BBC staff have had their salaries published if they are paid more than £150,000 a year.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40663781
Chris Evans is worth - How Much?
|
|
I'm not at all surprised by the sort of salaries paid but I do find it surprising that Evans tops the list. Probably a one-off if it's all based on one year, in which he was being paid for his performances in the Top Gear revival flop. At least I hope so, his radio efforts are unlistenable drivel to me.
|
>> At least I hope so, his radio efforts are unlistenable drivel to me.
>>
And me, but we are probably not his target audience and his listening numbers are good, even after a slip when he quit Top Gear.
I guess it depends on when he signed his contract.
For most of the people named yesterday it supposedly reflects "market" value though I can imagine some of them might struggle to make that money elsewhere.
|
Even more reasons to scrap the license fee!
Don't understand why political parties don't make it into their agenda. That will attract a good number of votes.
Last edited by: movilogo on Thu 20 Jul 17 at 09:22
|
I don't know how Jeremy Vine et al are able to look the camera in the lens when they are talking about the poor/fairness/austerity etc. It's just another example of left-wing hypocrisy.
|
>> I don't know how Jeremy Vine et al are able to look the camera in
>> the lens when they are talking about the poor/fairness/austerity etc. It's just another example of
>> left-wing hypocrisy.
Ahhh, the usual suspects wheeling out the well off lefties are hypocrites (and poor lefties jealous) tripe.
|
"Ahhh, the usual suspects"
Realists, Brompt, Realists. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can earn whatever the market awards them but, please, let's not have the hypocrisy.
|
Jeremy Bowen is the only one on the list worth the money. I'd never heard of Claudia Whatsherface
until yesterday.
|
>>Jeremy Bowen is the only one on the list worth the money
Eddie Mair is a boss - PM and iPM always worth a listen.
|
>> Even more reasons to scrap the license fee!
I wouldn't support that. Anything that can profitably be produced by commercial TV is or will be, we get a lot from the BBC that would disappear. Some of it is very popular programming, that would be taken over or continue in a purely commercial world, but it includes things that would never have been tried but for the BBC (Bake Off?). Purely advertising-supported TV is there only to deliver the target audiences, and a lot of it is therefore effectively designed for idiots - the televisual equivalent of online clickbait.
The licence fee cost is trivial compared with say Sky subs.
I do think though that BBC could and should put some sort of limits its 'talent' payments. If Evans wants to sod off, let him. If some popular ones leave then get/grow some more - the serious moneygrabbers will always leave eventually in any case. It probably wouldn't save a lot of money but it would help to bring new talent out, enhance creativity, and we wouldn't have to keep seeing the same old faces.
Presenters for example get huge value from the exposure alone that enables them to make money from other sources. They wouldn't all leave.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 20 Jul 17 at 09:51
|
I expect many of these also have incomes outside the BBC, sometimes from companies providing service to the BBC (and other broadcasters) and also from other business interests.
I don't see a problem paying personalities a good living, after all they are the ones who bring in the figures for the BBC, whether they are to your taste or not.
It's just a shame that not everyone who performs valuable public service e.g. politicians, and health and other public sector workers is valued in the same way. (Mind you, there are some I of those have sympathy for, and some less so...!!)
The BBC licence fee represents really good value for money compared to other forms of entertainment and I can never understand why people don't think for a minute or two about the breadth and depth of their offering before jumping on the "scrap the licence fee" bandwagon. I am getting fed up with the kind of "anti establishment" mentality which is causing such upheaval across the world today.
|
|
I suspect a lot of good programs made by the BBC wouldn't be made by a commercial TV company. Then again, how or why is Bargain Hunt still being made?
|
>> I suspect a lot of good programs made by the BBC wouldn't be made by
>> a commercial TV company. Then again, how or why is Bargain Hunt still being made?
>>
It is a downmarket version of Antiques Roadshow for the masses who watch daytime TV. :-)
|
>> I don't see a problem paying personalities a good living, after all they are the
>> ones who bring in the figures for the BBC, whether they are to your taste
>> or not.
Bringing the figures for what? If it's competing with commercial 'clickbait' it's adding nothing we can't get elsewhere.
Here's view of where the BBC's licence income goes:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/14/how-does-the-bbc-spend-its-5bn-in-licence-fee-money/
Inevitably, non-commercial entities such as the BBC spend a lot of their money "because they can". The best way of dealing with that is to set a licence fee and require them to work within it, which is what happens. The problem is it has become political, with politicians wanting to tell the BBC what to do. If the BBC can continue to seek to entertain, educate and inform, remain apolitical, cover a wide range of culture and arts, and provide things that the purely commercial sector can't, then I think there is a strong case for continuing the licence fee.
