotiating and job availability are factors among other things.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 57,511
- Reaction score
- 21,592
I agree. Quoting the contract and/or utilizing legal representation puts up walls.
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 32,721
- Reaction score
- 4,049
It's not just a question of putting up walls. There are many reasons why using a lawyer is a declaration of war. First it means you are already building a case against them, so they have to prepare for battle. Second it means you have gone through the trouble of hiring an attorney so you view them as an enemy. And third, in the business and legal world the deliberate choice to communicate through an attorney regarding a dispute means "we are at odds, and I will smash you if you don't do what I want." Every lawyer knows this. When a lawyer formally appears, it's just the tip of the iceberg, and if the other side deliberately lets you know that, then ... it's on.
This is in the context of an actual or potential legal dispute, mind you. Outside of the dispute context, lawyers are commonly involved in negotiating contracts and such, without anything sinister or hostile being meant by their involvement.
For a lawyer to deliberately raise the issue of potential illegal discrimination against their client, however, is an act of legal war.
This is in the context of an actual or potential legal dispute, mind you. Outside of the dispute context, lawyers are commonly involved in negotiating contracts and such, without anything sinister or hostile being meant by their involvement.
For a lawyer to deliberately raise the issue of potential illegal discrimination against their client, however, is an act of legal war.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,924
- Reaction score
- 24
She should have asked for more money when she was accepting the job. Did she just take the first number they offered her?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 57,511
- Reaction score
- 21,592
Yeah, I could have been more wordy with my agreement. :icon_chee
To me it's like this, you have lawyers when you negotiate/draft deals and then you don't hear from them again until there's a fight. It indicates that things aren't going to be resolved in a friendly manner.
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 32,721
- Reaction score
- 4,049
It also depends on the type of lawyer involved. Transactional lawyers are considerably more innocuous, although they still shouldn't be asking about illegal discrimination against their client without knowing what that means.
If it's a litigator making 'polite inquiries', on the other hand, that's the equivalent of throwing a brick through your window. It's like the SEC enforcement office making 'polite inquiries' about your investment firm. Get ready for war.
If it's a litigator making 'polite inquiries', on the other hand, that's the equivalent of throwing a brick through your window. It's like the SEC enforcement office making 'polite inquiries' about your investment firm. Get ready for war.
- Joined
- May 12, 2007
- Messages
- 8,665
- Reaction score
- 0
Ridiculous and ignorant.
Anything pertaining to big money or criminal charges should be handled with a lawyer.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2013
- Messages
- 2,722
- Reaction score
- 3,125
Zankou is absolutely correct here in regards to her use of a lawyer. And can anyone involved in business management honestly tell me when hiring a replacement employee, you offer them the same pay as their predecessor?
When we are replacing workers we always low ball on our initial compensation regardless of if its a man or woman. Sounds like another case of using a hot button issue to burn an employer. Professional women should be up in arms when they hear stories like this as it paints a negative image.
When we are replacing workers we always low ball on our initial compensation regardless of if its a man or woman. Sounds like another case of using a hot button issue to burn an employer. Professional women should be up in arms when they hear stories like this as it paints a negative image.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2012
- Messages
- 10,852
- Reaction score
- 0
Discussing raises with your boss? Really?
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,292
- Reaction score
- 11
Not only that... But Bill Keller (the person Abramson replaced) became executive editor in 2003 when the NYT was much better off financially. By the time Abramson took Keller's spot, the Times had taken an absolute beating.
the article even says that the Times pays less now than it used to.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 30,397
- Reaction score
- 9,968
I guess she should have asked for more when she took the job.
Asking for more $$ after having accepted the job because of what other people make comes off as petty.
Asking for more $$ after having accepted the job because of what other people make comes off as petty.
Well this is neither of those.
