Liberal NYT's fires female executive editor after she asked for equal pay

[speakhandsforme]

Lawyering up makes things adversarial. Whether you like it or not, there is no such thing as "politely inquiring" through legal representation when the findings of such inquiries could harm the reputation of your employer, both as a nondiscriminatory employer and as a profitable business.

Is anyone really surprised that the NYT would be paying their executive employees less now than ten years ago?

 

[Madmick]

Is anyone really surprised that the NYT would be paying their executive employees less now than ten years ago?

You mean with the massive decline of print newspaper sales, and a scramble for these old bastions to compete with startup publications that have access to a wider audience than any print publication in history, and yet with virtually no overhead; while simultaneously struggling to monetize their forced foray into this unfamiliar digital sphere as the old print service dies?

No, I couldn't fathom it.

 

[LazyFatass]

A third associate told me,

 

[Jack V Savage]

Is anyone really surprised that the NYT would be paying their executive employees less now than ten years ago?

She took over three years ago, though, during which time NYT share price has doubled (compared to overall gains of about 60%), and the paper won eight Pulitzers. Compare that to Keller's performance (share price fell 80%, while the market as a whole was up about 20%) and the paper won Pulitzers at a lower rate.

Obviously, those are not the only things that matter in terms of their respective value (far from it, but they're also not the only things recommending Abramson), but it's not self-evident to me that Abramson should have been paid less than Keller. If there's a case for that, I'd have to see it spelled out, rather than just assumed on the basis of an overall decline in the industry. If anything, a declining industry makes elite talent more valuable because it's more likely to be the difference between big success, like we've seen at the NYT since Abramson took over, and struggles.

 

[Uchi Mata]

She took over three years ago, though, during which time NYT share price has doubled (compared to overall gains of about 60%), and the paper won eight Pulitzers. Compare that to Keller's performance (share price fell 80%, while the market as a whole was up about 20%) and the paper won Pulitzers at a lower rate.

Obviously, those are not the only things that matter in terms of their respective value (far from it, but they're also not the only things recommending Abramson), but it's not self-evident to me that Abramson should have been paid less than Keller. If there's a case for that, I'd have to see it spelled out, rather than just assumed on the basis of an overall decline in the industry. If anything, a declining industry makes elite talent more valuable because it's more likely to be the difference between big success, like we've seen at the NYT since Abramson took over, and struggles.

Executive contracts are individually negotiated. It's not like she's a factory worker doing the exact same job as a man beside her who makes considerably more for no reason. If she wanted more money she should have negotiated harder when she took the job. I think it's going to be hard to prove discrimination when you negotiated your own deal, have really no peer comparison points (there's only one executive editor at a time), and the circumstances of your hire are very different (in terms of your experience, state of the industry, and state of the firm itself) than your predecessor.

 

[Madmick]

She took over three years ago, though, during which time NYT share price has doubled (compared to overall gains of about 60%), and the paper won eight Pulitzers. Compare that to Keller's performance (share price fell 80%, while the market as a whole was up about 20%) and the paper won Pulitzers at a lower rate.

Obviously, those are not the only things that matter in terms of their respective value (far from it, but they're also not the only things recommending Abramson), but it's not self-evident to me that Abramson should have been paid less than Keller. If there's a case for that, I'd have to see it spelled out, rather than just assumed on the basis of an overall decline in the industry. If anything, a declining industry makes elite talent more valuable because it's more likely to be the difference between big success, like we've seen at the NYT since Abramson took over, and struggles.

You imposing a narrative retroactively. It would have been impossible for them to foresee her boon.
Executive salaries are variable by nature, Jack. She deserves to get paid what she accepted in her contract. Not one penny more. The fact that she was hired as a replacement at such a dire time when the NYT's business was receding is a reasonable explanation for why they might have offered the replacement a lower salary, yes?

If she wants to re-negotiate, then reviewing your numbers, she has a solid position. Well...had, rather. Lawyering up was not the appropriate tactic. Arguing discrimination here is bullshit: plain and simple.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Executive contracts are individually negotiated. It's not like she's a factory worker doing the exact same job as a man beside her who makes considerably more for no reason. If she wanted more money she should have negotiated harder when she took the job. I think it's going to be hard to prove discrimination when you negotiated your own deal, have really no peer comparison points (there's only one executive editor at a time), and the circumstances of your hire are very different (in terms of your experience, state of the industry, and state of the firm itself) than your predecessor.

You imposing a narrative retroactively. It would have been impossible for them to foresee her boon.
Executive salaries are variable by nature, Jack. She deserves to get paid what she accepted in her contract. Not one penny more. The fact that she was hired as a replacement at such a dire time when the NYT's business was receding is a reasonable explanation for why they might have offered the replacement a lower salary, yes?

