Another bombshell report about the salary paid to Jill Abramson, the ousted former New York Times editor, alleges that she was consistently paid less than her male predecessors throughout almost her entire career at the paper.
The New Yorker’s Ken Auletta, who sparked an initial firestorm when he first reported that Abramson had complained about a pay gap between herself and Bill Keller, whom she had succeeded as executive editor, posted another article on the magazine’s website late on Thursday night.
In it, he addressed the efforts by Times management—including by the man who fired Abramson, publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.—to rebut the highly damaging notion that Abramson was the subject of sexist wage practices. Sulzberger sent Times staffers a memo stating that this notion was “misinformation,” that Abramson’s pay was “comparable to that of earlier executive editors,” and that, “In fact, in 2013, her last full year in the role, her total compensation package was more than 10% higher than that of her predecessor, Bill Keller, in his last full year as Executive Editor, which was 2010.”
“Total compensation” is often a mixture of a base salary along with money from stocks and bonuses, meaning that, unless the Times releases those figures, it is hard to know exactly what mix of each contributed to Abramson’s full pay package. Whatever the case, Auletta reported that the paychecks Abramson was taking home were significantly lighter than those of her male counterparts — at every step of her career at the Times, and that she had hired a lawyer to get to the bottom of things:
Source: Huffington Post | Jack Mirkinson