A Lesson in Fair Pay — from Crazy Rich Asians
The drama around salary negotiations for the co-screenwriters of the film has me thinking about how we measure contributions and value
Once upon a time in London, I was in the process of accepting a job offer. It was a senior role, and I had gone through rounds of interviews — and passed the final hurdle of psychometric testing.
The only thing left to agree was the salary.
I was sent a form from HR that asked for the salary details of my last three roles. I queried why they asked for this information now.
‘Oh, it’s standard,’ HR told me. ‘It’s how we make our offer.’
This is not an unusual practice.
Shouldn’t the offer be related to the value and contributions of the candidate? The responsibilities of the role? Market data?
How this works in business
Let me play out an example to show you how this works:
Let’s say I’m hiring John and Juanita for analyst roles. They are equal candidates, with similar education and experience.
But when it comes time for the salary negotiations, Juanita reveals that she’s been earning $60k in her last role, and John only $45k.
What offers will HR make to John and Juanita?
I’ve been around long enough to know — they won’t be getting the same offer.
But in the real world, it’s more likely Juanita is the person earning less.
And that’s how the pay disparity continues — it become a vicious cycle and it’s hard to break.
How much should co-screenwriters be paid?
This disparity runs across industries. Just ask Adele Lim, the co-writer of the massively successful film, Crazy Rich Asians (box office take $238.5 million).
Lim and co-writer Peter Chiarelli were hired to re-work the magic of the first film by penning a sequel to the smash hit.
According to the Hollywood Reporter, the starting offers from the studio were $800k-$1 million for Chiarelli. Lim (the Asian voice on a movie about Asians) was offered significantly less:
$110k +.
This is a job where the responsibility and credit will be shared. And best case, she was offered 1/7 of the salary of her (male) counterpart.
She turned down the offer.
The studio explained to Lim’s reps that the offers were ‘industry standard established ranges based on experience’ and that ‘making an exception would set a troubling precedent in the business.’
But where is the standard for contribution?
The negotiations for Lim’s salary continued for months as the producers searched for other writers of Asian descent for the job. Then, Lim was given an offer closer to parity with Chiarelli — after he volunteered to split his fee with her.
But why should he have to do that?
Why doesn’t the studio make a fair offer to both writers? If Chiarelli was willing to give up some of his money to work with Lim, it’s obvious that he sees her as a valuable partner.
She made a statement supporting her co-writer, saying he had been ‘incredibly generous’, but what she earned ‘shouldn’t be dependent on the generosity of a white-guy writer’.
Here’s an idea
Look at other businesses. Nike doesn’t care if you have years of pro-basketball experience. They care if you can play — and sell their shoes. That’s how LeBron James signed endorsements deals worth more than $100 million in his first year with the NBA — when he was 18-years-old.
Would it be crazy to set a precedent where talent or contribution was the metric? Or what if we measured and rewarded the results?
Processes and systems exist for a reason. But sometimes they need to be questioned — and changed. In the case of hiring someone for a job, perhaps we should value someone’s ability to do the job more than their previous salary.
Maybe we need to focus on the long-term value, rather than just fighting for the cheapest price.
Originally published at https://www.beth-collier.com on November 4, 2019.
