In shocking twist, man paid more than woman

[KateSheppard]

It has been revealed that the new EasyJet boss - a man - is being paid almost 5% more than the previous boss - a woman.

Despite the fact that Dame Carolyn McCall had been in the role for 7 years - and was well regarded for her work during that period - Johan Lungren has started on a higher rate. EasyJet initially claimed that Mr Lungren simply started on the rate that Dame Carolyn would have received had she received her annual raise ... but it inevitably turned out that her annual raise would have been only 3%. Woops. Mr Lungren has since decided to reduce his base rate to that of Dame Carolyn.

I guess this puts to rest the common claim that relative "experience" in the role directs pay, oft made when new female bosses are installed at a much lower rate than their male boss predecessors.

On a totally unrelated note, Dame Carolyn went on to lead ITV - on a base rate at 5% less than her predecessor, a man.

www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/17/easyjet-boss-dame-carolyn-mccall-named-new-itv-chief-executive/

This is how women are treated with equality legislation.

'On a totally unrelated note, Dame Carolyn went on to lead ITV - on a base rate at 5% less than her predecessor, a man.'

Oh FFS. How can they possibly justify this shit?

I've had so many men argue with me recently that pay gap is no longer a thing. Then when I present evidence similar to the above, BBC etc.. they then move to dismiss it because it's about rich women innit and they should be grateful that they get paid a lot more than the average man in the street.

They fail to understand that if this stuff goes on at the top it happens in the middle and the bottom too with bigger consequences.

Yeah but the pay gap isn't a thing. It's clearly not her sex that's the issue. Because equality exists wholly and completely and companies never deviate from their obligations. Not ever.

She's just exactly 5% less good at her job. She may have been good in the roll for 7 years but those individual men are worth 5% more to those companies. Even as a new hire her replacement is 5% better at her job, because of reasons...

This has nothing to do with the gender pay gap. The article says itself she will get a better pay package at ITV than her male predecessor.

He would have gotten a measly 24.94 million compared to her 25.2 million.

Having worked in recruitment, when bringing someone new in at these high levels a lot of companies give a slight pay boost. As shown in both examples in article.

OvaHere it very definitely is about the bottom of the pay range too - I started a thread earlier about the ongoing equal pay cases being fought against Sainsburys and Asda. (The thread seems to have dropped off everyone's radar though. )