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

[Zankou]

Have you heard of the doctrine of the "Trinity"?

Zankou-IDL-HN.

Just think about it. Three in one, one in three.

 

[afrdzak]

LOL!
There's always another twist in the plot!

 

[Fox by the Sea]

and here's what christiane amanpour just wrote on facebook.

"Christiane Amanpour Very depressing week for women. 300 Nigerian girls are still missing. At the other end of the spectrum, Jill Abramson has been fired at The New York Times – the first-ever female Executive Editor."

good lord, the amount of self-fetishization is enormous. like you can compare the two.

 

[IGIT]

MMAGirlie,

i was wondering, do you relate this thread in any way to the "War on Men" thread that you authored?

the New York Times demotes, fires, and does buyouts of their senior staffers and usually doesn't merit a mention in the press, much less fuel a spirited exchange in the War Room.

is the reality that this is "news" only due to Abramson's gender indicative of a "war on men"?

(this is not a trolling inquiry, and i hope it isn't interpreted as one)

- IGIT

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

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?

No more disturbing than getting fired for things you do on your own time like getting high or making race related statements.

 

[Cham]

MMAGirlie,

i was wondering, do you relate this thread in any way to the "War on Men" thread that you authored?

the New York Times demotes, fires, and does buyouts of their senior staffers and usually doesn't merit a mention in the press, much less fuel a spirited exchange in the War Room.

is the reality that this is "news" only due to Abramson's gender indicative of a "war on men"?

(this is not a trolling inquiry, and i hope it isn't interpreted as one)

- IGIT

You could say so. Nobody would give a shit about an editor being fired otherwise (unless it was over something controversial).

Kinda like how no one gave a shit about how Boko Haram burned Nigerian boys alive in February but now we've got to stop them and #BringBackOurGirls.

 

[Jack V Savage]

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?

That's not an explanation of how the positions "X is impossible by definition" and "the evidence suggests not X" are not mutually exclusive.

With regard to the point you're making, she did get a raise during her time at the paper. She wasn't beholden to an old deal. The point is that at the time she left, the company was in a very different situation so the struggles of 10 years earlier really weren't relevant to her compensation.

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.

Yes, and that isn't particularly relevant to 2014 compensation levels. Again, if you want to argue that she was paid in line with her value, the decline over that decade just isn't relevant.

"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.

Again, I see that as dogma, and not worth discussing.

No, thus far, you are the person in this thread who has most vigorously demonstrated a resistance to approaching her claim with logic.

I can only smile at that.

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.

Well, we don't know what she is or isn't claiming. The reports from other sources are that one possible reason for her firing was disputes over compensation. And the two big points of contention appear to be 1) that she was paid considerably less than her predecessor whose performance was far worse and 2) that she had been paid less than a subordinate. Again, though, if you take a market fundamentalist view--that all market outcomes (or just all labor market outcomes) are by definition correct, there's really nothing for you to say about that. If you don't accept that view and you require evidence and logic to assess those types of claims (as opposed to rejecting all of them sight unseen), you're going to need more info to make a judgment either way.

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.

I like that. Folksy and wise-sounding. I'll have to steal it. But it doesn't really relate to this discussion. How can you even criticize discrimination if you believe that market outcomes are not subject to question?

This may be the dumbest thing I've ever seen you write.

I'll take that as a compliment.

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.

Actually, I don't like bad reasoning, regardless of what position it supports. I don't see any way to ascertain likelihood in this case. Like I said, it's really just about the assumptions you're bringing in because there have been no facts to base a position on.

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.

So I don't have the right to question the NYT's compensation decisions, but you have the right to defend them? How does that work, exactly? We can have an opinion about it, as long as we agree that they are correct?

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.

Yes, it worked out great for them. Not as much for the employee. You can say, "that's capitalism for you," but I don't believe that. I'd say, "that's the nature of the imbalance between labor and capital, which we have chosen to support." It's certainly possible to have capitalism that is less tilted.

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

You seem to be reacting based on your preconceived notions rather than what you are actually reading.

