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

[Stevek76]

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

Hence my point about negotiable pay being particularly bad in the media (see also hollywood movies etc). Roles like that end up being entirely negotiated, often partly by the persons management and so can get wildly different results.

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

In some employment contracts a clause forbids discussing it

My opinion is pretty much the opposite and I'd never accept such a contract or simply refuse to abide by it. I think companies work far better if there's a general openness in such matters, these things rarely stay entirely secret anyway and blurring it up simply results in suspicion and discontent. Where salaries are open it's quite clear if someone is being paid considerably above or below their output and helps proactively prevent any favouritism or taking advantage of staff who're less likely to ask for more, net result being a generally happier and more content workforce.

As it is, in the industry I work in, it's normal for salaries to be essentially open due to the nature of the work and how it is charged.

[reohn2]

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

Hence my point about negotiable pay being particularly bad in the media (see also hollywood movies etc). Roles like that end up being entirely negotiated, often partly by the persons management and so can get wildly different results.

If Carie Gracie negotiated her salary in isolation,without caring to know other people doing the same job's salary then she doesn't have a gripe,whether that's the case I've no idea.But suspect it's not the case.

IMHO secretive salaries in tthe workplace should be outlawed.

[Tangled Metal]

If you were offered a salary to join a company that turned out to be significantly more than equivalent employees get, would you appreciate the bad will such an open attitude towards pay could generate? What effect on morale? What effect on productivity?

I know a case at work where someone gets more than ppl think he's worth. It leads to the attitude that "I'll not help him, let him earn his money". It had led to bad being towards him at work. Not his fault that's what the company decided he's worth. Plus he gets so much at least in part because he does more time earning a decent amount in overtime payments.

[kwackers]

IMHO secretive salaries in tthe workplace should be outlawed.

The problem is there isn't a good substitute (at least for all cases).

We've looked in the past at public (but tiered) systems.
Jnr Programmer 30k
Jnr Programmer lvl 1 35k
Jnr Programmer lvl 2 40k

etc.

The problem is that some folk move up faster than others, this creates resentment from folk who think they should be moved up or when they think someone else shouldn't.
And once you reach a "level 4 snr programmer" who's to say your skill set stays at that level?

The only way it could work (for us) was to keep the rating secret - but then there's no advantage.

The truth is there is no good way so "outlawing" a particular system isn't going to help. What's really needed is a decent company that rewards folk for effort and not one which simply increments folks positions every year.

<edit> I should add we have a tiered system, but the salary in that tier is a range and reflects what we think you're worth. There's no compulsion though to keep what you're paid secret.

[old_windbag]

My opinion is pretty much the opposite and I'd never accept such a contract or simply refuse to abide by it. I think companies work far better if there's a general openness in such matters, these things rarely stay entirely secret anyway and blurring it up simply results in suspicion and discontent. Where salaries are open it's quite clear if someone is being paid considerably above or below their output and helps proactively prevent any favouritism or taking advantage of staff who're less likely to ask for more, net result being a generally happier and more content workforce.

Exactly. I saw a pretty harmonious( all people have non salary disagreements ), co-operative workforce turn to a much larger untrusting, unhelpful workforce because of the transition to secret deals for bob and not for fred. It was a retrograde step that served those it benefited fine.

Another aspect of salary I feel is important is a bonus. When a company is doing ok and bob pushed something through or spent weeks at a customer site, then I feel a bonus is better than a pay rise. It rewards the events of that year and unlike the payrise isn't held year after year with inflationary increases when the receivers general input or performance has reduced. I saw examples of so and so getting 8% for the excellent work that year, but this was carried for as long as they worked there, it was never likely to be removed by a pay cut. A bonus I feel works better, also profit share for all.

[reohn2]

....... What's really needed is a decent company that rewards folk for effort and not one which simply increments folks positions every year.

<edit> I should add we have a tiered system, but the salary in that tier is a range and reflects what we think you're worth. There's no compulsion though to keep what you're paid secret.

Paying people for what they're worth to the company should be automatic and open,by law IMHO.

[kwackers]

Paying people for what they're worth to the company should be automatic and open,by law IMHO.

Why? What's the benefit?

How do you prevent those not moving up the ladder as fast as their comrades from becoming pee'd off?
(Particularly when their mates can also see it)

As I said, IMO there's no 'good' system. Things just aren't that simple.

[reohn2]

Paying people for what they're worth to the company should be automatic and open,by law IMHO.

Why? What's the benefit?.....

Work harder get paid more,of course there should be a baseline for any particular job though.

It's a long time since I worked as an employee in mining,(coalface work and tunneling,tunneling was unbelievably hard work),but when I did there was a base salary plus bonus for results(yardage driven),but there was no secret deals done.When I went into management the job was salaried with an average of bonus paid for the whole pit.

When I left the pit in '86 and started my own business,tradesmen that worked for me were hand picked for their good workmanship and were paid above the going rate,I had to wade through a some poor examples initially,who could talk the talk but couldn't produce the standards I required.But once I found the good guys I looked after them,they looked after me and each other on the job.There were no secret agendas no need for back biting because got on together helping the job get done to a high standard.
I never was one for playing one off against another malarkey,straight talking and honest with my staff meant the job ran smooth and I new I could trust them.