Probably the best value for me is Radio 4. Speech radio (other than phone-in rubbish) doesn't really exist in commercial radio. I'd pay the licence fee for that alone (it costs about 3% of the licence fee, about £4 per household per year), but there is so much more.
|
>> If the BBC can ... remain apolitical,
>>
?? doesn't strike me as very apolitical these days. Definitely more Guardian than Telegraph in news / current affairs etc.
|
>> >> If the BBC can ... remain apolitical,
>> >>
>> ?? doesn't strike me as very apolitical these days. Definitely more Guardian than Telegraph in
>> news / current affairs etc.
Unless you happen to be a Labour supporter, when it is obviously pro conservative.
Truth is that some bias from individuals will always be perceived from time to time, but while the BBC gets complaints from all sides it is probably getting it more or less right.
|
Unless you happen to be a Labour supporter, when it is obviously pro conservative.
I can't say I've seen that criticism, genuinely do labour supporters think it's too right wing?
Perhaps I've never taken notice or not looked in the right places.
|
I wonder though on weight of criticism what the general consensus is. I'd bet it would overwhelmingly say it's too left wing.
Personally it's fine to me and their website is my main source of news. That's my main use of the BBC, I watch their tv shows occasionally and don't listen to their radio at all (apart from TMS when in the car)
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 20 Jul 17 at 12:58
|
>> Personally it's fine to me and their website is my main source of news. That's
>> my main use of the BBC, I watch their tv shows occasionally
Likewise, and I do listen to 5 Live and other inc TMS. The BBC is a little left wing though I can handle that. I also occasionally read the DT and look at their website and FB feed.
Journalists are, on balance, a little left of centre so a left bias in an organisation with a broad perspective is perhaps inevitable.
|
|
Being slightly right of centre, I thought my political antennae would have alerted me to left wing bias, but despite continual reference to it in the HYS bit and elsewhere, my alarms don't often go off. And, as per the comment about Laura above, there is usually balance in their reporting.
|
>> I can't say I've seen that criticism, genuinely do labour supporters think it's too right
>> wing?
Manatees links give some good leads. One is about how interviewees are treated; Paxo constantly interrupted Corbyn but hardly stopped the PM at all. Kuenssberg irritates by pressing points that don't really matter, for example will Corbyn bow/kiss the Monarch's hand etc on accepting his appointment to the Privy Council.
|
Discussion of the rights and wrongs of BBC salaries is pointless unless you know what the commercial channels pay their equivalents. If you want the best you have to at least match what your competitors pay or you don't get them.
The licence fee is still the best way of paying for a decent service, even if only because you don't lose the will to live during endless ad breaks every ten minutes.
|
>> Discussion of the rights and wrongs of BBC salaries is pointless unless you know what
>> the commercial channels pay their equivalents. If you want the best you have to at
>> least match what your competitors pay or you don't get them
Up to a point. Money isn't the primary motivator for all of them, and the BBC is the BBC.
|
>> The licence fee is still the best way of paying for a decent service, even
>> if only because you don't lose the will to live during endless ad breaks every
>> ten minutes.
If it wasn't for our DVD recorder, I doubt whether we would ever watch any programmes on the commercial channels.
|
|
Likewise. There is one comedy series on Sky 1 (I think) and maybe two on ITV which I watch, otherwise it's pretty much BBC all the way. Oh, plus the F1 on Ch4 or Ch5 or wherever it is now.
|
|
There are two issues - one is about the high levels of overall pay, and the other is that blokes seem to paid more than women. If the Beeb is telling the public that it's all about 'market forces', why can't they just man-up and tell the women the same thing?
|
There are two separate issues here surely.
One is that people within one organisation should receive equal pay for doing the same job. That doesn't just mean doing the same thing, it means producing the same output. There's obviously a difficulty of measuring that when the "output" is popular appeal and audience ratings.
The other is whether the proportion of such people at all levels should be equal with respect to the general population balance, with respect to gender, race, disability, religion, age, height, or anything else.
If you discover that a higher proportion of newsreaders are, say, taller, or right-handed, is that a cause for concern or just a mildly interesting fact? Should anything be done to alter it?
It seems to me that as long as the basic selection is scrupulously fair, with no hidden biases, then the resulting spread of outcomes is simply chance, and of no concern.