The fact is, nobody here (myself included) has a clue what is going on here, but people have strong opinions about issues like gender, labor relations, and various other ideological issues, and they see news that relates to those issues as a chance to express those views, whether appropriate or not. If you're on the left regarding labor relations (which, full disclosure, I am) or you believe that women are getting a raw deal generally (which I am more agnostic about), you're seeing this story as a sad example of management fucking a talented employee or the phallogocentric cabal fucking over a top women. If you're on the right or you believe that complaints about society being unfair to women are generally bullshit, you're seeing this story as a whiny employee complaining about a mutually agreed-upon contract/another woman making a bogus charge of discrimination. That's all fine, but let's try to make good arguments, whatever our positions are.

You could say so. Nobody would give a shit about an editor being fired otherwise (unless it was over something controversial).

Any time the executive editor of the NYT is fired, that's a huge story in the journalism world. The fact that it happened so fast and to someone who has been so successful makes it all the more interesting.

No more disturbing than getting fired for things you do on your own time like getting high or making race related statements.

I would consider it to be way more disturbing, but are you saying that those things don't bother you either?

 

[Hadron]

That's not an explanation of how the positions "X is impossible by definition" and "the evidence suggests not X" are not mutually exclusive.

I need my yard landscaped.

I contact a landscaper. He says he will do it for $1,000.

He does an amazing job and my yard wins several awards.

Am I suddenly obligated to pay him $10,000, even though he and I both agreed on $1,000?

 

[Hadron]

The fact is, nobody here (myself included) has a clue what is going on here, but people have strong opinions about issues like gender, labor relations, and various other ideological issues, and they see news that relates to those issues as a chance to express those views, whether appropriate or not. If you're on the left regarding labor relations (which, full disclosure, I am) or you believe that women are getting a raw deal generally (which I am more agnostic about), you're seeing this story as a sad example of management fucking a talented employee or the phallogocentric cabal fucking over a top women. If you're on the right or you believe that complaints about society being unfair to women are generally bullshit, you're seeing this story as a whiny employee complaining about a mutually agreed-upon contract/another woman making a bogus charge of discrimination. That's all fine, but let's try to make good arguments, whatever our positions are.

Why do you try to force everything into a left-right paradigm?

Seeing this as a case of someone getting paid exactly what they negotiated in their contract, and not a case of sexism does not make you a right-winger.

You can't just paint every issue as "left" and "right" and lump everyone like that. This is even worse than when you guys tried to do that with Zimmerman shooting Tray-Tray.

 

[IGIT]

You could say so. Nobody would give a shit about an editor being fired otherwise (unless it was over something controversial).

Kinda like how no one gave a shit about how Boko Haram burned Nigerian boys alive in February but now we've got to stop them and #BringBackOurGirls.

hullo Cham,

it's off topic, and i don't want to derail this thread - but i was thinking about MMAgirlie's post and how it related to Abramson.

i'll just say this; you're right that there is a disconnect between how the planet reacted to those girls being kidnapped and how the boys in the village being burned to a crisp didn't move the needle - but i think some of it (at least in western culture) can be traced back to an olde thyme sense of chivalry.

i pick up the check when i dine with a woman...i pull her chair out for her, i hold doors open for them, stuff like that. i don't automatically do that for men - though i don't see it as discriminatory. i've offered older women a seat on the subway when its crowded, but i can't recall doing the same for old men. it's just a matter of etiquette and good manners.

i mean, its very, very hard for me to picture any scenario where i'd punch a woman in the face, but i've done so to men i've had a disagreement with, and i don't see that as discriminatory either.

anyway, back to the OP.

- IGIT

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I would consider it to be way more disturbing,...

Why?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

That's not an explanation of how the positions "X is impossible by definition" and "the evidence suggests not X" are not mutually exclusive.

With regard to the point you're making, she did get a raise during her time at the paper. She wasn't beholden to an old deal. The point is that at the time she left, the company was in a very different situation so the struggles of 10 years earlier really weren't relevant to her compensation.



Yes, and that isn't particularly relevant to 2014 compensation levels. Again, if you want to argue that she was paid in line with her value, the decline over that decade just isn't relevant.



Again, I see that as dogma, and not worth discussing.



I can only smile at that.



Well, we don't know what she is or isn't claiming. The reports from other sources are that one possible reason for her firing was disputes over compensation. And the two big points of contention appear to be 1) that she was paid considerably less than her predecessor whose performance was far worse and 2) that she had been paid less than a subordinate. Again, though, if you take a market fundamentalist view--that all market outcomes (or just all labor market outcomes) are by definition correct, there's really nothing for you to say about that. If you don't accept that view and you require evidence and logic to assess those types of claims (as opposed to rejecting all of them sight unseen), you're going to need more info to make a judgment either way.