If she wants to re-negotiate, then reviewing your numbers, she has a solid position. Well...had, rather. Lawyering up was not the appropriate tactic. Arguing discrimination here is bullshit: plain and simple.

Both of you are responding as if I'm saying that she was discriminated against. I'm not. I don't really have a position here, as I don't think enough information is publicly available to form one with any confidence. I was responding to the claim that she should be expected to be paid less than Keller because of the state of the industry. My position is that the company's performance under her has been outstanding, and so it is not self-evident that lower pay is appropriate. Maybe it is, but that argument needs to be made.

At least as it relates to business performance. If you're making the separate, more-philosophical point that regardless of her value and the state of the company/industry, whatever pay she actually gets is "deserved," that's a totally different argument--probably one based on first principles and not debatable either way. I wouldn't agree with it (because of the information asymmetry) but I wouldn't have any comment on it.

One more point: Again, I don't see it as self-evident that you'd pay Keller's successor less because of the company's performance during his time leading the newsroom. If you believe that the executive editor is important to the company's fortunes, maybe you pay more. If not, maybe you don't. Clearly, the company began rebounding significantly after she took the helm (could just be a coincidence, could be her, could be some combination).

 

[MMAgirlie]

I would understand her attempt to claim discrimination if she had a male co-editor and he was paid more, but there's nothing inherently discriminatory about executive pay being downscaled from one editor to the next. It's impossible to argue that this wasn't the board's intent regardless of who they hired.

Wonderful lesson to learn too. If you have a big position opening but you're looking to hire someone for less money, hire a man - it'll save you a lawsuit in the future.

 

[Madmick]

Both of you are responding as if I'm saying that she was discriminated against. I'm not. I don't really have a position here, as I don't think enough information is publicly available to form one with any confidence. I was responding to the claim that she should be expected to be paid less than Keller because of the state of the industry. My position is that the company's performance under her has been outstanding, and so it is not self-evident that lower pay is appropriate. Maybe it is, but that argument needs to be made.

Which makes sense in the now. The state of the industry when she hired was dire. Many major newspapers had stopped offering print altogether, and were floundering to gain a digital foothold. For example, years ago The Sacramento Bee stopped print. Many others simply don't deliver, but rescinded the print distribution to newsstands. It was my understanding that this is still the case for most print papers, but apparently the NYT has flourished under her.

I couldn't fathom what tidbit we might be missing that would reveal discrimination. We have all the facts we need. There was no discrimination, here.

Wonderful lesson to learn too. If you have a big position opening but you're looking to hire someone for less money, hire a man - it'll save you a lawsuit in the future.

Girlie, I didn't know you hunted (I'm guessing that's you in the av). You should check out http://www.gwgclothing.com/. It's owned by a friend (really more an acquaintance who has many close friends that are also my close friends). She started it in a garage in the Bluff.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Which makes sense in the now. The state of the industry when she hired was dire. Many major newspapers had stopped offering print altogether, and were floundering to gain a digital foothold. For example, years ago The Sacramento Bee stopped print. Many others simply don't deliver, but rescinded the print distribution to newsstands. It was my understanding that this is still the case for most print papers, but apparently the NYT has flourished under her.

I think you're going back and forth between two distinct positions: No. 1, the NYT was right to pay her less because of the state of the company and industry at the time of her hire; and No. 2, whatever she or anyone else gets paid is right by the nature of employment contracts.

As I said, I have no real comment on 2, other than that I don't agree. With regard to No. 1, I think there are a lot of factors that go into it, but the people I've seen advancing that position have provided no reason to believe it (as they seem to regard it as self-evident, a position I find to be naive).

I couldn't fathom what tidbit we might be missing that would reveal discrimination. We have all the facts we need. There was no discrimination, here.

I can't see how you can possibly think that.

What it looks like to me is that there is so little evidence available that your position is really just reflecting your priors. If you have a strong belief that sex-based discrimination does or does not happen regularly, there's nothing here to change your mind. I'm generally agnostic (to be specific, my assumption is that it probably does, but I haven't seen good evidence to confirm that and enough data has been collected that I believe if there is an effect, it's likely not that large), and I've seen nothing to push me in either direction.

 

[Hadron]

Well I'm glad they made the right decision by... firing her for inquiring? What?

She wanted more money, so she lawyered up and went to them with threats of lawsuits. Any reasonable employer would fire her on the spot.

