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

[Jack V Savage]

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.

It's apparent that you're just going off your feelings (and, FYI, the argument isn't that the NYT "hates women"--don't be silly) and using "arguments" to rationalize your emotional response.

 

[Hadron]

It's apparent that you're just going off your feelings (and, FYI, the argument isn't that the NYT "hates women"--don't be silly) and using "arguments" to rationalize your emotional response.

Nah. But hey, if it makes you feel better write off anyone who disagrees with you, go ahead.

 

[Madmick]

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.

I'm not waffling. I'm maintaining those positions simultaneously, and they're not mutually exclusive.

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).

You don't agree that a person should get a salary that they agreed to work for? How in the hell do you not agree with that?

I would like that executives at the top were paid according to their market performance, as we've seen so many compensated with golden parachutes for failing, but you can't impose that on the private sector after the fact. She could re-negotiate her contract based on her boon to the business, or she could have negotiated a contract, originally, where she was paid according to market performance. The latter would carry a great deal more risk. After all, they might have continued flagging.

She didn't inherit the risk of failure or a continuing decline in her contract, so why is it necessary that she inherits proportional reward without proportional risk?

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.

Jack, what precedence do you believe that other sexual discrimination suits provide as an insight? I didn't say anything about discrimination not existing. That's absurd. Perhaps you could amuse me with a potential narrative for how (with what little we know) she has been the victim of discrimination. Evidence of a predecessor getting paid more in the executive world flat out isn't cutting it.

Flat out.

 

[IGIT]

hi all,

Jill Abramson had a contentious relationship with her boss, Mr. Sulzberger.

she had a troubled relationship with the company CEO, Mark Thompson over the encroachment of the business side of the paper with editorial, a common source of frustration at many newspapers and magazines.

her relationship with Dean Baquet, the managing editor at the NYT, was devolving (particularly since she was making a move for him to split his title with a new hire, something he objected to).

she made the acrimonious move of retaining an attorney to make inquiries into pay disparity - which as others have noted, is a definite shot across the bow.

i don't know why folks are so mystified as to why she was let go.

- IGIT

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not waffling. I'm maintaining those positions simultaneously, and they're not mutually exclusive.

I don't see how they're not. One is that by definition anyone's salary is deserved and the other is that a particular salary is deserved. That's like (to continue Hadron's fun game) saying that, "all four-legged animals are dogs, and this four-legged animal is a dog because its furry and it barks."

You don't agree that a person should get a salary that they agreed to work for? How in the hell do you not agree with that?

For a variety of reasons, I believe that it is possible for someone to be underpaid or overpaid. I'd say that the market does a good job in general of setting labor prices, but there are many particular failures. Like I said, I don't see this as a particularly interesting avenue because it's mostly about first principles.

I would like that executives at the top were paid according to their market performance, as we've seen so many compensated with golden parachutes for failing, but you can't impose that on the private sector after the fact.

I'm not sure how this is getting so far afield. Someone else claimed that we should expect Abramson to be paid less than Keller because of the state of the industry/company. I said that that is not obvious at all, and requires actual support. Just because a company/industry takes a downturn doesn't automatically mean that all future hires should be paid less. Obviously, they were not in a death spiral, given that their futures turned up very shortly (and sharply) after she took over.

She could re-negotiate her contract based on her boon to the business, or she could have negotiated a contract, originally, where she was paid according to market performance. The latter would carry a great deal more risk. After all, they might have continued flagging.

And we're back to that other issue. In general, employers have a lot more information about the state of the labor market than employees.

She didn't inherit the risk of failure or a continuing decline in her contract, so why is it necessary that she inherits proportional reward without proportional risk?

It's not necessary; you're trying to box me into a position I have not advocated and do not believe. There are many possibilities here. People claiming to be so certain about what's going on, given the very limited available information, are acting on emotion or ideology rather than facts (which are lacking) and logic.

Jack, what precedence do you believe that other sexual discrimination suits provide as an insight?

Your beliefs regarding the likelihood that gender-based discrimination is a factor in her disproportionately low pay are, in this case (given the available information), going to be primarily related to how likely you think it is in general.

I didn't say anything about discrimination not existing. That's absurd.

If you think discrimination is likely in general, you'll think that there's evidence for it here. If not, you won't. That's not absurd at all. That's human nature.

Perhaps you could amuse me with a potential narrative for how (with what little we know) she has been the victim of discrimination. Evidence of a predecessor getting paid more in the executive world flat out isn't cutting it.

Flat out.

Again, I'm not sure how you can be misreading me so badly. I was refuting the suggestion that her claim is invalidated simply because the company was performing badly before she was hired. Let me ask you: Does it always make sense to pay your top talent less if your business is struggling? The way I see it, sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.

 

[drstrangelov]

Tough position to be in, is there even a viable competitor for her services? She found out the Times was paying her less than her predecessor, is there really another paper out there that would pay her more? I'd be upset about that situation too, but if there's literally nobody in the industry willing to pay her the amount she wants, that's a bad time to attempt to negotiate for higher pay.

