• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

'PXY's Whitney Young quits over pay disparity

SirRoxalot said:
How long has Corey James been hosting the morning show at 'PXY?
Click to expand...

He's been there five years, she joined the show a year ago. Does seniority play a part in someone's salary? Or do they get paid the same because they work the same shift? Maybe her salary is based on hosting the midday shift, which she did before moving to mornings.
 
Her story says she asked for a raise and was denied. That can happen anywhere. When she took the job, she accepted the salary. Boo hoo for her. With Entercom in cost cutting mode, lots of luck burning that bridge...
 
TheBigA said:
He's been there five years, she joined the show a year ago. Does seniority play a part in someone's salary? Or do they get paid the same because they work the same shift? Maybe her salary is based on hosting the midday shift, which she did before moving to mornings.
Click to expand...
I would think seniority plays a part. Even union salaries are seniority based.
 
The assessment of the value and thus the salaries of on-air talent in radio is so subjective and arbitrary that you'd have to be a fool to try and make this case in this business.

Take 5 different MALES doing more or less the SAME position, not even clearly different roles like host vs. smaller role person, and you'll have 5 different salaries---sometimes dramatically so.
 
Let's see where she lands next. Interest in her as a host will determine whether she was underpaid at Entercom. What happens with ratings with her gone will also be an indicator of her relative talent. If the numbers don't change significantly without her it really weakens her case.

On air work is the entertainment business. You're worth whatever you can convince someone to pay you. It's very difficult to establish "equivalency" in that environment.
 
She needs to get a grip on reality. She knew what the salary was when she took the gig. Rochester is Radio market #60 and not the Hollywood Film industry. She seems oblivious to the current state of Radio. The open market will decide if her "talent" is worth more...
 
If I were promoted from middays to mornings, I would expect to get paid morning show money within a year or so.

Whether her request for a raise was reasonable or not is obviously something we don't know, but, if she was still being paid her old salary, I don't blame her for asking for more.

I've worked at a couple of places where I've asked for what I felt was a reasonable raise and was told I knew where the door was if I didn't like my salary. I don't work at either of those places anymore, and I'm a lot better off now.
 
tbolt909 said:
She needs to get a grip on reality. She knew what the salary was when she took the gig. Rochester is Radio market #60 and not the Hollywood Film industry. She seems oblivious to the current state of Radio. The open market will decide if her "talent" is worth more...
Click to expand...

I heard of one case where a new addition to a morning show complained within a few months of the salary difference between the "old guy and me". Management explained the current state of radio to the new person.

A week later, they renegotiated the original person's salary way down. Then they told the new guy "now your salaries match".
 
SirRoxalot said:
Let's see where she lands next. Interest in her as a host will determine whether she was underpaid at Entercom. What happens with ratings with her gone will also be an indicator of her relative talent. If the numbers don't change significantly without her it really weakens her case.
Click to expand...

I read her statement in the newpaper article. Complete whiner.

And the comparison with TV salaries is absurd. One has only to look at the great disparity in pay for movie roles to realize there are all kinds of components to setting rates, including "nothing else on schedule" to box office performance of the last movie to ability to work with others.
 
My guess is that she found a lawyer who is willing to test the new NY Equal Pay law:

"The bill requires “equal pay for substantially similar work” and prohibits employers paying people differently based on their gender identity, race, sexual orientation, or other protected class. ABC News reports that the law will close loopholes that “allows gender discrimination in pay for the same jobs” and also reportedly bans prospective employers from asking about a potential hire’s salary history."

It will be interesting to see if that includes the entertainment industry where different roles earn different salaries. I'm sure that her lawyers will argue that she does "substantially similar work." Entercom and others are likely to need to carefully define job roles if this law is applied to the entertainment industry. It will be interesting to see if they can determine if there are "primary" and "secondary" talents on a radio show. If the ratings picked up after she came onboard, and drop when she's gone, she'll have a case. If the needle doesn't move much - independent of other factors - it would be hard to make her case.
 
If she is pursuing legal action, her case is very weak. She quit and wasn't terminated. I don't know if she had a contract or not, but they are always crafted to favour the company. "At Will" employment can be ended by either party.

Many long time radio employees have been terminated simply to reduce costs. Excellent job performance doesn't guarantee continued employment or pay raises. "Fairness" is elusive in the Radio biz...
 
SirRoxalot said:
"The bill requires “equal pay for substantially similar work” and prohibits employers paying people differently based on their gender identity, race, sexual orientation, or other protected class.
Click to expand...

If that's the wording of the law, there is an obvious legal loophole, which is that her pay was not based on her gender.
 
TheBigA said:
If that's the wording of the law, there is an obvious legal loophole, which is that her pay was not based on her gender.
Click to expand...

Her lawyer will certainly argue that she was an equal partner in the morning show and that she was paid less because of her gender. Have you listened to the show? Do you know what her role was?

There may be a lot of scrambling by entertainment companies to officially define roles on multi-personality shows. Her contract was up and she wanted a new one that gave her pay parity with the person who had been on the show for four years previous to her joining. There seem to be a lot of holes in her argument, but it will be interesting to see what the response of the courts might be to an action of this type in the entertainment business.
 
SirRoxalot said:
Her lawyer will certainly argue that she was an equal partner in the morning show and that she was paid less because of her gender.
Click to expand...

What proof does he have for that? She was paid less because that's what the position pays. It would have paid less if she was a man.
 
TheBigA said:
What proof does he have for that? She was paid less because that's what the position pays. It would have paid less if she was a man.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that you haven't heard the show, and you don't really know what her role was. At issue is if the positions ARE equivalent. If so, the new law demands equal pay. Another consideration would likely be seniority but I doubt that the law would allow for a major disparity in pay based on that criteria.
 
SirRoxalot said:
So what you're saying is that you haven't heard the show, and you don't really know what her role was.
Click to expand...

Me listening to the show and her "role" is irrelevant. I asked how the lawyer proves that her gender was the basis for her pay. Are you saying you don't know?

Seniority is not a protected category. The protected categories are age, race, sex, religion, national origin, or handicap. If he has more experience, he can be paid more. For example, union pay is based on seniority.
 
TheBigA said:
Me listening to the show and her "role" is irrelevant. I asked how the lawyer proves that her gender was the basis for her pay. Are you saying you don't know?

Seniority is not a protected category. The protected categories are age, race, sex, religion, national origin, or handicap. If he has more experience, he can be paid more. For example, union pay is based on seniority.
Click to expand...

I've already said that I don't know whether she was an equal partner in the show or more of a sidekick. The big question here will be if their roles were equivalent. She's apparently contending that they were. Entercom will contend that she was in a subordinate role and had less experience, thus the pay differential.

The whole crux of the case IS about her role on the show. If her role was equivalent, then the law dictates that she can't be paid less because she IS a member of a protected class. Entercom would need to produce reasons to NOT pay her equivalent salary - a different definition of her employment responsibilities or some quantitative information like Q ratings proving that she was not as popular or recognized by the public or a ratings history of the show that doesn't show significant differences before or after her period of employment.

She's obviously found a lawyer who thinks that she has a case.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom