INEQUITIES AT AUDUBON

The National Audubon Society, a national conservation organization, claims that equity, diversity, inclusion, and belonging are central to its values and actions. Yet Audubon has a well-documented history of fostering a toxic work culture for women and people of color. A new analysis finds that the group’s pay structure, too, is unequal, with systemic disparities based on gender and race among employees represented by Audubon’s staff union.^[1]
 

Overall, women are paid significantly less than their male counterparts. And BIPOC employees, with few exceptions, are paid less than their white counterparts, and are significantly underrepresented in the organization. In one job category, for example, white men on average make 13 percent (or $9,587) more than white women and 16 percent (or $11,587) more than BIPOC women. (Audubon’s spending on executive pay, meanwhile, has increased by 60 percent since 2019.)

The alarming pay disparities identified in this report amount to thousands of dollars per year for many employees. This has a major impact on Audubon workers, limiting their ability to secure housing, qualify for a car loan, or save for retirement. It perpetuates the very sort of deep-rooted inequalities based on gender and race that Audubon says it is committed to confronting. Bird Union member testimonials provide insight on the human toll of these inequities (see them here and boxes throughout report). What’s more, many Audubon employees do not currently earn a living wage and struggle to make ends meet. The significant wage disparities among employees also contribute to high turnover, negatively affecting the organization.

To achieve equitable wages for everyone and a more sustainable workforce,  Audubon workers argue that it’s necessary to revamp the current job-family structure, which perpetuates an unfair pay system. The Bird Union is also calling on Audubon to abandon its arbitrary and opaque system of discretionary pay increases ostensibly based on merit, and instead commit to regular and equitable cost-of-living increases.
 

The National Audubon Society says it embraces “Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging,” pronouncing that: “With a plurality of voices, we will inspire more people and protect more birds and the places we all need.”² Yet, in direct contrast to these public claims, a 2021 report by law firm Morgan Lewis confirmed witness accounts that “Audubon has a culture of retaliation, fear, and antagonism toward women and people of color.”³

Further contradicting Audubon’s public statements that they value their employees is the fact that the organization initially refused to recognize their workers’ union when a majority of workers requested voluntary recognition in July 2021.⁴ Audubon initially hired Littler Mendelson, a notoriously anti-union law firm, to provide advice during the organizing campaign and later hired a labor negotiator with a track record of anti-union tactics.⁵ Audubon CEO Dr. Elizabeth Gray has largely been invisible during the bargaining process, leaving negotiations in the hands of the external consultant.

After more than 18 months of bargaining, in October of 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determined that Audubon violated labor laws and bargained in bad faith by refusing to bargain over minimum salaries, failing to provide financial documents that are relevant to negotiations, and unilaterally imposing changes, including changes to employee healthcare.⁶

Audubon is financially healthy and could address the bargaining priorities of its employees. The organization has grown year-end assets and net income over the last several years. At the end of the most recent fiscal year, the organization’s net assets stood at $567 million, up $24 million from the previous year. Audubon has maintained net assets above $500 million since 2020, helped by income surpluses. Annual revenue has been above $130 million every year since 2019, reaching $174 million in 2023. Even as Audubon resists reaching an agreement with workers, it has increased its spending on executive compensation by 60 percent since 2019, more than double its total revenue increase in that period.⁷

Audubon management has on more than one occasion taken months to respond to union proposals, only to return to bargaining with incomplete proposals of their own.⁸ Among the issues Audubon is dragging its feet on are the issues of wages and pay equity. Management insists on tying annual wage increases to discretionary factors, rather than agreeing to across-the-board pay increases tied more closely to cost of living.

Based on information provided by the National Audubon Society, this report summarizes findings from an analysis of pay and demographic data for the workforce across the organization’s headquarters and 11 other regional units that are part of the Bird Union-CWA. Since the beginning of their organizing campaign, members of the Bird Union have focused on issues of racial justice, equitable hiring and promotion, and fair pay – issues that if addressed systematically could help address Audubon’s crisis of staff retention and deteriorating public image.⁹

Of Audubon’s approximately 246 full-time employees represented by the Bird Union, 166, or 67.5%, are white. The data shows that in every “Job Family Group” that Audubon management uses to classify employees for pay purposes, there is a disproportionately low number of BIPOC employees compared to the overall US population and the states where Audubon’s staff is concentrated. Women make up two-thirds of the workforce and are particularly over-represented in certain job categories.

Management has divided employees into Job Family Groups that consist of:

• Job Family Group 1 - Conservation, Network, Science
• Job Family Group 2 - Development, Finance, IT Support, Government Relations, HR, Marketing, Operations, EDIB (Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging)
• Job Family Group 3 - Legal, IT Networks & Development

Analysis of the racial/ethnic make-up of the Audubon staff shows that in all Job Family Groups white employees are over-represented compared to BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) employees.