 

[oldshadow]

The company pays you for what you are worth to them.

If she was doing what was asked of her by the people she worked for and doing it well she would have been given a raise maybe even up to what she wanted.

You don

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

hi all,

Jill Abramson had a contentious relationship with her boss, Mr. Sulzberger.

she had a troubled relationship with the company CEO, Mark Thompson over the encroachment of the business side of the paper with editorial, a common source of frustration at many newspapers and magazines.

her relationship with Dean Baquet, the managing editor at the NYT, was devolving (particularly since she was making a move for him to split his title with a new hire, something he objected to).

she made the acrimonious move of retaining an attorney to make inquiries into pay disparity - which as others have noted, is a definite shot across the bow.

i don't know why folks are so mystified as to why she was let go.

- IGIT

Seeing as how she got a lawyer instead of renegotiating her pay face to face like a normal human being, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if she was stand-offish at work with everyone else too. Some people are just too narcissistic to be cut out for executive positions.

It's a lot easier to let one person go who disrupts the workplace harmony than to re-staff. This applies for anyone no matter how irreplaceable you may think you are. So don't be a dick at work. This is also something I've seen women get away with to a much greater extent than men. But even they can't get away with that for it forever.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Tough position to be in, is there even a viable competitor for her services? She found out the Time was paying her less than her predecessor, is there really another paper out there that would pay her more?

We'll likely find out. She'd probably be the top name on any paper's wishlist for that position.

The company pays you for what you are worth to them.

If she was doing what was asked of her by the people she worked for and doing it well she would have been given a raise maybe even up to what she wanted.

Again, she completely blew Keller's performance away by objective measures and is more highly regarded within the industry (though less liked, which could be an issue). If you're just making a general statement that you side with employers over workers, whatever, but if you're implying that her performance wasn't up to standard, I think you want to look more deeply into this.

You don

 

[KILL KILL]

hi all,

Jill Abramson had a contentious relationship with her boss, Mr. Sulzberger.

she had a troubled relationship with the company CEO, Mark Thompson over the encroachment of the business side of the paper with editorial, a common source of frustration at many newspapers and magazines.

her relationship with Dean Baquet, the managing editor at the NYT, was devolving (particularly since she was making a move for him to split his title with a new hire, something he objected to).

she made the acrimonious move of retaining an attorney to make inquiries into pay disparity - which as others have noted, is a definite shot across the bow.

i don't know why folks are so mystified as to why she was let go.

- IGIT

That's what I assumed. I'd be willing to bet that getting a lawyer involved was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's what I assumed. I'd be willing to bet that getting a lawyer involved was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

If true (and I don't know how everyone seems to be an expert on all the inside details here), does anyone else find that disturbing that you can be fired just for getting some counsel? There's already a power imbalance here. Seems like there should be worker protections.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

If true (and I don't know how everyone seems to be an expert on all the inside details here), does anyone else find that disturbing that you can be fired just for getting some counsel? There's already a power imbalance here. Seems like there should be worker protections here.

Its not just getting counsel when your counsel approaches your boss on our behalf. THAT is, as Zankou pointed out, "an act of war".

While we don't know all the details (and I doubt we ever), I think its pretty clear that Abramson wasn't fired for asking for a raise or seeking counsel.


Just speculation:
1. She overplayed her hand and they axed her for her aggression and/or the potential legal battle/media slander campaign her messenger threatened.
2. Her job was in jeopardy for some, yet to be revealed, incident(s) and countered with her lawyer so she could get fired for "asking for equal pay".

Or a combination of both.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Its not just getting counsel when your counsel approaches your boss on our behalf. THAT is, as Zankou pointed out, "an act of war".

While we don't know all the details (and I doubt we ever), I think its pretty clear that Abramson wasn't fired for asking for a raise or seeking counsel.


Just speculation:
1. She overplayed her hand and they axed her for her aggression and/or the potential legal battle/media slander campaign her messenger threatened.
2. Her job was in jeopardy for some, yet to be revealed, incident(s) and countered with her lawyer so she could get fired for "asking for equal pay".

Or a combination of both.

I don't see how it's clear that the most obvious guess based on what little we know isn't true.

I think your speculation, particularly No. 2, is wildly implausible and disturbing.

If I had to guess, it's the culmination of a long-lived acrimony between her and top management, with her getting a lawyer reflecting and increase on her part (though note that it's not as unusual on this level as it would be for you), and their hasty move reflecting the increase on their part. It wouldn't surprise me if Sulzberger took assertiveness differently from a female executive editor than he would from a male, but I don't know. I think it's complicated even in situations where details are available and hopeless in this one.

 

[Madmick]

I don't see how they're not. One is that by definition anyone's salary is deserved and the other is that a particular salary is deserved. That's like (to continue Hadron's fun game) saying that, "all four-legged animals are dogs, and this four-legged animal is a dog because its furry and it barks."

