This is a very interesting case. The BSO had two years to resolve the issue (based upon the new law) and it wasn’t resolved.
I read about this with interest. It seems like a pretty objective case - you can’t argue the oboe player makes more profit for the company than the flute player.
I can’t understand why they didn’t negotiate with her. And why different pay scales in the first place?
We still have a long way to go. Why shouldn’t this be easier than it is?
I wonder if their is a pay bracket for instruments like there is in other businesses eg a range for engineers, a range for marketing, a range for finance etc.?
@momof3boys I wondered that myself. I’d be interested to know if other orchestras end up with similar suits or if BSO is just that far behind the times. I was pretty surprised by this. I kept looking in the article for her salary but didn’t see it. I would like to know just how wide the gap is.
As I recall, the article said she is paid 75% of the salary of the male oboe player.
The suit is based on a state law - so don’t expect more orchestra suits (as the other world class orchestras are in other states). I read elsewhere the oboist is making $280,000 and she makes $70,000 less (2016 pay).
I could maybe see this if there is some supply and demand at work. I am sure there are more flutes, clarinets, trumpets, etc than harp or lute or contrabassoon, etc. so perhaps the more obscure instruments may have some incentive in their pay.
But the first chair flute and first chair oboe would be practically interchangeable in terms of abundance and value to an orchestra.
Just to be contrary, the oboeist has been with BSO longer than she has. Wouldn’t that partially explain the pay difference? How much more should he get if he was 10 years senior? 10%? 20%? Even 25%?
Most orchestras have only one or two oboe players. Some have more flutes. There are many more flute players than oboe players…but I’m sure at the BSO level, the number of those auditioning is similar.
Is there a seniority difference? The oboe player served on the selection committee for this flute player…so presumably he has been in the orchestra for more years.
Is there a newer first chair person who is being paid more?
Not sure that would account for a $70,000 difference in pay…but at the salaries the BSO makes, it might.
There are gender differences in pay in many areas of work which I would love to see reconciled.
As much as I like to see gender gap disappears entirely, not sure this is a good case to bring that about. Oboeists and flute players are a bit tricky to compare. There are so few of them in an orchestra. Individual difference may obscure gender difference. The oboist may have negotiated better. Maybe he got an offer from somewhere and used it to up his salary. It will be easier if BSO paid male violinists better than female violinists in the same section. There are more samples to compare.
according to another article - “Rowe’s suit claims that in addition to being paid less than Ferrillo (who made $286,621 in 2015, according to tax filings), she was also paid less than the orchestra’s principal trumpet, viola, timpani and French horn players, all of whom are men.”
I don’t know why she doesn’t compare male/female violinists to prove BSO is biased. There are more than 50 of them. If she can show the pay discrepancies there and compare her pay to other principals in the wind section, her case would be stronger.
I think their could be many factors could be in play. While women are still compensated lower than men in most studies that are apples to apples the difference is less than 10 percent. I am not sure this is apples to apples but if any points get made I am all for it!
There may also be unions involved.
“According to her suit, she has been profiled as a soloist with the orchestra 27 times in the years since she was hired — more than any other BSO principal musician — and that the orchestra has repeatedly highlighted her in its marketing, publicity and social media materials.”
“Rowe alleges that the symphony’s management and public relations staff asked her in December 2017 to participate in the creation of a National Geographic documentary episode, hosted by Katie Couric…”
Sounds like she’s been marketed pretty heavily by the orchestra. I would think that fame/reputation would serve as an equalizer to the equivalent male principal with more experience.
One of the issues is that the orchestra would base a new hire’s pay on his or her previous pay. If a woman had been underpaid in her previous position she would continue to be underpaid in her new position and would never catch up to a man who started his career at a higher pay because, you know, he was a man.
Another issue is that during her tenure in the orchestra she had become greatly accomplished and that was not reflected in her pay.
The oboist with whom she is compared in the suit is entirely supportive of her claims.
Funny you should mention previous pay. The state law she filing under also makes it illegal for companies to ask potential employees their previous/current salary. So that inequitable pay is not perpetuated.
280k for the oboist. Never realized they were compensated at that level with so many musicians in the orchestra. And it’s a great company but one of many in most great cities. It’s much more lucrative than I had known.
Good for them. And just give her the darn money. I bet the lawsuit cost more in a week. And it’s the right thing to do if she is that talented.
Wow, I doubt our symphony and many others are as well compensated. Must be intense competition for such positions.