AMD pays new CEO $150K LESS than her male predecessor The latest insult to women working in tech came courtesy of chipmaker AMD, whose new CEO Lisa Su will take home a smaller base salary than Rory Read, the man she recently replaced. Su rocked up at AMD early 2012 as senior veep and GM for global business units and was made chief operating officer in January, raking in some $650 …
Does stuff like that not happen all the time in different industries regardless of gender ? (Like say Football Managers the ones with more experience cost more).
Take for example a team promoting the manager of the reserve team instead of recruiting a celebrity one.
Is that not reasonably the norm.
It is the norm, but this time it's happened to a woman! When David Moyes got less than Alex Ferguson despite being less experienced and less successful, he was a man so it was ok. If Davina Moyes got the same deal as David then it would have been sexism.
The gender wage gap is not a colleague-to-colleague comparison, it is the average wage of full time workers. A female secretary with GCSEs working 35 hours is compared to a male executive with an MBA working 50 hours and the only factors which matter for the comparison are their pay and gender. When other factors are accounted for the difference goes away, so they tend not to be accounted for.
And if those two happen to be married, she will spend more of his money than he does, so who cares where it comes from?
Considering this is normal, why make a story of it? The Register seems increasingly sexist to me, increasingly M.A.D.D. Sadly, such a blind push to equal professionalism between the sexes is retrogressive, similar to treading in quick sand.
If we can stand not to look at gender, then I think somewhere in there we can maybe see that it's still not right. A job is a job. Does it really matter if you have previous employment or not when a job is being done as expected? Of course, then how do you steal employees from other companies? Whatever, shit happens. And a lousy $850,000 instead of a 1 million...Oh the tragedy! How will her children ever eat?!!?
@ MyBackDoor
"Considering this is normal, why make a story of it?"
I have noticed an odd increase in gender and equality topics recently as if I accidentally landed on the guardian or jezebel. Are the reg hacks hiding under their desks as militant feminists storm the building and ramp up their propaganda machine or have hackers hijacked accounts and started putting up these unthinking pieces?
For what I consider a normal reg article I would expect reason and logic to enter an article regardless of the conclusion it comes to. All I see here is the usual regurgitation of identifying a group as a victim and then looking for reasons to match that conclusion. I may try to re-read it later and see if I am interpreting it incorrectly this morning before my coffee
I hope there's just as much outrage whenever Ms. Su walks away from AMD and whoever comes afterward receives a lower salary starting point. My prediction is there would be no outrage if this happened, man or woman successor, simply an extension of the double standard that exists around gender equality.
Isn't it about time that all of us stop making comparisons on the basis of race, gender, etc., and just individuals stand for themselves? Personally, I think myself worth more than others in my same profession and act like it during negotiations, so I'm sure I skew the gender pay scale as a result. If Ms. Su is happy with her compensation, we should be too. If she isn't, then she shouldn't take the job.
Now just what is the work experience of the two? Now if the man had more experience, say, 5 or 10 or even 15 years in management and the woman has just moved into management the difference in pay is probable less than if it had been a man with the same experience as the woman had been appointed as CEO.
Now when the women come up with a true gender discrimination then tell us so we can do something about it. But stop, please, reporting these feminist complaints that have no bases.
> [....] raking in some $650,000 a year.
> Promotion to the CEO’s chair got her another $200,000 in salary but this is still some way short of the $1m that former Lenovo exec Read received each month.
$850k a year is quite a way short of $1m per month in my book. Is this a typo, or El Reg correspondents' compensation is such that $11 million are neither here nor there?
quote: "And tell me why it's relevant. They are in different industry sectors."
Because it is exactly the same job: Read was employed as CEO of AMD, and Su is now employed as CEO of AMD, and there is a difference in remuneration package between the 2.
But I had assumed that Su was on $850k compared to Read's $1m during the same time period, not $850k per annum vs $1m per calendar month. That is a bit more of a discrepancy than a few % for not having the same experience...
...I don't think there is going to be as much of a business to manage for the new incumbent. They could try to argue that the salary reflects the troubled times... Although you could just as easily argue that the difficulties ahead are going to deserve better compensation since they will require very real business acumen to deal with...
AMD have announced they're cutting their workforce by 7% amid declining revenues. Given the situation it would be an outrage if executive pay was not also cut.
The Register are really grasping at straws here to try and push their sexism in IT agenda. In this case they've made themselves look very stupid.
"In this case they've made themselves look very stupid."
Yeah, really stupid. Good grief.
C.
Makes sense to pay CEO less based on company performance?
Why is discrimination of some kind the first thing people look at FFS. So it's not really an insult to women anywhere, only the BS that the author has put in the article.
This is Daily Mail territory.
As a male and can attest that you get what you negotiate. I discovered I was paid 25% less than a female colleague in a lower role so went and negotiated a rise, not based on gender but the fact I ran the whole show and was worth it.
It would be interesting to hear what the new CEO in the story has to say, perhaps she took a lower salary but a better performance package, or maybe the company simply didn't have the budget. It would surprise me if they said " It's a bird, we can get her cheap! "
Yes, she makes a little less than her predecessor, at least at first, which is pretty common in any job. But a lot of execs at this level have all manner of perks that make being shorted a hundred grand or so seem like someone forgetting to kick in a buck for their share of a tip. Some examples include: huge sign-on bonuses, "car expense" (essentially, buy whatever car you want on us), relocation/travel/commuting reimbursement, housing expense, wardrobe, even little things like free dry cleaning and magazine subscriptions are included.
My general point is, trying to measure what an exec at this level actually makes from a base salary is like trying to understand the national debt without taking into account trade agreements and all manner of other arrangements between countries.
Yes, she makes a little less than her predecessor, at least at first, which is pretty common in any job.
I think you pretty much nailed the point here... It *is* pretty common for women to make less than men in any job though I can't imagine that this is simply a coincidence across the board. (And yes, I intentionally misconstrued your argument.)
But a lot of execs at this level have all manner of perks that make being shorted a hundred grand or so seem like someone forgetting to kick in a buck for their share of a tip.
So male CEOs don't get any of these perks?
It sounds like a lot of you are concerned that feminism might've gone too far! You're in luck: here's a simple heuristic you can use to figure out if feminism has gone too far:
If you wake up one day and women in IT are getting paid 20% more than their male counterparts, then feminism has, in fact, gone too far.
If you wake up one day (today for example) and women in IT are still making 20% less than their male counterparts, but somebody posted an article to tell you about it, making you feel discomfort and the urge to strike out, then feminism has not gone too far.
I can only recommend you stick to molesting donkeys. That way you are consistently wrong.
For the author to post an article spouting what strongly looks like feminist rubbish and to be called out on it is not 'concern it has gone too far'. It is plain and simple calling bull. If you dont quite understand why then I suggest reading a lot of the comments than have gone before yours.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
