BBC Pay - Please Sir I want some more

[Psamathe]

The BBC claim "it's the market" but overlook that they are playing a large part in creating that market. I'm sure the few other broadcasters making similar programs would love to pay less.

But why are the BBC competing against other broadcasters. Should the state TV channel be competing against commercial channels, making similar content to the point where they get into a "price war" for what they consider talent?

Ian

[blackbike]

The only reason the state has to compete in the market for entertainers and news providers is because it voluntarily entered industries is has no need to be in at all.

There is ample private provision of entertainment and news and at prices everyone can afford. We managed without state provision of entertainment and news until 1926 and we can do so now.

Socialised, state provision should be reserved for necessary things which people cannot afford to pay for up front or at all, such as health, housing and education, not unnecessary things like Eastenders, Radio 1 and the state's version of the news.

Get the state out of broadcasting and the need for it to pay competitive salaries to broadcasting staff disappears altogether.

[Postboxer]

I think it's all rather meaningless without knowing how much everyone gets paid across the board in the same sector, by all the different channels, websites and production companies.


From here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom the BBC's income from licence fees was £3.7428 billion in 2015–16, a year in which, according to the article they spent £200m on talent. So that's 5.34% of the licence fee income spent on talent, not counting the fact that some of the talent generates income. The article also states that in the previous financial year, they paid £31.9 million to stars earning more than £150,000, so that's less than 1% going to the high earners.

On the gender pay gap

Speaking on LBC Radio, Prime Minister Theresa May said: "We've seen the way the BBC is paying women less for doing the same job... I want women to be paid equally."

But this doesn't really work in a talent driven business, not all presenters will be paid the same, not all actors and actresses will be paid the same. Wages in the entertainment industry, including sports, basically come down to 'bums on seats' whether they be watching or listening live or watching at home in whichever format.

Just imagine what the BBC output would be like if they only paid the minimum wage, then people really would complain about the licence fee.

[661-Pete]

Y'know - setting aside for one moment all this bluster about the BBC and its top-earners - throughout my working life I was always under the impression that revealing one's wages to colleagues was strictly taboo. Certainly I never discussed my pay with anyone other than my line manager - and that only during annual reviews.

I also remember a couple of 'incidents'. On one occasion an office area of our workplace was being refurnished, or refurbished, or whatever. Several of the shop-floor workforce were drafted in to help move desks and stuff. Reportedly, while they were moving a desk, a drawer slid open and a payslip fell out. Someone retrieved it and had a quick glance at it. It transpired that the desk belonged to one of the most low-ranking and menial 'suits' in the office, and his pay was higher than that of any of the team leaders on the floor. Cue an almighty hoo-ha and a near walk-out by the shop floor staff, only narrowly averted by some frantic horse-trading with Management and HR.

At least, that's the story as I heard it - at third-hand. How much of this was true I never found out.

The other incident - for which I can vouch for the truth of - concerned me personally, in a rather indirect way. Our IT manager, in a moment of absent-mindedness, copied the 'private and confidential' section of our Departmental Head's server space onto a public server, where anyone could look at it. When I and another colleague (not the Department Head) drew his attention to this, he quickly remedied his error. But not before I had had a quick look through! One private letter, in particular, aroused my interest. A few months earlier, a colleague of mine had departed amid some acrimony, having been head-hunted by another company. The letter, from the MD to this colleague, concerned concessions he was prepared to make to induce him to stay with us. The point was, the MD was offering this colleague a salary substantially higher than what I was getting at that time - and even the salary he was getting then, before the offer, was higher than mine. And this colleague was junior to me, in the pecking-order: certainly in terms of responsibility.

It didn't stop him being head-hunted though. Oh the power of blackmail!

I held my peace. I never mentioned this little snippet of info I'd picked up, to anyone, of course. What was the point? I'd only have incriminated myself, for looking at a document I wasn't supposed to see. Anyway, it wasn't as if I cared much.

Someone on the news or in the Press made the point: this BBC disclosure is a 'head-hunter's charter'. Maybe it is. What do I know about the subject!?

[Vorpal]

I have discussed my wages with colleagues, albeit indirectly.

We were specifically banned from doing so; we figured there must be some disparities they didn't want known, so most of agreed to share our salaries with a couple of retirees (that was technically allowed) who did some analysis & comparison. Lo and behold... there were some disparities.

[old_windbag]

Y'know - setting aside for one moment all this bluster about the BBC and its top-earners - throughout my working life I was always under the impression that revealing one's wages to colleagues was strictly taboo. Certainly I never discussed my pay with anyone other than my line manager - and that only during annual reviews.

I too have been in similar circumstances. When we were a small company, each and everyone of us knew our salaries, we were all the same and there were salaries for junior engineers, technicians. It was in effect egalitarian in that respect and did not cause any issues or consternation amongst us, we were a team and in effect in a ranked order. Over time you may jump to a different job title by the work and experience you had. It all worked and we still had human to human differences and arguments but not about salary.

Cue several years down the line and a few buyouts etc, new staff migrating in via word of mouth al of whom had worked together. Salaries now become unspoken, and none of us know who gets what....... it transpired the new staff were on much higher salaries than the founding members , again through hearing secret discussions. Then I also knew directors salaries as they were public but not known to most, especially shop floor. They were predominantly on minimum wage and we all were getting zero percent increase over many years. I printed the accounts and left in canteen, every year. This was to wake everyone up to the corrupt organisation it had become. Huge dividends paid to directors, yet increasing losses.