 

[Hadron]

She took over three years ago, though, during which time NYT share price has doubled (compared to overall gains of about 60%), and the paper won eight Pulitzers. Compare that to Keller's performance (share price fell 80%, while the market as a whole was up about 20%) and the paper won Pulitzers at a lower rate.

Obviously, those are not the only things that matter in terms of their respective value (far from it, but they're also not the only things recommending Abramson), but it's not self-evident to me that Abramson should have been paid less than Keller. If there's a case for that, I'd have to see it spelled out, rather than just assumed on the basis of an overall decline in the industry. If anything, a declining industry makes elite talent more valuable because it's more likely to be the difference between big success, like we've seen at the NYT since Abramson took over, and struggles.

So either Abramson was a better negotiatior or had more to leverage, or the NYT decided when Abromson left, that they were overpaying editors, and decided to cut pay.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So either Abramson was a better negotiatior or had more to leverage, or the NYT decided when Abromson left, that they were overpaying editors, and decided to cut pay.

Um, do you really think that those are the only two possibilities (and I assume you mean Keller)?

It would seem to me that the possibilities are endless, and your thinking is just extremely limited. And that's with a very broad possibility included in one of your options.

Side note: I don't really get the certainty that people have on these types of issues, in general. It shouldn't be an ideological thing.

 

[Hadron]

Um, do you really think that those are the only two possibilities (and I assume you mean Keller)?

It would seem to me that the possibilities are endless, and your thinking is just extremely limited. And that's with a very broad possibility included in one of your options.

Side note: I don't really get the certainty that people have on these types of issues, in general. It shouldn't be an ideological thing.

No, those aren't the only two possibilities (though mathematically, the possibilities also aren't endless).

It just strikes me as unlikely that the NYT would first put a female in one of their most influential positions, then pay her less because they are sexist.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No, those aren't the only two possibilities (though mathematically, the possibilities also aren't endless).

It just strikes me as unlikely that the NYT would first put a female in one of their most influential positions, then pay her less because they are sexist.

So you made a bad argument, got questioned about it, and then changed your argument to something completely different that still supports your position.

Try reading this and then coming back to the thread:

http://crookedtimber.org/2014/05/13/makessense-stop/

 

[therealdope]

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.

LOL - this.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Girlie, I didn't know you hunted (I'm guessing that's you in the av). You should check out http://www.gwgclothing.com/. It's owned by a friend (really more an acquaintance who has many close friends that are also my close friends). She started it in a garage in the Bluff.

Good God. I want.

 

[Hadron]

So you made a bad argument, got questioned about it, and then changed your argument to something completely different that still supports your position.

Try reading this and then coming back to the thread:

http://crookedtimber.org/2014/05/13/makessense-stop/

As long as my position doesn't change, I'm still golden.

Your goal is to show my position is wrong. Showing an argument for it is bad doesn't refute the position, especially in the case I am able to come up with another, more tenable, argument.


The moon is made of green cheese, therefore Obama is the president.
It will be really easy for you to show that is a bad argument...but that does NOT mean that Obama ISN'T the president. Only that I made a bad argument.

 

[Jack V Savage]

As long as my position doesn't change, I'm still golden.

I'd actually think--if you were sincerely concerned about truth--that having your argument refuted would lead you to re-evaluate your position.

Your goal is to show my position is wrong. Showing an argument for it is bad doesn't refute the position, especially in the case I am able to come up with another, more tenable, argument.

My goal is most certainly NOT to show that your position is wrong. My goal is to find out the truth, entertain myself, etc. If you look through my posting history, you'll see I'm far more interested in process than results. I believe the results take care of themselves if you reason soundly from relevant facts, and I have no particular connection to any set of beliefs. It sounds very much like you're confessing here to just being a troll or a shill. Am I missing something?

The moon is made of green cheese, therefore Obama is the president.
It will be really easy for you to show that is a bad argument...but that does NOT mean that Obama ISN'T the president. Only that I made a bad argument.

And if you actually believed that Obama was the president because the moon is made of green cheese, finding out that it's a bad argument should make you wonder who the president really is. It shouldn't cause you to just change your argument, unless you were full of shit before and don't care whether you're right or wrong.

 

[Hadron]

I'd actually think--if you were sincerely concerned about truth--that having your argument refuted would lead you to re-evaluate your position.

And if you actually believed that Obama was the president because the moon is made of green cheese, finding out that it's a bad argument should make you wonder who the president really is. It shouldn't cause you to just change your argument, unless you were full of shit before and don't care whether you're right or wrong.

I did reevaluate my position. I composed a new argument that lead to the same conclusion as my previous one. Obama is still the president, and I doubt the NYT hates women.