PS, I know not every job/profession isn't easy but Ive always found honesty and straight talk to be the best policy,people respect you for that,even if they don't like you.

[Cunobelin]

Can we look at the NHS.........

Fifty people at quangos set up during former health secretary Andrew Lansley’s controversial NHS reorganisation are on more than £150,000.

Public Health England employs 26 people who are paid more than Cameron, including the microbiologist Frances Gould who receives £220,000. Another 24 are at NHS England, with the highest paid £205,000.

The NHS Trust Development Authority and Monitor, which regulates foundation trusts, have seven people each who are paid more than Cameron.

The Health and Social Care Information Centre, which collects statistics for the NHS, has six on the list; while NHS Blood and Transplant is on five.

Another four officials at the Care Quality Commission, which has been severely criticised by MPs, earn £150,000 or more, including chief hospitals inspector Michael Richards on £235,000. The NHS rationing watchdog Nice has two high earners on the list.

At the Department of Health, five civil servants earn more than the PM, including chief medical officer Dame Sally Davies on £210,000.

[Tangled Metal]

Shopfloor at work all get paid the same hourly rate. Supervisors get more plus are allowed to do an hour overtime each day if they want to. Everyone knows the pay system and you often find ppl leaving their payslips around.

Office / management do different jobs so it isn't easy to compare. Pay is unique among them and it's kept very secret. The problem is the approximate pay level of all management is known. Result is resentment with some who come in to work, cruise through their job not caring and pocket more than some dedicated employees.

Others have negotiated a halfway house between salary and waged employment. They get the benefits of salary but still get overtime payments that get abused heavily. It makes their take home a lot bigger than it should be. A salaried worker is expected to work late without extra money if needed. Waged get overtime. They're fulfilling a similar level of responsibility but are uneven.

Then looking back at the open shopfloor pay system. Nice and rosey right? Not a chance. The question asked a lot is "why should I work hard when Xxxx gets paid the same and does very little all day?" That question is always there. The other thing that this situation leads to is a lowering of the productivity. Instead of working hard you get good workers copying the bad ones. Other issues too but the open pay structure is used as justification for low productivity. They do have a point, why should you do more for the same pay?

And the various jobs can be directly compared because they all have a target rate unique to each job. The target is roughly equivalent effort/difficulty to achieve. Work at 50% in one job it's the same as 50% in another.

It's a problem that needs sorting. IMHO there's a few sackings needed. A bonus system might help. However it was stopped because some ppl have an inate ability to do back job quickly for less effort. It's hardly fair for two ppl to put the same care and effort in only for a count based bonus system to favour one purely through innate ability.

IMHO open pay system can work but can cause more problems than it solves. No way should it become the law. Companies should have the right to carry out remuneration as it suits their unique situation.

[mercalia]

"Last year the BBC listed all the salaries of all employees earning more than £150,000 a year, which revealed Mr Sopel, the US editor, earned £200,000-£249,999, while Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen earned £150,000-£199,999.

It also showed that Mr Humphrys, who has presented Radio 4's Today programme since 1987, had a salary of £600,000-£649,000."

does any one here know who any of these very expensive people are esp Mr Hump. I doubt things would be worse off employing a lesser person?

[Psamathe]

"Last year the BBC listed all the salaries of all employees earning more than £150,000 a year, which revealed Mr Sopel, the US editor, earned £200,000-£249,999, while Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen earned £150,000-£199,999.

It also showed that Mr Humphrys, who has presented Radio 4's Today programme since 1987, had a salary of £600,000-£649,000."

does any one here know who any of these very expensive people are esp Mr Hump. I doubt things would be worse off employing a lesser person?

I have often thought that there must be plenty of people who can look smart and read an autocue clearly who could present the news without the £500,000 price tag. We may not get "celebrity" but news is about news not the person reading it out.

Ian

[Bonefishblues]

...but as is obvious Mr H does a great deal more than simply read an autocue, doesn't he?

[Ben@Forest]

I have often thought that there must be plenty of people who can look smart and read an autocue clearly who could present the news without the £500,000 price tag. We may not get "celebrity" but news is about news not the person reading it out.

On the Today programme the presenters need to think on their feet (admittedly whilst sitting), ask sensible questions and respond to good, bad or evasive answers quickly and be very well-informed about a range of issues, though of course a good deal of the content is thoroughly researched and the presenters briefed before the actual three minute segment on anything from dairy farming to sugary milkshakes to encouraging breast feeding.

However I don't think Humphrys is worth £600,000 plus and also I think he's a bit past his best. Of all the presenters he makes the most fluffs, name mistakes and often reads out the wrong time. The other day he called Michael Howard Laura Howard. Michael didn't remark upon it.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
For all those Nays-
John Humpries brought back by the BBC (IIRC) to fill the ageism fiasco at bbc................
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/ ... -recording

"Humphrys says: “And I could save you the trouble as I could volunteer that I’ve handed over already more than you Xxxxing earn but I’m still left with more than anybody else and that seems to me to be entirely just – something like that would do it?”