Skip to comments.WAR ON WOMEN?: REPORT SAYS NYT’S FIRST FEMALE EDITOR OUSTED FOR ASKING FOR ‘EQUAL PAY’
Posted on 05/14/2014 5:43:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
The New York Times, which has actively helped Democrats and the White House perpetuate the phony "war on women" campaign against Republicans, reportedly fired its female executive editor because she complained about pay inequality at the so-called "paper of record."
On Wednesday, the Times announced that Dean Baquet, the managing editor, would replace Jill Abramson, becoming the paper's first black executive editor. Abramson was promoted to executive editor with much fanfare in 2011.
"Several weeks ago," according to The New Yorker, "Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs."
Another associate reportedly said that Abramson also found out that a male who was a former deputy managing editor "made more money than she did." When Abramson "had a lawyer make polite inquiries about the pay and pension disparities," it reportedly "set them off" and led management to fire her. On Friday, Sulzberger reportedly told Abramson that it was time to make "a change" and made it official.
A "close associate" of hers told The New Yorker's Ken Auletta that Abramson "confronted the top brass" about the pay disparity, and Abramson's pay gap was reportedly closed after she complained, but, "to women at an institution that was once sued by its female employees for discriminatory practices, the question brings up ugly memories."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Well, it looks like management decided what she was worth.
what goes around comes around
It warms, ah say, it warms the cockles of mah heart!"
She’s just a pain to work with.
not so very long ago:
NYT Editor Rejects Atmosphere of Scandal,Public Wants to Give Obama Credit for Improving Economy’
News Busters ^ | June 02, 2013 | Brent Baker
Posted on 6/5/2013 6:55:07 AM by IbJensen
See no scandal, report no scandal. Jill Abramson, Executive Editor of the New York Times, came down to DC on Sunday to defend President Obama on the scandals and the economy, stressing the leaks cases is the only supposed scandal she cares about as she contended Im just not sure the leaks cases, IRS and Benghazi come together and create, you know — quote, unquote — an atmosphere of scandal.
An atmosphere the New York Times is working to prevent.
Asked by Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer about how nobody seems to know anything in the administration, so the scandals may go beyond just the leaks prosecutions involving journalists, Abramson hit back: Im not sure how much any of these particular issues has absorbed the American public who I think are hoping against hope that the economy is at last showing some strength and maybe giving the President some credit for the fact that there are some hopeful signs.
Schieffer responded: You wouldnt say that you think its not something we ought to be concerned about?
Abramson skipped IRS and Benghazi as she affirmed how clearly Im very concerned about the leak cases, explaining thats why I came here to talk to you this morning, but insisted: Im just not sure, you know, they come together and create, you know — quote, unquote — an atmosphere of scandal.
Hypocrisy is a female dog, named Democrat.
The Left, what a bunch of liars and ignorant lemmings.
New editor to claim racial pay discrimination in 3...2...1
You saying they fired her because she’s a bitch? Either way, her lawsuit will cost THE Times millions.
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving company.
Despicable is too kind here.
Limbaugh is going to have a field day with this. I CAN’T WAIT!
Do as I say, not as I do!
Wonder what they’ll pay the new black guy?
Good thing her replacement is a minority. Can’t complain or that would be racist.
If they pay him his less they get flack. If they pay him more, they will get flack. CRY HAVOC, AND LET LOOSE THE DOGS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!
the irony is, in a normal world, the times has a legitimate reason to pay her less than her predecessor. less time on the job. which would account for the disparity in the pension benefit also. but, since the times chose to overlook those type of differences in the 77% argument, they forfeit that right now.
To paraphrase a old sign,”Will the last person leaving The New York Times,please turn out the lights?”
Not true! She was just too “bossy” for the NYT...