Sony pays its women lesser than its men
The latest company to have come under the scanner for having warped diversity data, is one of the world’s biggest entertainment giants: Sony Pictures Entertainment. Their online operations were hacked last week, exposing everything fight from employee names and their Social Security numbers, to the complete break up of an employee’s payroll and appraisal policy.
In the backdrop of Sony’s 17 highest-paid executives, the company shows massive indications of gender and racial discrimination. Amongst the 17, 88% are white and 94%, male.
But the revelation that was perhaps most irksome, was the discrepancy in the salaries that two employees at the same level drew each year.
Hannah Minghella, the incumbent co-president of production at Sony’s Columbia Pictures division, makes $800,000 less per year than her male counterpart, Columbia Pictures co-president of production Michael De Luca.
At the end of FY 2014, De Luca will have taken home a sum total $2.4 million (including bonuses) while Minghella, is poised to earn no more than $1.6 million.
The possibility of the discrepancy arising out of the bonuses they attract also gets rubbished, as their base annual packages come to the fore.
Minghella’s package, as of October 21, 2014 was $850,000, significantly less than De Luca’s $1.5 million base salary.
These packages were allotted in spite of the fact that Minghella is an employee of 9 years, compared to De Luca, who is 9 months old in the company.
Minghella is set to receive an additional $300,000 under the company’s performance-based bonus plan, called Aspire, and various other bonuses. No Aspire bonus amount is listed for De Luca, though, perhaps because he only joined the company in March. Even withstanding this extra perk, Minghella’s payscale fails to match up to De Luca’s.
De Luca and Minghella both, refused to comment, yet, they had denied the existence of tension and a power struggle earlier this year.
The FBI has launched an investigation into the hacks with Sony’s support. While the act of the cybercrime cannot be justified, what can now be inferred upon openly is that the company’s practices are just as unethical as the means used to expose them.
ORIGINAL SOURCE: Business Insider