Or, for example, if it is true that Jews are proportionately more represented in the world's banking dynasties than say Christians or Moslems, because anciently money-lending was one of the limited occupations open to them, then should they be penalised in order to even the numbers?
Or if being a school dinner-person appeals more to ladies than men because the hours are more convenient and part-time, does it matter?
|
|
Distinguish between equality of opportunity, and equality of outcomes. The second is not a reliable measure of the first.
|
Not quite understanding that one Manatee so would you analyse this one for me to demonstrate it.
30 lorry drivers of all ages apply for one job.
29 are male and 1 is female.
21 of the 29 males have at least 20 years of experience behind them and 8 are relatively new to the job.
The female has just 3 years experience.
Now the conundrum starts!
If you give the job to an experienced male (as I would) then you are accused of discriminating against female drivers.
If you give the job to the female then the 29 male drivers will say it is favouritism and she isn't as able as them of doing the job.
This scenario happens in transport on a daily basis and it's often discussed but never resolved:)
Pat
|
>> The female has just 3 years experience.
>> If you give the job to the female then the 29 male drivers will say
>> it is favouritism and she isn't as able as them of doing the job.
The 21 with lengthy experience might say that. Can an objective test applied? It could be both practical and a competency based interview
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 21 Jul 17 at 15:33
|
yes, it's usually practical (driving) and theory ( legal obligations and routing experience based) and of course the 21 males with years of experience can run rings around the others.
But, I feel for the new drivers, both male and female who struggle to find work.
Pat
|
>> yes, it's usually practical (driving) and theory ( legal obligations and routing experience based) and
>> of course the 21 males with years of experience can run rings around the others.
>>
>> But, I feel for the new drivers, both male and female who struggle to find
>> work.
>>
Having worked in recruitment and transport management roles, I'd suggest that what's needed in the first place is a bit more in-depth analysis of the experience. One driver may well have a background with a blue-chip company which provides not only regular driver training in roadcraft and law, the next may have spent much of his working life with a fairly disreputable small haulier running very close to the wind. Both, admittedly, have 21 years of experience but by the same token you could reasonably say that the latter one has 21 years of accruing bad habits. I lost count of the number of drivers I interviewed, with years of relevant experience on their CV's, who failed miserably on a simple practical tachograph test; thankfully the advent of DCPC should have righted this by now. Yes even I admit it has its uses!
As you well know, Pat, the half-hour assessment which is as much as many companies do often only tells half the story in our trade; it's not just aboput how a driver handles his or her vehicle, but how they deal with the constantly changing scenario of day-to-day issues which professional drivers face. I daresay it's much the same in other sectors.
There is far more to good recruitment practice than meets the eye, and regrettably pressure from the "equality police" frequently overlooks this.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Fri 21 Jul 17 at 19:07
|
Equality of opportunity would be to ignore the gender of the applicants and their ages and to assess their abilities to do the job.
If that results in one of the men getting the job, then you have equality of opportunity. What you do not have is equality of outcome because 3% of the applicants were women but 0% of the successful applicants were.
Obviously it's hard to illustrate with small numbers and one job because the % of successful women applicants can only be 0% or 100%.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 21 Jul 17 at 15:45
|
>> If that results in one of the men getting the job, then you have equality
>> of opportunity. What you do not have is equality of outcome because 3% of the
>> applicants were women but 0% of the successful applicants were.
Are there so few female applicants because women don't want to be lorry drivers at any price or could work be done to widen the pool by encouraging female applicants? Is something driving away those who might like the idea but don't progress their interest.
Thirty or so years ago you needed a willy to be an airline pilot. Not so now.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 21 Jul 17 at 17:14
|
It's not something a female can do with family commitments because of the long hours which are unpredictable and being away from home unless the father takes on the house husband role really.
Pat
|
Just to add, the Father who has taken time off to be a househusband also face the same problems returning to the job after some years away as was mentioned in another thread by Smokie, and get over looked for jobs too.
Changing the job to accommodate females?
Not sure I agree with that really.
The job is what it is, and to be able to do it well you have to accept that as a female and not expect the job to change because you want to do it.
....Oh dear, I do hope that doesn't start it all off again but I have to be honest:)
Pat
|
|
Did you find it tough getting back to work as a lorry driver after having children?
|
I waited until my son was 13 before giving up my company car and safe salary to be a lorry driver!
He's 52 now!