I like that. Folksy and wise-sounding. I'll have to steal it. But it doesn't really relate to this discussion. How can you even criticize discrimination if you believe that market outcomes are not subject to question?



I'll take that as a compliment.



Actually, I don't like bad reasoning, regardless of what position it supports. I don't see any way to ascertain likelihood in this case. Like I said, it's really just about the assumptions you're bringing in because there have been no facts to base a position on.



So I don't have the right to question the NYT's compensation decisions, but you have the right to defend them? How does that work, exactly? We can have an opinion about it, as long as we agree that they are correct?



Yes, it worked out great for them. Not as much for the employee. You can say, "that's capitalism for you," but I don't believe that. I'd say, "that's the nature of the imbalance between labor and capital, which we have chosen to support." It's certainly possible to have capitalism that is less tilted.



You seem to be reacting based on your preconceived notions rather than what you are actually reading.

The fact is, nobody here (myself included) has a clue what is going on here, but people have strong opinions about issues like gender, labor relations, and various other ideological issues, and they see news that relates to those issues as a chance to express those views, whether appropriate or not. If you're on the left regarding labor relations (which, full disclosure, I am) or you believe that women are getting a raw deal generally (which I am more agnostic about), you're seeing this story as a sad example of management fucking a talented employee or the phallogocentric cabal fucking over a top women. If you're on the right or you believe that complaints about society being unfair to women are generally bullshit, you're seeing this story as a whiny employee complaining about a mutually agreed-upon contract/another woman making a bogus charge of discrimination. That's all fine, but let's try to make good arguments, whatever our positions are.



Any time the executive editor of the NYT is fired, that's a huge story in the journalism world. The fact that it happened so fast and to someone who has been so successful makes it all the more interesting.



I would consider it to be way more disturbing, but are you saying that those things don't bother you either?

To your reply to me: I readily admit that nobody knows the details, and we are all jumping to conclusions. You seem to think it had more to do with acquiring counsel and discrimination rather than her abrasive management style and her souring relationship with her boss.

 

[Madmick]

That's not an explanation of how the positions "X is impossible by definition" and "the evidence suggests not X" are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, it is. You deserve to get paid what you agreed to be paid. However, I also think that salary should reflect performance. She hadn't performed when she signed the contract. Now that she has performed, she can re-negotiate her contract when the first contract it up, and demand a higher salary based on that performance, or if it the contract is perpetual, she can insist on a renegotiation (like any employee), and I wager she would have a strong negotiating position. Considering the value she has demonstrated they would be foolish not to pay her more, but this doesn't appear to be the road she took.

I've explained this to you three times now. Either you're capable of comprehending it or you're not. I won't explain it again.

With regard to the point you're making, she did get a raise during her time at the paper. She wasn't beholden to an old deal. The point is that at the time she left, the company was in a very different situation so the struggles of 10 years earlier really weren't relevant to her compensation.

Yes, and that isn't particularly relevant to 2014 compensation levels. Again, if you want to argue that she was paid in line with her value, the decline over that decade just isn't relevant.

The struggles of the industry are irrelevant to her salary entirely. We've simply humored you by offering a rationale for why maybe they were hesitant to pay an incoming executive the same salary as Keller.

Again, I see that as dogma, and not worth discussing.

Concession on the point accepted. She signed the contract like a big girl. Time to put on the big girl pants and acknowledge your commitment.

So I don't have the right to question the NYT's compensation decisions, but you have the right to defend them? How does that work, exactly? We can have an opinion about it, as long as we agree that they are correct?

You're entitled to argue whatever you like. You're a hardcore, anti-corporate leftist, and often we align. Certainly, if you wish to criticize the sometimes illogical nature of the market, then you're justified. If, on the other hand, you are going to defend allegations of discrimination, then it's incumbent upon you to offer some reason indicating that discrimination was the cause for the discrepancy in pay.

There is none. You're waging class warfare on the wrong battlefield, Jack.

 

[Jack V Savage]

To your reply to me: I readily admit that nobody knows the details, and we are all jumping to conclusions. You seem to think it had more to do with acquiring counsel and discrimination rather than her abrasive management style and her souring relationship with her boss.

I do? I think I said explicitly what I think:

"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."

If you had trouble with that, I'll just say it was her bad and deteriorating relationship with Sulzberger is the primary thing, and a lot of the other things are just details.