All our salaries should be transparent, this may cause acrimony but in the best way possible. The me sir, me sir greed has no room in my world. Just because people may be humble and not the squeaky wheel does not mean they should be on any different income to their peers in same role. It's part of the reason we are in a mess with highly paid incompotent staff who've squeaked their way up the ladder. I had to correct umpteen design flaws and mistakes that those on much higher income had produced due to their lack of knowledge in their role. They were "protected" by virtue of their connections within and outside of the company. Salaries should not be based on a dog eat dog attitude...... but integrity and ability to do the job well. Something we are moving further and further away from........ Then exam grading, degree classification and grade inflation .

[mercalia]

seems like the publication of the paylist to shrink further next year according to the Guardian due to payments to be made through BBC studios, BBC Worldwide the commercial arm


"More than a third of the BBC’s top earners could disappear from the list of stars earning £150,000 or more next year, making it more difficult to monitor the gender pay gap at the corporation.

Top earners including Claudia Winkleman, the co-host of Strictly Come Dancing, Nick Knowles, the presenter of DIY SOS, and actors from EastEnders, Casualty and Holby City are set to disappear from the list when it is published again next year.

At least 35 of the 96 stars on the list could fail to appear because programmes they were paid for in the past year are now produced by BBC Studios, which is classed as a commercial entity and will not have to publish how much it pays people. "

well maybe but the shows themselves were paid for using tax payers money I assume? or am I wrong in this?

These high paid people are still leaching on tax payers money - may they should payback some thing like a students load for the advantage they have been given to appear in shows that have not had to run the commercial gauntlet?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jul/20/bbc-pay-list-to-shrink-next-year-as-earnings-from-bbc-studios-is-discounted?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=235906&subid=7646217&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

[meic]

They will also be showing the latest Matt Damon movie. Do we need to know the wages breakdown of everything that comes out of that particular studio? Hollywood will not be providing that movie for free, they will be expecting "tax payers" money too.

[mercalia]

it wouldnt be so bad if these mega-rich were paying tax on the high income but it seems that some are still using personal companies to avoid tax -

"The BBC has admitted that some stars are still paid through personal companies, which would potentially allow them to dodge tax. Claudia Winkleman and Jeremy Vine were two BBC employees found to have companies in their name, though the corporation refused to say whether they received their pay through them

Chris Evans, the BBC's top earner with a salary of £2.25million, was also found to have a personal company listed in his name. It is not known if this is how he receives his BBC salary"

well assume they are then?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4716102/BBC-stars-dodging-income-tax.html#ixzz4nS8PI4xS

no wonder they are all smiling

[irc]

They will also be showing the latest Matt Damon movie. Do we need to know the wages breakdown of everything that comes out of that particular studio? Hollywood will not be providing that movie for free, they will be expecting "tax payers" money too.

Paying Hollywood isn't a legal requirement to watch TV though. The BBC can't have it both ways. State enforced income collection but no disclosure of pay.

[meic]

Paying Hollywood isn't a legal requirement to watch TV though.

Nor is paying BBC studios which is the source of "complaint" here. They both merely provide viewing output for the BBC who in turn we must pay towards if we watch TV or BBC content on-line.

An interesting legal point though, if BBC studios are separate from the BBC that should mean that pirating their stuff from you-tube is merely a civil offence and not a criminal offence.

[mercalia]

Paying Hollywood isn't a legal requirement to watch TV though.

Nor is paying BBC studios which is the source of "complaint" here. They both merely provide viewing output for the BBC who in turn we must pay towards if we watch TV or BBC content on-line.

An interesting legal point though, if BBC studios are separate from the BBC that should mean that pirating their stuff from you-tube is merely a civil offence and not a criminal offence.

I have been wondering that - the terms for the licence fee talks about downloading but that presumably means just from live transmissions - what about if you download from the many tv series download sites?

[meic]

No that is covered, to my best reading of the law, downloading of BBC content by any means as a broad summary of it.

I think that this would apply if you downloaded Harry Potter from you-tube and it had the little BBC in the corner of the screen.

[old_windbag]

What paying Paul Hollywood for internet downloads, I'm writing to the daily mail immediately.

Actually Paul Hollywoods another useless bread making buffoon that the beeb should stop using, along with umpteen ferrari owning james martin. Chris evans is of a similar vein. They all know how to milk it.

A lot of money paid out by the beeb is via worldwide and contracted arrangements, as in matt leblanc and also Norton who seems to still own his production company( thought he'd flogged it ). That makes his Graham Norton show amongst others. Also on this week, last night Portillo's income is through another company so he was not on the list but liz kendall openly said she gets £350 for her appearance( about what I expected and not over the top ), she has to declare it in her expenses.

[Psamathe]

....
"More than a third of the BBC’s top earners could disappear from the list of stars earning £150,000 or more next year, making it more difficult to monitor the gender pay gap at the corporation.
....

That is a really good thought. Despite the outcries about gender discrimination, it might be that more women are on higher salaries than the men but are smart enough to hide it behind service companies, BBC worldwide, etc. (where the men are daft enough to do it all open and declarable for all to see!).

The presented data is a subset based on a selection so it would seem difficult to draw too much in the way of conclusions (beyond the ludicrously high numbers being paid to individuals).

Ian