Then I shall explain it to you a second time: she signed the contract in 2011 after the NYT had experienced a prolonged recession, and when the print industry as a whole was crumbling, correct? She signed this contract before her leadership of the paper had been undertaken, yes? She hadn't performed anything as editor at that point, correct? Thus, to argue that she deserved a better contract at that moment, when she signed it, based on a performance she hadn't yet exhibited, is simply absurd.

How is this escaping you?

I'm not sure how this is getting so far afield. Someone else claimed that we should expect Abramson to be paid less than Keller because of the state of the industry/company. I said that that is not obvious at all, and requires actual support. Just because a company/industry takes a downturn doesn't automatically mean that all future hires should be paid less. Obviously, they were not in a death spiral, given that their futures turned up very shortly (and sharply) after she took over.

You quoted the rise of the stock price of the NYT resulting from her tenure after she signed the contract. The state of the NYT at the times was clearly abysmal. The state of the industry for print newspapers as a whole saw a massive decline over the decade from 2001-2011.

"Future hires" should be paid whatever they agree to be paid, and not a penny more. It's 100% at the discretion of a private business how much they offer to potential executives, and it's 100% at the discretion of the potential executive whether or not he/she accepts that offer. Nothing could be more fair.

And we're back to that other issue. In general, employers have a lot more information about the state of the labor market than employees.

It's not necessary; you're trying to box me into a position I have not advocated and do not believe. There are many possibilities here. People claiming to be so certain about what's going on, given the very limited available information, are acting on emotion or ideology rather than facts (which are lacking) and logic.

Your beliefs regarding the likelihood that gender-based discrimination is a factor in her disproportionately low pay are, in this case (given the available information), going to be primarily related to how likely you think it is in general.

No, thus far, you are the person in this thread who has most vigorously demonstrated a resistance to approaching her claim with logic. We never get all the facts, Jack. Never. She's claiming discrimination, and according to her story, she is predicating that on the pay of a predecessor. That's her big gun. There's nothing logical about that.

Thus, until she reveals something that actually indicates deliberate discrimination, I'm going to call a spade a spade. If you open your mouth, and shit falls out, then I'm going to assume you're full of shit.

If you think discrimination is likely in general, you'll think that there's evidence for it here. If not, you won't. That's not absurd at all. That's human nature.

This may be the dumbest thing I've ever seen you write. No, posters in here will react to the claim with the facts they're given. You don't seem to like what they indicate, so you're insisting we shouldn't draw the most likely conclusion, but instead await certainty. Just acknowledge that it's likely, from the facts given, that there is no discrimination, and I'll gladly acknowledge a lack of absolute certainty.

Again, I'm not sure how you can be misreading me so badly. I was refuting the suggestion that her claim is invalidated simply because the company was performing badly before she was hired. Let me ask you: Does it always make sense to pay your top talent less if your business is struggling? The way I see it, sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.

It has nothing to do with whether or not it "makes sense", nor is your right to judge whether or not the NYT board's decision for what salary they offer an incoming executive is 'sensible'. That's irrelevant. It isn't standardized. It's business. Business is built on contracts.

They apparently got a remarkable executive for a great deal less than the failure who preceded her; they got more for less. The way I see it, that equation demonstrates phenomenal business sense every time.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I don't see how it's clear that the most obvious guess based on what little we know isn't true.

I think your speculation, particularly No. 2, is wildly implausible and disturbing.

If I had to guess, it's the culmination of a long-lived acrimony between her and top management, with her getting a lawyer reflecting and increase on her part (though note that it's not as unusual on this level as it would be for you), and their hasty move reflecting the increase on their part. It wouldn't surprise me if Sulzberger took assertiveness differently from a female executive editor than he would from a male, but I don't know. I think it's complicated even in situations where details are available and hopeless in this one.

You seem to be convinced or, or at least playing the angle of, discrimination?

 

[Zankou]

I swear to God I don't know how you guys do so much massive multiquoting. It's a mess. I miss the days of discrete replies.

 

[IGIT]

You seem to be convinced or, or at least playing the angle of, discrimination?

hello Anung Un Rama,

he's suggesting its possible, which seems reasonable, i guess.

both the NYT and Abramson appear to have signed a confidentiality agreement regarding her termination, so it's hard to know with 100% certainty one way or the other.

it may have been a factor, but clearly others were at play. Abramson even hired a personal consultant to help her with her management style before she was given the axe - make of that what you wish.

- IGIT

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

I swear to God I don't know how you guys do so much massive multiquoting. It's a mess. I miss the days of discrete replies.

It's easy on a computer, but I won't even try on my phone.

 

[Madmick]

I swear to God I don't know how you guys do so much massive multiquoting. It's a mess. I miss the days of discrete replies.

I'm afraid I feel the opposite, because I've always preferred point-by-point dialogue, but I do think the discrete method lends itself better to brevity, and there is definitely value in the that: the soul of wit, some would say.

 

[afrdzak]

I swear to God I don't know how you guys do so much massive multiquoting. It's a mess. I miss the days of discrete replies.

HN's alt account has been found!
I just never thought it would have been a mod.

Well played, Nicky. Well played, indeed.