RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Covert reports: "Ken Auletta at the New Yorker reported that the incident may have been set off by the fact that Abramson found out she was being paid less than men around her and asked top management about the disparities."

Jill Abramson. (photo: Kena Betancur/Reuters)
Jill Abramson. (photo: Kena Betancur/Reuters)


Jill Abramson and the Pervasive Risks of Demanding Equal Pay

By Bryce Covert, ThinkProgress

16 May 14

 

n Wednesday, the New York Times abruptly announced that Executive Editor Jill Abramson would be leaving the role, to be replaced by Dean Baquet. The paper didn’t share details as to why the change was made so quickly and without warning, with its own story on the change up at first saying the reasons “were not immediately clear.”

But shortly after, Ken Auletta at the New Yorker reported that the incident may have been set off by the fact that Abramson found out she was being paid less than men around her and asked top management about the disparities. According to his anonymous sources, she found out that not only was she was getting less in pay and benefits than Bill Keller, previous executive editor of the paper, in two different jobs where she replaced him, but that she made less than a man who reported to her when she was managing editor. While this may not have been the direct cause of her dismissal, it seems that when she had her lawyer look into the disparities top management thought she was “pushy” and it set off other tensions in the newsroom. Other reports are that many who worked with her thought she was “brusque to the point of rudeness.”

It’s not clear what role this really did play in Tuesday’s announcement, nor even if it’s true. A spokesperson told Politico that her “compensation as executive editor was not less than Bill Keller’s” and the lower pension benefits were because of her shorter tenure at the paper. But the same spokesperson told Business Insider that her pay “was not meaningfully less” and David Folkenflik has confirmed that Abramson did bring up unequal pay with management.

Many women who reach the top are still paid less than their male peers. The highest paid female executives at S&P 500 companies still make 18 percent less than the men in these roles, on average. For example, Heather Bresch, CEO of pharmaceutical company Mylan, makes about a third less than average CEO pay in her sector, and Campbell Soup CEO Denise Morrison makes about a quarter less.

Other high-profile female executives have found out that they’re making less than the men around them this year. This year, Mary Barra, the first female CEO of General Motors, will make less than half of what her outgoing male predecessor made — $2.8 million compared to $7.3 million — and less than what he will be paid as a senior advisor after he’s gone. This is despite her 30 plus years of experience at the company and the fact that the man before her had no car industry experience. The company has noted that her long-term compensation represents a 60 percent increase over his, but she will only see that money if she stays with the company for a certain period of time.

Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo, experienced the other half of what Abramson may have gone through: being paid less than a man who reports to you. She made $62 million over the same period that the male COO of the company, who worked under her, made $96 million. Worse, he was fired in January. Part of his pay total is a severance package that got a bump from the company’s stock price when he left, and as with Barra, Mayer stands to see more long-term compensation. But the differences are still stark.

Being fired is also a common experience among women who reach the top. The few women who make it to the chief executive suit are more likely than men to be forced out. Abramson’s experience is again typical: part of the problem seems to be that women tend to be brought in from the outside (Abramson spent most of her previous career at the Wall Street Journal) and they may only be brought in to clean up when things are getting messy. This phenomenon is called the glass cliff: Multiple studies have found that women are more likely to be brought into leadership roles when the outlook is bad. Abramson joined the Times in 2011, just as newspaper advertising revenue was beginning to tank.

Baquet, who is replacing Abramson, is the first black person to take on the top editorial role. People of color also experience the glass cliff and pay inequities, so his appointment breaks another important barrier, even if it comes on the heels of controversy.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+7 # Regina 2014-05-16 10:58
In our racist, sexist society, given a choice between a Black man and a woman, the lesser-of-two-e vils male will stay on the glass cliff while the female is shoved off it. Indeed, the only reason a woman even gets to the top is the savings for the bottom line coming from her discounted remuneration.
 
 
+7 # Cassandra2012 2014-05-16 12:57
Apparently, she was too tough, and 'bossy'--- of course, when males are bossy, they're just called assertive and take-charge.
When women stand up for themselves and have genuine opinions and ideas independent of the powers that be, they're suddenly 'offensive', 'abrasive' and 'bossy-pants'.. . "plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose!"
 
 
0 # Regina 2014-05-17 16:10
That's because only men get to pass executive judgment.
 
 
+4 # politicfix 2014-05-16 15:53
Black men got the vote before women. There is a double standard. If a man is in a leadership or any position of authority, he's hailed as a leader. If a woman is in that same position she's has PMS, is offensive, bossy or a real bitch. Men are so intimidated by women. Many men were raised by strong intelligent women and they'll say they wouldn't be who they are without their mothers, yet they have no problem resenting women in the work place as not on the same level or in some ways incompetent to work side by side with them. Until all the male dinosaurs have become extinct they will not change and they'll try to brainwash younger men into their way of thinking. The fact is...women aren't going away and the harder men make it for women the stronger they become until, at some point, the rolls may be reversed....and men will not be able to compete with women and they may be doing the same job for a lesser pay level because women are in charge and may feel men aren't up to their level. Then men will be complaining that they want equal pay for equal work. Fix it NOW! This country is about equal rights. Half of the administrative assistants work their butts off and these companies could not function without them. If all the women administrative assistants walked out would a man take their place at the same salary? No way. Plus, most haven't the necessary skills do even do their job. Women have to stand up in the NOW moment and fight this. Equal rights mean equal pay for equal work.
 
 
+1 # Activista 2014-05-17 13:11
s executive editor, Abramson’s starting salary in 2011 was $475,000, compared to Keller’s salary that year, $559,000. Her salary was raised to $503,000, and—only after she protested—was raised again to $525,000. She learned that her salary as managing editor, $398,000, was less than that of the male managing editor for news operations, John Geddes. She also learned that her salary as Washington bureau chief, from 2000 to 2003, was a hundred thousand dollars less than that of her successor in that position, Phil Taubman.** (Murphy would say only that Abramson’s compensation was “broadly comparable” to that of Taubman and Geddes.)..
www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/05/jill-abramson-and-the-times-what-went-wrong.html
... sick money culture ...
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN