Attached: 4 images
The New York Times Company made $2.4 billion in revenue in 2023, and our CEO gave herself a 36% raise, while members of our unit were given around 3% with persistent wage gaps for women and people of color.
#ReadyToStrike #Union #Unions #Tech #Election #Election2024 #Labor #Strike #CollectiveBargaining #Contract #NewsGuild #CWA #Solidarity
Using Meredith Kopit-Levien’s annual pay from the New York Times, at $10.2 million (as stated in the graph.) Then pluging in the 36% raise she was ‘given’ in 2024(?) and divide by 600 Times Tech Guild members. The following is what I got.
Base salary: $10.2 million
36% of $10.2 million = $10.2 million × 0.36 = $3.672 million
$3.672 million ÷ 600 = $6,120 per person
Current average salary: $158,000 (using what was stated in the graph)
Potential raise: $6,120
Percentage increase = ($6,120 ÷ $158,000) × 100 = 3.87%
So if the value of the 36% raise ($3.672 million) were distributed equally among the 600 guild members:
Each member would receive a $6,120 raise
This would represent approximately a 3.87% increase to their current average salary.
Or, to put it another way, at baseline, the CEO does the work of 64 people (10.2m/158k). And after raises, the CEO does the work of 85 people (13.9m/163k).
That depends on your values. If your values say quantifying how much workers stand to gain if they shut down exorbitant C-suite wages, then good for you.
In most cases decreasing the CEO wage increase to increase workers would only increase workers wages by a tiny amount. That’s almost never the point. The point is that giving the CEO a bigger raise than the workers is a mockery of who actually produces anything.
36% doesn’t tell a clean story. How many dozens of percentage raise would workers get if that CEO’s raise was evenly distributed?
Here’s what I came up with.
Using Meredith Kopit-Levien’s annual pay from the New York Times, at $10.2 million (as stated in the graph.) Then pluging in the 36% raise she was ‘given’ in 2024(?) and divide by 600 Times Tech Guild members. The following is what I got.
Base salary: $10.2 million 36% of $10.2 million = $10.2 million × 0.36 = $3.672 million $3.672 million ÷ 600 = $6,120 per person
Current average salary: $158,000 (using what was stated in the graph) Potential raise: $6,120 Percentage increase = ($6,120 ÷ $158,000) × 100 = 3.87%
So if the value of the 36% raise ($3.672 million) were distributed equally among the 600 guild members: Each member would receive a $6,120 raise This would represent approximately a 3.87% increase to their current average salary.
So they could have doubled everyone’s wage increase with that amount.
Or, to put it another way, at baseline, the CEO does the work of 64 people (10.2m/158k). And after raises, the CEO does the work of 85 people (13.9m/163k).
Wow, what a real bootstrapper. I stand in awe.
I mean there certainly are some CEOs that do sound like 85 assholes whenever they open their mouth. Elon Musk comes to mind as a good public example.
I see this possibly as this scenario perhaps. boss went 3 for you, 3 for me, 3 for you, 3 for me, 3 for you, 3 for me…
Does it matter?
That depends on your values. If your values say quantifying how much workers stand to gain if they shut down exorbitant C-suite wages, then good for you.
In most cases decreasing the CEO wage increase to increase workers would only increase workers wages by a tiny amount. That’s almost never the point. The point is that giving the CEO a bigger raise than the workers is a mockery of who actually produces anything.