As the anchor of one of the most-watched programs in the country, and having cemented herself as one of the most-loved journalists on our screens, Lisa Wilkinson – one would assume – is of prized value at Channel 9.
She has a huge social media following across multiple platforms. She is an ambassador for several high profile charities. Whenever she’s on the cover of a magazine, sales go up. It’s hard to think of a more high profile role model for women in Australia.
And yet.
A new report out today from Annette Sharpe at the Daily Telegraph suggests Wilkinson is paid only half of what her co-host, Karl Stefanovic, takes home every year.
Half.
However, the paper reports, the next month or two could be telling. With her contract up at the network, and Wilkinson in negotiations for another, the subject of her worth is no longer something that can go unrecognised.
In 2015, The Australian reported Karl Stefanovic is “actually taking home about $2.5m annually” on a three year contract, while Wilkinson takes home less than half of that, signing on – in January 2016 – for a reported $1 million a year.
In May, when Wilkinson herself was pressed on the claims in an interview with Charlie Pickering on The Weekly, she denied she had any knowledge of Stefanovic’s pay.
"It’s been widely reported that Karl is paid significantly more than you to host The Today Show. Why do you think that is?” he asked.
Top Comments
Isn’t he on more shows than she is?
Depends how you look at inequality. At $1 million to sit on a chair and talk, or 2.5 million to sit next to her and talk, how does that compare to the producers wage, the makeup artist or the cameraman?
One argument for gender wage inequality is women aren’t naturally as aggressive negotiators. Assuming that’s true for a moment, it’s often missed that introducing a large number of women into a market would then drag down both male and female wages. First, because you’re adding a lot more workers in for the same number of jobs, supply and demand. Second, if women are prepared to take lower pay, that puts pressure on male workers pay as well because employers can hire women for less now instead. This could well explain why female dominant sectors like child care tend to be poorly remunerated, whilst sectors dominated by men tend to see the pay rates hold up quite well, not enough women willing to settle for less to cause undercutting.
If the AFL merged into just one competition, would player salaries go up or more likely go down?
Naturally, this is about trends and averages, there will always be exceptions on both sides.
No comparison to anyone else. She can only be compared to one person and that is Karl and both her and Karl are doing the exact same job (in my opinion she does it 10 times better than Karl). The fact that she quit today is proof that they refused to pay her what she wants.
Now she’s doing the exact same job as Waleed and is being paid three times his salary. Does Waleed deserve a tripling of his pay by your standards?