Yes, it is.

I don't want to sound like a robot, but that simply does not compute. The positions are logically incompatible.

You deserve to get paid what you agreed to be paid. However, I also think that salary should reflect performance.

And if you don't, are you getting paid less than you should be? I don't see how you can answer that question without changing one of your positions.

She hadn't performed when she signed the contract.

We're not talking about her pay in 2011. Note that she complained, and they agreed that she had a point and gave her a raise, though still not to a level in line with her performance or in line with her most recent predecessor (who managed the newsroom at a time of horrible business performance).

Now that she has performed, she can re-negotiate her contract when the first contract it up, and demand a higher salary based on that performance, or if it the contract is perpetual, she can insist on a renegotiation (like any employee), and I wager she would have a strong negotiating position. Considering the value she has demonstrated they would be foolish not to pay her more, but this doesn't appear to be the road she took.

Why doesn't it? It appears that's exactly what happened, with mixed success (she got a raise at the expense of a worsened relationship with Sulzberger, and then she got pushed out).

I've explained this to you three times now. Either you're capable of comprehending it or you're not. I won't explain it again.

You could also try a more coherent explanation.

The struggles of the industry are irrelevant to her salary entirely.

Agreed. That was the point that I was refuting, which is what got you so upset.

Concession on the point accepted. She signed the contract like a big girl. Time to put on the big girl pants and acknowledge your commitment.

No, it's a pure statement of dogma on your part, like I said. Your position cannot be defended or refuted logically. So there's nothing to say about it. Well, it's apparent that you don't realize that it's dogma so I can point that out to you.

You're entitled to argue whatever you like. You're a hardcore, anti-corporate leftist, and often we align.

If you believe that, you haven't been reading my posts or understanding them.

Certainly, if you wish to criticize the sometimes illogical nature of the market, then you're justified. If, on the other hand, you are going to defend allegations of discrimination, then it's incumbent upon you to offer some reason indicating that discrimination was the cause for the discrepancy in pay.

It's frustrating that at this late point, you're still asserting that I'm "defending allegations of discrimination." Such allegations aren't even known to exist, and I certainly have not defended them. I was responding to another comment made out of ignorance with some relevant facts.

It's unfortunate but not unusual that you're responding to the introduction of facts that are uncomfortable for a particular narrative as if it's a defense of an alternate one. My position is that the fact that a company struggled from 2003 to 2011 doesn't mean that the person with the most important job in that company should be paid less in 2014 (following three years of a rebound). It doesn't mean she should be paid more or the same, either. There's nowhere near enough information to say what she should be paid.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I need my yard landscaped.

I contact a landscaper. He says he will do it for $1,000.

He does an amazing job and my yard wins several awards.

Am I suddenly obligated to pay him $10,000, even though he and I both agreed on $1,000?

No. But presumably he would have renegotiated during that period. Also, if he were asking for more pay, and you fired him, someone else would certainly be justified in saying that you fucked up and/or that you were underpaying him, right?

Why do you try to force everything into a left-right paradigm?

I'm not forcing anything into anything.

Seeing this as a case of someone getting paid exactly what they negotiated in their contract, and not a case of sexism does not make you a right-winger.

IMO, sexism is only loosely related to this issue. Granting the (questionable) assumptions that people are making in this thread, we're looking at a worker getting fired for complaining about being underpaid and trying to renegotiate. If your tendency is to side with authority, you're going to take Sulzberger's side, and if it's to side with workers, you're going to be inclined to take Abramson's side. I do tend to side with the common man and against authority and so my inclination is toward Abramson (again, as presented), though I also feel that one should be especially reluctant to embrace a view that fits with one's natural tendency (because you're more likely to believe something that isn't true if it's something you want to believe), and I am really pointing out that ideological prejudices aside, there's simply no argument here--nothing *sound* to recommend either position.

You can't just paint every issue as "left" and "right" and lump everyone like that. This is even worse than when you guys tried to do that with Zimmerman shooting Tray-Tray.

Who are "you guys"? Right-wingers took Zimmerman's side right away (and now he's signing autographs for them), and left-wingers thought he was full of shit. It's not like one side made it partisan. Your post reeks of the usual "stop being so divisive and agree with me" attitude that we see so much here.

