tinyurl.com/y58xtos
I think this is startling - people in the BBC spending an average £137 a day on taxis, every day, for months.
It could only happen in an organisation awash with public money.
There clearly needs to be reform of the way the corporation's transport needs are handled.
Will anything be done?
I hope so, but I doubt it.
Last edited by: ifithelps on Wed 21 Apr 10 at 09:45
|
"It could only happen in an organisation awash with public money."
Don't you believe it. That sort of amount is pocket money compared with the amounts claimed as expenses in City companies.
|
...That sort of amount is pocket money compared with the amounts claimed as expenses in City companies...
If that's how they decide to spend some of their profits, that's a matter for those that are claiming and the shareholders.
Like it or not, there are different responsibilties that come with working for a public organisation.
These BBC execs are already drawing wages of six or eight grand a week, yet they still want more.
|
|
I don't know if it's still the case but it was reported a couple of years ago that the DG's wife got a car from the corporation - despite not being employed by them. Amazing.
|
...amazing...
Agreed, I try to relate this to the real world in which I live.
If I spent £100 on a single taxi, just once, my lot would probably not pay it and I'd expect a ticking off for even claiming.
We have strict rules about entertaining, they will pay up to about £10 per head for a lunch which I think is more than fair.
These BBC fellas seem to think nothing of spending hundreds.
And can you imagine their mobile/data bills?
|
|
I understand much of the BBC product is then sold on around the world, more than paying for the production costs. Makes you wonder where the money goes. Personally I think it's wrong that we have absolutely no say in the fee rises. High time, in this day of pay for your choices, that we were given the choice whether to pay or not. Surely if we go totally digital there'd be a way to deny the service to those that don't want it?
|
These prices aren't that bad?!
If you need to get from A to B in london, taking a cab seems sensible?
We're in glasgow (much cheaper) and our bill for taxis significantly exceeds this for junior staff never mind senior execs!
Edit: we have less staff in our site too i'd imagine than 1 big bbc office. This has been blown out of proportion i think -- compare it with other similar businesses in london.
Last edited by: CraigP on Wed 21 Apr 10 at 11:09
|
...This has been blown out of proportion i think -- compare it with other similar businesses in london...
Craig,
With respect, I think you have mis-read the story.
Director of Vision Jana Bennet spent £4,682 in three months on taxis for herself, including a bill of £675 in two days.
The other two directors were not far behind.
The three of them spent a total of more than £12,000 in three months on taxis for themselves - no one else.
These figures take no acount of the spending of their staff.
It truly beggars belief - when do these three find the time to do any work?
They must be riding round in cabs all day and half the night to spend that much.
|
>> Director of Vision Jana Bennet spent £4 682 in three months on taxis for herself
>> including a bill of £675 in two days.
If you assume 60 working days in those 3 months, it's only about £80 a day. If she has to nip around London in black cabs for meetings several times a day, she could easily spend that.
Maybe she should be on the tube/bus, but when you are paying somebody a lot of money, do you want them off the mobile network on a tube, or unable to work on a crowded bus for a couple of hours a day? I would want them from meeting to meeting as quickly as possible, and able to work during the journeys.
|
I wonder what the comparable cost of having cars and drivers standing by would be - either cabs or leased cars ?
The £80 per day figure which SS calculates looks quite plausible to me, there are obvious questions about the use of alternatives such as teleconferencing but nevertheless these taxi costs are perhaps not quite the profligacy they might first appear.
I work for a company where very senior people are driven in company limos, the majority use taxis and I (when I can) walk and use the tube - I don't need to but it is my preference and I'm certainly not thanked for it.
I also have cause to work near to the the ITV studios on the South Bank, there are always myriad taxis and those black VW Sharans/Galaxys (from the company featured on the Apprentice car-wash task) waiting or ferrying people around so this suggests it is endemic and standard practice in the media industry ?
|
Ahhh thanks for that iih -- you're right i got the wrong end of the stick. I take back what i said.
So now i'm not comparing entire office spend -- How can only 3 people spend, a years salary for some, in 3 months on taxis!
Burn them i say! :-P
|
>>>How can only 3 people spend, a years salary for some, in 3 months on taxis!
Oh dear you have little idea what is spent in business at higher levels... your bonfire would be going a long time.
|
£80 per day must have to go to a lot of meetings in a day. I doubt all of them are needed, a lot of the meeting with the BBC are termed creative discussions.
I know that really is a drop in the ocean for many big businesses, plenty are prepared, for example, pay £8000 for a FC ticket to Tokyo. But many people feel aggveived by the bbc spending money like water especially as they have little choice in paying the fee, so the bbc come in for a lot more flak.
|
>> £80 per day must have to go to a lot of meetings in a day.
Not really, used to cost me £20 to get from Kings Cross to Paddington and back, and that is just down Marylebone Road, bus lanes almost all the way.
>> I doubt all of them are needed a lot of the meeting with the BBC
>> are termed creative discussions.
I can't really comment on that, but if the meetings are needed, then the issue of their wasted salaries is a much bigger issue than how much is spent getting to and from the meetings.
|
That still leaves £60 for more meetings plus the other meetings inside the building of BBC HQ. I suppose the cost of expenses is a early warning indicator as they are often easier to get hold of.
