Discussion in 'The War Room' started by 2fast2see, May 14, 2014.
As with any such upheaval, there
She must not have been of equal value.
I guess we'll be told we're banning "pushy" next.
Being ugly probably doesn't help.
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.
Well I'm glad they made the right decision by... firing her for inquiring? What?
Inquiring yourself is not a problem. Inquiring *through a lawyer* means you are enemies. It's a gesture of war. There's no going back at that point.
Salaries are a contract by contract basis. Negotiating and job availability are factors among other things.
I agree. Quoting the contract and/or utilizing legal representation puts up walls.
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.
She should have asked for more money when she was accepting the job. Did she just take the first number they offered her?
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.
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.
Ridiculous and ignorant.
Anything pertaining to big money or criminal charges should be handled with a lawyer.
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.
Discussing raises with your boss? Really?
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.
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.
Well this is neither of those.
Separate names with a comma.