BBC and other fat cats Pay - more than the PM!

[old_windbag]

One thing about the people who we elect to run our country - whoever they may be ...

How many people onn here would be able to put up with people telling you you don't know your job, and publicly criticising and rubbishing everything you do, day in, day out, every single day, without collapsing under the strain?

If you have every belief in what you are doing is the right way forward then media/public attention would be water of a ducks back, you have confidence. But if you don't believe in what you are doing the pressure of keeping up the act might grind you down. But given the right psychological profile a few would still pull off living a lie. I think the government we have doesn't have confidence in it's beliefs.

Put it this way you could suffer for a couple of years then make money from memoirs, dishing dirt and after dinner speeches. You'll not go poor unlike those who have a life on minimum wage or below cleaning toilets etc.

[Tangled Metal]

I very much doubt any politician in the upper echelons of power in all parties actually believe in what they're doing / saying. It's politics! Paid lying. They don't do our say what they believe in they do and say what they believe they can get away with

By that I mean ideologues don't get stuff done or changed. If a party followed an ideology they could believe in they'd probably be too extreme for the majority of voters. And don't give me any guff about Corbyn doing what he believes in. He's as hypocritical as the others. He's just managing to hold on to his veneer a bit longer.

There's a saying that goes along like this, "voters get the government they deserve". I take it the other way. Politicians give you the government they think you want and you vote for it.

So I do give credit for day after day getting a hammering over everything you do. It is a hard job. I used to know a primary school teacher who gave up due to a breakdown because of stress. Why don't politicians break down under their stress more? Long hours, constant criticism and the chance you'll be out of a job every 5 years or demoted on the whim of your political boss. Just how many industries are allowed to demote and drop pay on the whim of the boss? Without agreement of the employee of course. There's probably a whole lot of reasons why it's a sh1t job.

[Stevek76]

I agree, if two people are doing the same job and have the same experience at that job they should be paid the same if they're producing the same results,whatever their gender.

Many, if not most, are. It's illegal not to. Where that becomes a bit murky is where pay is negotiable to some degree, the more negotiable the salary (things like media seems to be one of the worst for this) the bigger such disparities are as for a variety of reasons more men seem more likely to negotiate harder and/or get a more favourable deal.

[pwa]

I think the problem for the media is that star presenters, like footballers, each come with an individual price tag based on their star value. There is not a simple rate for the job. But over time you would expect there to be a roughly equal number of male and female top earners. I doubt very much that men are better presenters than women. As a consumer of news I am as happy to hear from a female reporter as I am from a male one.

[reohn2]

I agree, if two people are doing the same job and have the same experience at that job they should be paid the same if they're producing the same results,whatever their gender.

Many, if not most, are. It's illegal not to. Where that becomes a bit murky is where pay is negotiable to some degree, the more negotiable the salary (things like media seems to be one of the worst for this) the bigger such disparities are as for a variety of reasons more men seem more likely to negotiate harder and/or get a more favourable deal.

That doesn't seem to have been the case with the Carie Gracie affair,same job different rates for male and female

[kwackers]

I agree, if two people are doing the same job and have the same experience at that job they should be paid the same if they're producing the same results,whatever their gender.

Many, if not most, are. It's illegal not to. Where that becomes a bit murky is where pay is negotiable to some degree, the more negotiable the salary (things like media seems to be one of the worst for this) the bigger such disparities are as for a variety of reasons more men seem more likely to negotiate harder and/or get a more favourable deal.

That doesn't seem to have been the case with the Carie Gracie affair,same job different rates for male and female

I've always worked in an industry where you negotiate your salary so to me that seems the norm.

Most of the time I know I get a decent rate but on occasion I've discovered others that are paid a lot more. Negotiating skills it seems are everything...
I have on occasion even been offered more than I asked for, presumably I either undervalue myself or my 'negotiating' skillz are a bit lacking...

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
We all know people who retire / get made redundant etc, then appear back on contract as a night supervisor doing very little.
That's how it goes in many company's, even the private ones. A contract is also another word for a dreamt up job even if its as a m employee.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... -bill.html

But a state employed company like BBC, we should have input and final say on what we pay them.
Is it morally right on any level that the BBC have been for some time hiding pay through PSC's where dividends can be paid with no tax payable
No, because the presenters although can take extended leave if they want and the company would need to fill their place (need or postpone), their skills are hardly unique so it should be more competitive and hence many who are capable of filling that role, don't get a look in at a fraction of the money paid.

You would have to search very hard or know someone to find out how some are paid because you need that PSC's name of that individual?

[old_windbag]

but on occasion I've discovered others that are paid a lot more. Negotiating skills it seems are everything...