Pat
|
|
Thanks for sharing Pat :-) So you had a total change of career in your 30s I guess.... well done for doing what you wanted rather than stick to the rat race so to speak.
|
>> The job is what it is, and to be able to do it well you
>> have to accept that as a female and not expect the job to change because
>> you want to do it.
>>
>> ....Oh dear, I do hope that doesn't start it all off again but I have
>> to be honest:)
>>
>> Pat
>>
Certainly not, Pat, I wholeheartedly agree with you; the job does not need to change although some places do need to update their facilities as said elsewhere.
I'll relate a little story; back in the early 1990's I was manager of a Nightfreight depot in Stevenage. All the delivery vans bar one were 7.5 tonne which of course could then be driven by anyone with a car licence. My only HGV driver went sick one day, so the agency sent me a very nice girl in her late 30's to do the job; she'd obtained her licence by her dad being a farmer so she drove the horse box, cattle lorry or whatever.
When she arrived in the yard, cue predictable comments from my regular crew of ex-pat Londoners, good lads but shall we say a wee bit mysogynistic in culture; all of which were silenced when, instead of taking the Transit van as they'd anticipated, she got in the 16 tonner and reversed it perfectly on to the bay for loading. They got on famously after that especially when they found out she could comfortably out-curse them as well!
Last edited by: Harleyman on Fri 21 Jul 17 at 19:23
|
In the world of showbiz, (and that includes sport) the stars get paid what they are worth at the box office.
The girls simply dont cut it there, and they get paid what they are "worth"
It actually annoys me that the Womens ladies finalists at wimbledon get paid the same as men. The men have to, and frequently do, play longer games to 5 sets. The ladies dont.
They should get 3/5ths of the mans purse
|
>> They should get 3/5ths of the mans purse
Or we could address the underlying issue and make men's and women's games same number of sets. Could be 5, 3 or 4 with a tie break.
|
>> >> They should get 3/5ths of the mans purse
>>
>> Or we could address the underlying issue and make men's and women's games same number
>> of sets. Could be 5, 3 or 4 with a tie break.
>>
I'm surprised you haven't suggested that all games should end in a draw, winning being a bad example to set to children. ;)
|
>> >> They should get 3/5ths of the mans purse
>>
>> Or we could address the underlying issue and make men's and women's games same number
>> of sets. Could be 5, 3 or 4 with a tie break.
the women refused to play 5 sets.
Ok in fairness then, lets say that there is currently 8 sets of tennis with an £x prize pot.
currently women get 1/2 men get 1/2 despite the fact the women only input in 3/8ths.
They want it equal? fine men play 3 sets, women play 3 sets and we reduce the total prize pot by 2/8ths.
|
"Or we could address the underlying issue"
........ by just having one tournament with no distinction by gender e.g. as in horse-riding competitions.
That'd shut 'em up.
|
It actually annoys me that the Womens ladies finalists at wimbledon get paid the same
>> as men. The men have to, and frequently do, play longer games to 5 sets.
>> The ladies dont.
>>
>> They should get 3/5ths of the mans purse
I'm not an expert on tennis or even a fan* but is not the quality of the game rather than the length of it that matters?
* I find it as dull as ditchwater, the matches should be on the NHS as a cure for insomnia.
|
>> I'm not an expert on tennis or even a fan* but is not the quality
>> of the game rather than the length of it that matters?
Ok, go with that, the women would get 1/5th of the mens purse then.
|
> Ok, go with that, the women would get 1/5th of the mens purse then.
>>
I take it you've watched the womens game, as to box office pull do tennis fans enjoy the womens game a lot less?
|
>> It's not something a female can do with family commitments because of the long hours
>> which are unpredictable and being away from home unless the father takes on the house
>> husband role really.
No different to airline pilots (or many more mundane jobs).
|
|
I'd bet the male/female in trucking driving is the same as being a pilot.
|
It's surely just a particular case of the old problem, how does someone get experience in a job if employers only want people with experience?
You can't really be an unpaid volunteer lorry driver in order to build up a CV so you can get a real job.
|
>> It's not something a female can do with family commitments because of the long hours
>> which are unpredictable and being away from home unless the father takes on the house
>> husband role really.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Add to that the woefully poor provision of suitable parking in the UK which has toilets and showers, which puts many females off doing long-distance work. I note that it's slowly improving in MSA's and the like but it still falls well short of acceptable compared to mainland Europe.
|
BBC Presenters Face Pay Cuts? - Manatee
