This is the only response that seems to know anything here. Most orchestras will settle pay based on pay at a previous job. Elizabeth Rowe’s salary, as @stinkinbadgers points out, is likely the result of poor negotiation and/or a lower salary point at her last job. In that sense, the question is whether it is BSO’s job to right the systemic gender pay gap, and in what way is the remedy appropriate. But we should be careful to get our pitchforks out and single out BSO for this practice; more often than not a high level orchestra like BSO isn’t the kind of position that one gets straight out of music school or the like. It’s benefiting from the gender pay gap for its bottom line, sure, and likely perpetuating it, but it’s building on the work that other, smaller orchestras began.
But you do understand that sexism is a factor in the aforementioned “leverage”, right? If women are systematically paid less than their male counterparts, it reduces their leverage.
Who here’s doing that? I read the entire thread twice and saw not one pitchfork or claim BSO is unique in this regard.
Let me guess, a pianist?
Nope. This is a fun game, you should try again!
I’ll give you a hint; he is bigger than a breadbox.
Sadly, my attempt at a pun didn’t translate as well to text as it does to speaking.
*sad trombone*
Oh, now ISWYDT!
And, retroactively, applaud.
Edit: And rescind my claim about relative breadbox sizing. I simply wouldn’t know.
Yes, I do understand that. But the thing that I want to point out is that BSO is not unique in this regard; it goes all the way back to likely the first orchestra that Rowe was employed in. But I imagine the counterargument by the BSO will be something along the lines of, should BSO be obligated to make up for sexist pay practices that are industry-wide. I’m not saying that I like or agree with this practice, but I recognize that someone will likely try to draw a line between a gender pay gap and (perhaps a more realistic but no less offensive) pay based on prior salary in this situation.
In short, I definitely understand your position and empathize with it. But I think it is reasonably and meaningfully ideological. I’d like to hope that praxis will match theory here, but having discussed similar situations with orchestra support staff in recent days, I’m skeptical that what appears to be the ethically right outcome will be the legal outcome here.
To which I would counter that they should follow the new law implemented to combat the discrimination, and depending on how the suit progresses, their being made to do so could well set a precedent for whether their competitors can also be held to the law if and when the women working for those employers file their own lawsuits, and indeed could set a precedent for the enforceability of the law in other industries.
Let’s hope it turns out that way.
Quit blaming women for the biases baked into the system.
Okay, but we’re forgetting something here. Assuming the Boston Symphony follows SOP, the principle oboe gives the tuning note. That’s some serious stress right there. Gotta get a little something extra in the paycheck for that.
Thanks for the information. Sadly, virtually zero explanation of how orchestra members are paid was conveyed in the article. My uneducated assumption was that it was a system negotiated by agents.
I am of course not agreeing or disagreeing with the premise of the post. There is not enough information there to make any sort of educated judgement without coming into the discussion with prior knowledge.
It would make sense that any such article should include some explanation of how compensation is determined. There was a bit on the audition process, but that seems to be a different, though related, subject.
A benefit of the doubt for further inspection is something I’d reserve for a pay gap of a few percent, not a guy earning a full third again her salary. She’s been there since 2004 too, it’s not like she’s a new hire.
My understanding is that it’s generally going to be a lot like any other workplace insofar as section leads earn more but also do more solos, the concertmaster earns the most as there are other duties, and pay will vary somewhat by seniority.
Prior salary is irrelevant and should never be an issue. A job should pay based on the value that it brings to the company. If they’re basing their pay scales on prior salaries, they’re wrong. I think you agree with this, but it needed to be said.
Why only 200,000 for damages? Seems low.
So very many employers ask about prior salary though, Realistically it shouldn’t be relevant- and I know people whose response to that question was “A fair amount for that position, at that company. But as this is a new position, not in any way relevant.”. The reality is however that it is asked and is used as a baseline by employers when determining what they’ll offer.
The really relevant -and unasked- question is: are the other principal instrumentalists paid equally? Are salaries for wind the same as for strings? Or brass? Otherwise it might well be that oboists are gererally paid better than flutists. First of all because an oboe is no fucking little bit comparable to a flute, secondarily because it’s a lot harder to play, maintain and learn. They also cost a lot more.
I don’t say, the Boston Symphonic Orchestra is not a bunch of sexists - almost all symphonic orchestras are full of them (but the audience still is worse). I just say that this kind of neglecting research in favour of sensationalist headlines does not help.
Ya, I’m sure she never thought to ask such questions before going through all the trouble and expense of filing a lawsuit. After all, she’s just another dumb broad, amirite? /s
It was not your comment asking about more details (which I think we have plenty, given that we know how long she was in the orchestra and how much she and the other person in an equivalent position was making who was not a woman). Note that your first comment wanting more details was not flagged. This second comment got flagged for your flippant comment on sexism, which, yes is an actual real thing that includes women being paid less than men for the same work.