Well I for one am dead against this practice, I did see it where I worked as the company evolved and incomers( who had previously worked together.... think jobs for the boys ) made salary talk a no go area. Prior to this we were paid a fixed salary by role, that worked fine.

In todays companies we aren't allowed to let say disability get in the way and someone who stammers could be a hopeless negotiator. But you would be pulled to book to hold that against them in negotiating their pay terms. So why should someone who does a job equally as well as another receive less, simply because face to face negotiation isn't their strongest asset. They may have other skills not brought out at that point that are better than those other( now higher paid ) individuals.

You cannot run a system that allows this practice when we also advocate equality and diversity.They come under the same banner in my book. Why should we make an issue of women paid less than men when amongst the men there will be similar discrepancies, it's a systemic failure across the board. Egalitarianism is the fair way to employ.

[kwackers]

Well I for one am dead against this practice, I did see it where I worked as the company evolved and incomers( who had previously worked together.... think jobs for the boys ) made salary talk a no go area. Prior to this we were paid a fixed salary by role, that worked fine.

I think it's very industry dependent. Certainly in my industry (software engineering) some folk are simply worth the money. There are people I've worked with in the past that I'd be happy to pay more than myself - and I'm obviously not alone since they're generally well rewarded.

It's also moving more to contract based work. A lot of employers use a core team of engineers and bring in contractors to deal with the peaks.
It's cheaper overall but you need good contractors and they're able to quote any price they like.

I think (fear) that the future of a lot of employment is more contractual than full time. For some industries this works well for both parties but obviously not for all.

[old_windbag]

I think it's very industry dependent. Certainly in my industry (software engineering) some folk are simply worth the money. There are people I've worked with in the past that I'd be happy to pay more than myself - and I'm obviously not alone since they're generally well rewarded.

I think from my perspective of being brought in to fix the software issues of complaining customers, those issues being created by those on much higher incomes than mine, then it became basically insulting. But the environment was very back scratching and also the brotherhood( you know who they are ) were very much in operation. People were protected and their inadequacies ignored, in fact quite often they were promoted even higher. It doesn't lend itself to a co-operative workforce like the mice on the mouse organ.

the future of a lot of employment is more contractual than full time.

Thats how it is for me for now.

[Psamathe]

.....
There's a saying that goes along like this, "voters get the government they deserve".....

There is a song that says "No Matter Who You Vote For The Government Always Gets In" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQWV6eaSYlI - Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band).

Ian

[Cyril Haearn]

but on occasion I've discovered others that are paid a lot more. Negotiating skills it seems are everything...

Well I for one am dead against this practice, I did see it where I worked as the company evolved and incomers( who had previously worked together.... think jobs for the boys ) made salary talk a no go area. Prior to this we were paid a fixed salary by role, that worked fine.

In todays companies we aren't allowed to let say disability get in the way and someone who stammers could be a hopeless negotiator. But you would be pulled to book to hold that against them in negotiating their pay terms. So why should someone who does a job equally as well as another receive less, simply because face to face negotiation isn't their strongest asset. They may have other skills not brought out at that point that are better than those other( now higher paid ) individuals.

You cannot run a system that allows this practice when we also advocate equality and diversity.They come under the same banner in my book. Why should we make an issue of women paid less than men when amongst the men there will be similar discrepancies, it's a systemic failure across the board. Egalitarianism is the fair way to employ.

There was an interview with a manager at a****n, he explained that his main task was putting teams together
I like to be with people similar to me, who like trains for example
But a team needs different types of people, one for figures, one for ideas, one for communication etc

Ideally the whole is more than the sum of the parts

TEAM (US): together everyone achieves more

[Tangled Metal]

Why should we have a say in the pay of a public employee? I don't understand that. The contract is with the public body not the general public. The general public are customers of the BBC not employers. You're customers of the nhs, education, councils. Do you have a say in how much dustbinmen earn?

Sorry this attitude with the BBC pay is mine of annoying. It's selectively applying extra rights over the BBC that you're not applying to all the other public services.

Put it this way, any public sector workers on here? OK, tell us what you do and how much you're paid. Let us decide if it's right. Then of it's too much you have to give the excess back or donate to back charity with evidence.

That is meant as a joke along with the right to determine remuneration in the BBC. Same principle IMHO.

[Cyril Haearn]

How much one is paid should generally be a taboo subject for conversation I think

In some employment contracts a clause forbids discussing it

[PH]

Returning to the comparison in the OP, at least the BBC editors will achieve the end product they set out to, the PM can't even edit her own cabinet, maybe the remuneration difference is justified. I'd be surprised if an editor who got pushed around by those under them kept their job at all.