• Job Family Group 1:  White employees outnumber BIPOC employees by almost four to one, with a total of approximately 94 white employees (78%), compared to a total of 27 BIPOC employees, or 22%. (See Table 1)
   

• Job Family Group 2: Shows a total of 111 employees of which 64 (58%) are white, and 47 BIPOC employees (42%).^[10]  The locations with the largest concentration of Group Two workers are New York City and California, where non-Hispanic white people are 31% and 35% of the population, respectively.^[11] (See Table 2)

• Job Family Group 3: Has the fewest employees with a total of six, two-thirds of whom are white. (See Table 3)

The Bird Union has raised serious concerns about employee retention at Audubon.^[12]  Out of 246 employees, nearly 60 percent (146 employees) have been at Audubon for three years or less. Sixty-seven employees (27%) have been with the organization between four and seven years and only 50 employees, or approximately 20 percent of the Audubon workforce, have stayed eight years or more (see Table 5). Of the 146 full-time employees who have been with the organization for three years or less, 97 are white (66%) and 49 are BIPOC (34%), which is a slightly higher share of BIPOC workers than the overall employee base. (See Tables 5 and 6)

The short tenure of Audubon’s workforce likely reflects the inadequate wages Audubon pays many of its employees and the organization’s insistence on giving raises that are primarily discretionary – up to managers to decide – rather than across-the-board cost of living increases.^[13]

There are stark wage disparities at Audubon. Men are paid more than women across all Job Family Groups. In Job Family Group 1, white men make 12 percent more than white women, or $6,286, and 14 percent more than BIPOC women, or $7,294. In Job Family Group 2, white men make 13 percent more than white women, or $9,587, and 16 percent more than BIPOC women, or $11,587. (See Table 7)
 

 Job Family Group 1 has some of the lowest paying jobs in the organization and because there are so many women in this group, this appears to result in “occupational segregation.” According to the Center for American Progress, “Occupational segregation occurs when one demographic group is overrepresented or underrepresented in a certain job category.”^[14] This type of segregation contributes to wage gaps, which then result in diminished earnings over time for the lower-paid occupational groups. 

Management further breaks down Job Families into “Sub-Groups.” Some of the Job Family Sub-Groups with a high percentage of female employees have some of the lowest wages at Audubon. For example, the Education sub-group with 18 workers is 78% female and has a median wage of $43,000. The Engagement sub-group with 24 workers is 77% female and has a median wage of $50,214. 

Pay disparities by race are also present, although the underrepresentation of BIPOC workers means there are fewer workers in each category. To protect confidentiality, this report does not include salary data for populations with fewer than five people. Among the disparities by race, the annual median salary for BIPOC males who have worked at Audubon three years or less and are in Job Family Group 1 is $54,726 while for white males it is $60,000, a 10 percent gap. For Job Family Group 1 employees with four to seven years with Audubon, white men earn 10 percent more than BIPOC men and 22 percent more than BIPOC women (see Table 8). In the one case where BIPOC women are the highest earners (Group 2, tenure of 4 to 7 years), there are no Black women present.

Many of Audubon’s employees do not currently earn a living wage. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has created a living wage calculator that provides the hourly rate a worker needs to earn in order to support themselves and their household. For example, in Washington, D.C. and the surrounding area, the living wage for one adult with one child is $46.42 per hour, or $96,554 yearly. Audubon’s median annual salary for a female employee is $75,095. In California, the hourly rate for a living wage for one adult with one child would be $47.96 or $99,756 yearly. The median annual salary for both male and female employees is $67,000. In Vermont, where the median salary for all employees is $40,040, the hourly rate for a living wage for one adult with a child is $41.86 or $87,069 yearly.^[15]

Ashley Lockwood

I want to share how unfair wages have affected me. I currently make $19.45 an hour, my proposed 2023 wage increase - that is still withheld - is $20.04, which is still less than the current midpoint ($21.39/hr). This is an annual gross of $40,450 and net take home of $30,450, per Paychex tax records. The salary that I currently receive means that I am not able to afford a home on my own. This salary means that I would NEED to have a partner, a roommate, or (in my case) a family member co-owning, to afford to be a homeowner. I am also unable to afford a family as this salary barely covers my own basic mortgage, utility bills, groceries, medical bills, and student loan payments. I would not be able to have kids, given the choice, unless I am paid at least an additional third of my current salary. I have to donate plasma twice a week to supplement my current salary. This usually affords me an extra $500 a month. I also qualify for and need to utilize SNAP food assistance to pay for the rising cost of groceries and basic essentials.