Maybe I don't know how things work at the top of the tree, but down here meetings=waste of time. I've been to both public and private sector meetings and used as a reason to have a chit chat better known as touching base or whatever the new phrase is.
|
Since the license fee is practically extracted at gunpoint, and failure to pay is a 'crime' I think every penny of the BBCs expenditure should be under scrutiny.
|
These so called taxi charges do often mean a private hire car with driver at a daily rate where perhaps the meeting schedule/location makes it the best option. Also the 230 BBC company (leased) cars are a very ordinary selection which many here would grumble at if looking for a job there. Apart from the three senior execs cars with drivers the most prestige one seems to be a Citroen C8!
The problem is the majority of the public aren't able to apply a fair judgement of what is acceptable at this level of business. The cost of operating any large business in London is very significant.
I happily pay the licence fee, I reckon it's a bargain compared to the huge amounts folks spend on Sky trash channels and good value against other ways of obtaining worthwhile media.
|
If you know people who work in the BBC, you will know that there is massive wastage of our hard-earned. I know an ex-BBC PA to a director, and she would have his driver wait while she did her shopping in Oxford Street on a weekly basis.
There is scope for really massive savings there.
|
What I can't understand is why single out the BBC?
What is described and aluded to above is commonplace across the majority of major companies. We are not *paying their wages* at the BBC any more than the cost of our daily paper or weekly supermarket shop means we are paying the wages of their senior figures yet the *excesses* of some major companies would make the BBC look small fry.
|
>> We are not *paying their wages* at the BBC any more than the cost of
>> our daily paper or weekly supermarket shop means we are paying the wages of their
>> senior figures
I think the BBC is often viewed differently because of the TV licence funding, it can be seen as a tax on receiving a TV signal, regardless of whether you watch the BBC or not.
It could be perceived to be similar to a supermarket tax that entitled you to shop at supermarkets, which was paid to Tesco, even if you did all your shopping at Waitrose.
|
Of course the BBC needs the licence fee if it is to be abreast of modern technology: like video conferencing.
You need taxis for video conferencing.... err no.
Anyone who thinks the BBC is run on any sort of commercial lines is deluded.
When all you do is increase your fees in line with inflation... so next year's taxi fees can increase as well..
.
I know what the companies I worked in would do with expenses like that. Force the executives to pay for themselves .. and then operate strict budgets..
But hey it's not their money they are wasting .. it's ours so that's all right...
|
|
This topic went way off anything to do with motoring ages ago. But if you can't beat them, join 'em. So here's my two penn'orth. Yes, we should be able to have some idea where licence fees go to, but there's far too much beeb bashing for my liking. What about the banks, many of which are now pretty much owned by us yet still engage in blatant daylight robbery, behave like playground bullies and pay themselves massive bonuses, etc. I'd really love to get wind of their taxi and entertainment bills...
|
>>Yes we should be able
>> to have some idea where licence fees go to but there's far too much beeb
>> bashing for my liking. What about the banks many of which are now pretty much
>> owned by us yet still engage in blatant daylight robbery behave like playground bullies and
>> pay themselves massive bonuses etc.
I think the main problem is a disconnect between people that work in senior position in the likes of the BBC and banks, and the expectations of the man in the street.
The question is whether those expectations are realistic, when it comes to issues such as retention.
Take the recent results from Goldman Sachs, who made $3.5 billion profits in the last 12 weeks. Somebody there is doing something right. If they don't get their bonus they will likely go and do it somewhere else, same as if they made them take the bus between meetings. Also, if they are making the bank millions every week, does the bank really want them to waste time on commuting, for the sake of a $100 taxi bill here and there.
The BBC is less clear cut because the value they add is not profit it is programming output, but the same still applies. Tell them that they have to take the bus and they will likely go to ITV.
No disrespect to the average man in the street, but he would not be able to make millions every week or turn out some of the programming that the BBC do.
Senior people in these places get special privileges because they are, arguably special (in those niches), and there would always be somebody else who will pay them instead.
The other thing with the banks is that, here and in the US, the governments have generally taken stock in exchange for the bailouts. So the last thing that the governments want to do is anything that will knock the banks' profits and hence their share prices, anything such as demotivating the workforce.
|
>> pay themselves massive bonuses
Qualify that, the porkers at the top, pay themselves massive bonuses.
The folks at the bottom and the middle for the most part, who delivered above and beyond their objectives, who earned their crust fair and square, who's salary is below average on account of their bonus.
They got stuffed. Royally. It's the porkers at the top and we should be careful to qualify them as such when we mention bankers bonuses.
Otherwise, what happens, is the RBS this year. Fred the Shred collected his tidy sum, meanwhile a call centre worker (she earns £16k / year) had her £300 bonus (yeah a full £300) slashed to just over £100.
Fair? Not on your nelly. Why did it happen? Why were they punished because the greedy unaccountables stuffed up.
EDIT: Stuffed up, but still ultimately collected their golden parachute.
Last edited by: CraigP on Wed 21 Apr 10 at 22:02
|
hate the bbc
they dont have standards
can i say that?
its my opinion and my opinion only
Last edited by: Bellboy on Wed 21 Apr 10 at 22:31
|
The issue I have with the BBCs bloated expenditure is it is my money - extracted from me with threats and the full power of the legal system behind to back up some outdated 1949 telegraphy act.
As for Sky,banks etc - they're no comparison - you have the option of buying or using them. As soon as you buy a TV, your address is passed to the license extraction department as if you were some kind of underworld criminal.
|
How many taxis can a busy exec need? - CGNorwich