 

[Bob Gray]

Abramson, who spent much of her career at the Wall Street Journal, had been at the Times for far fewer years than Keller, which accounted for some of the pension disparity. Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for the Times, said that Jill Abramson

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I do? I think I said explicitly what I think:

"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."

If you had trouble with that, I'll just say it was her bad and deteriorating relationship with Sulzberger is the primary thing, and a lot of the other things are just details.



I don't want to sound like a robot, but that simply does not compute. The positions are logically incompatible.



And if you don't, are you getting paid less than you should be? I don't see how you can answer that question without changing one of your positions.



We're not talking about her pay in 2011. Note that she complained, and they agreed that she had a point and gave her a raise, though still not to a level in line with her performance or in line with her most recent predecessor (who managed the newsroom at a time of horrible business performance).



Why doesn't it? It appears that's exactly what happened, with mixed success (she got a raise at the expense of a worsened relationship with Sulzberger, and then she got pushed out).



You could also try a more coherent explanation.



Agreed. That was the point that I was refuting, which is what got you so upset.



No, it's a pure statement of dogma on your part, like I said. Your position cannot be defended or refuted logically. So there's nothing to say about it. Well, it's apparent that you don't realize that it's dogma so I can point that out to you.



If you believe that, you haven't been reading my posts or understanding them.



It's frustrating that at this late point, you're still asserting that I'm "defending allegations of discrimination." Such allegations aren't even known to exist, and I certainly have not defended them. I was responding to another comment made out of ignorance with some relevant facts.

It's unfortunate but not unusual that you're responding to the introduction of facts that are uncomfortable for a particular narrative as if it's a defense of an alternate one. My position is that the fact that a company struggled from 2003 to 2011 doesn't mean that the person with the most important job in that company should be paid less in 2014 (following three years of a rebound). It doesn't mean she should be paid more or the same, either. There's nowhere near enough information to say what she should be paid.

And yet you've, in at least 2 points, expressed concern thst somebody could be terminated simply for seeking counsel and that there should be worker protections even tho it's pretty clear thst isn't what happened.

 

[Bob Gray]

Hold on a sec. Can someone explain this quote to me:

"I was also told by another friend of Abramson’s that the pay gap with Keller was only closed after she complained."

So does that mean they gave her the amount she wanted? Maybe Im misreading it somehow.

 

[Madmick]

Jack, it's impossible to reason with someone who doesn't believe that a person is beholden to a contract they have signed, or that this process doesn't reflect freedom and fairness in the case of a unique, executive contract. You want different rules for this woman than you do for the NYT. The only person being illogical is you. The nature of past vs. present, and that contracts don't have to proactively reflect value before it has been demonstrated is crippling your ability to assess this issue rationally.

I don't think I've ever seen you exhibit social religiousness on this board, but your intransigence to acknowledge that this woman hasn't demonstrated an iota of substantial evidence to found her claim forms an undeniable example of it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

And yet you've, in at least 2 points, expressed concern thst somebody could be terminated simply for seeking counsel and that there should be worker protections even tho it's pretty clear thst isn't what happened.

No, the point there is that IF that is the reason (as some have suggested), that is really bad. However, I don't know if it is and I'm not commenting on stuff I don't know about. Also, if it's even possible, there should be worker protections, even if that's not a relevant issue in this case.

Jack, it's impossible to reason with someone who doesn't believe that a person is beholden to a contract they have signed, or that this process doesn't reflect freedom and fairness in the case of a unique, executive contract.

Right. That's what I've been saying, which is why I haven't been discussing that issue. You either believe that labor market outcomes are necessarily just or you don't. I don't, and you do. Fine. There's no possible reasoning to agreement in that area. I can explain my position, and you can explain yours (or continue to try to browbeat me into agreement), but that's as far as we can get.

You want different rules for this woman than you do for the NYT. The only person being illogical is you.

That aspect of our disagreement is on values rather than logic. What I've pointed out is illogical is your holding two contradictory beliefs here.

The nature of past vs. present, and that contracts don't have to proactively reflect value before it has been demonstrated is crippling your ability to assess this issue rationally.

This is premised on the false assumption that the contract signed three years ago is the same one she left with.

I don't think I've ever seen you exhibit social religiousness on this board, but your intransigence to acknowledge that this woman hasn't demonstrated an iota of substantial evidence to found her claim forms an undeniable example of it.

Again, she hasn't even made claims that we can confirm. What I've pointed out is that a lot of bad arguments are being thrown around.