Sarah Montague confirms settlement with BBC over equal pay

[cycleruk]

Sorry if this is taking the thread off topic but imho it isn't right to question this win at tribunal but the thread should be whether the men doing the same job are being overpaid. It's completely right she won her case. I do question whether the pay for that job is right. Perhaps they should get a refund from all the men being overpaid instead.

Would that not be better Mercalia? I'm asking you as the op who was the first person motivated enough to raise this story.

eh I didnt raise this story?

I raised the story not because of the tribunal finding (which I agree with) but the amount of money paid to a person, who on the face of it, just sits and speaks behind a microphone. To me these people contribute nothing to the country compared with working people.
P.S. It was the Mods who changed my post heading [How MUCH !] from my questioning the worth of the job to the settlement claim.

[Tangled Metal]

Market value isn't always comparable.

When prime minister, Tony Blair got paid a lot less than his QC wife by several multiples. He was also a QC who went into public service as an mp later in charge of the government as PM. Arguably a huge number of people he's working for. Why the low pay? It's what the market can stand.

The nature of media freelancers and commercial pay packets it isn't surprising that she's due this amount of pay. It's a lot less than most top earners get btw.

As to whether she's worth it then I've no idea but since a Male colleague doing the same job is paid that then she should be too. Have you questioned Male journalists about how much they're paid or is it just a woman getting it retrospectively through a tribunal that you question?

Sorry if this is taking the thread off topic but imho it isn't right to question this win at tribunal but the thread should be whether the men doing the same job are being overpaid. It's completely right she won her case. I do question whether the pay for that job is right. Perhaps they should get a refund from all the men being overpaid instead.

Would that not be better Mercalia? I'm asking you as the op who was the first person motivated enough to raise this story.

eh I didnt raise this story?

Sorry about that, I was mistaken.

[reohn2]

The article is about equal pay. the main point being that Sarah Montague was not paid the same as male colleagues for equal work.

As for the salary amount, I think that the BBC need to offer competitive pay. I don't know what presenters normally expect to be paid, but lots of jobs in the UK offer more the £100 000 salary. I would think it's not unreasonable for someone working on national or internationally broadcast programmes, and likely more value to society than an 'Executive Program Manager' or 'Product Owner' at a software firm or IT consultancy.

If you think it is excessive, I'm sure that you could write to the BBC and/or your MP about it.

p.s. Maybe the problem isn't her level of pay, but that basic jobs earn so little?

Nail,head,on!

[Tangled Metal]

Are people SERIOUSLY suggesting that the relevant men should be repaying some of their salary??

Not at all. I was responding to the view that the settlement in this case was too high. As someone said it was a settlement that was lower than the back pay due to earning less than a man doing the equivalent job. If it's too much to pay a woman the going rate for a man then it's too much to pay the man that.

If you can't stop the man getting that then you have to pay the woman in the same role.

Are people questioning this level of pay for such jobs because a woman has forced the bbc into a settlement after being paid less? If a man had forced the settlement is the problem lessened? Does anyone know if a man has won a similar settlement? If so I don't recall it. It seems to me gender is becoming more of a reason for unfair situations reaching mainstream media attention. Why?

Are job remuneration levels even a value matter? Farmers provide food which is more important to survival than a stockmarket trader but earns less. So why and apply a value element to news reader?

[Oldjohnw]

Are people SERIOUSLY suggesting that the relevant men should be repaying some of their salary??

Not at all. I was responding to the view that the settlement in this case was too high. As someone said it was a settlement that was lower than the back pay due to earning less than a man doing the equivalent job. If it's too much to pay a woman the going rate for a man then it's too much to pay the man that.

If you can't stop the man getting that then you have to pay the woman in the same role.

Are people questioning this level of pay for such jobs because a woman has forced the bbc into a settlement after being paid less? If a man had forced the settlement is the problem lessened? Does anyone know if a man has won a similar settlement? If so I don't recall it. It seems to me gender is becoming more of a reason for unfair situations reaching mainstream media attention. Why?

Are job remuneration levels even a value matter? Farmers provide food which is more important to survival than a stockmarket trader but earns less. So why and apply a value element to news reader?

What about professional footballers? If ever there was a fix that is it. And the gender differences in terms of pay are huge, and many think that the women's game is vastly more entertaining.

And i'm not sure that there will many who have sat either side of the interview desk who think a news anchor job is only about reading into a microphone.

[PH]

I raised the story not because of the tribunal finding

I don't mean to nit pick, but Sarah Montague didn't go to tribunal, or at least that isn't reported in your link.

[PH]

I'm not bothered what people earn. That's what we have taxes for, or it would be if we had a fairer Government,

[merseymouth]

Hello there, The morality over self worth in TV & Radio has come to match the world of football, driven by agents & managers who have no scruples!
The industry, that produces very little, is rife with excessive reward for very little input. Remember Jonathan Ross?
I say with feelings of total resentment as a 71 year-old who was striving to stay alive for my free TV License, some hope now?
Paying over £150 a year for the rubbish we currently receive is bad enough, but it will now get worse, as the right for parity is proven, which means that all will be paid above their real worth! IGICB MM

[mjr]

P.S. It was the Mods who changed my post heading [How MUCH !] from my questioning the worth of the job to the settlement claim.

Maybe you should try a clearer title next time? "How MUCH" reads to me like you were questioning the size of the settlement claim, as well as being annoyingly vague and not mentioning that it's about the BBC, Sarah Montague or, well, anything.

[mattheus]

Are people SERIOUSLY suggesting that the relevant men should be repaying some of their salary??

do you seriously think any one here is suggesting that?

I can only go by what they post:

Sorry if this is taking the thread off topic but imho it isn't right to question this win at tribunal but the thread should be whether the men doing the same job are being overpaid. It's completely right she won her case. I do question whether the pay for that job is right. Perhaps they should get a refund from all the men being overpaid instead.

[Tangled Metal]

Missed the last bit if my post there where I'd asked the op if they preferred that answer. Of course I got the person wrong which I apologised for once pointed out. I took it that the op didn't like the idea of the payout hence the impractical idea.

Incidentally since the pay inequality topic hit the news some highly paid men took voluntary pay cut. If they don't go for that then I guess you probably have to equalise pay fit for different genders. At least until contract renewal when you might be able to negotiate men down and equalise.

[Bonefishblues]

And the director general is toast: https://apnews.com/dec27cc161389167552e4cd22ec6dae6

with a very nice golden handshake I bet, walk directly into a job with an ITV company?

looks to me like getting out before his ship sinks?

He has resigned as opposed to being toasted, after 7 years in his second spell at the BBC. He is going to head the National Gallery. There is no gold involved either way.

Other than that, spot on...

[Bonefishblues]

Hello there, The morality over self worth in TV & Radio has come to match the world of football, driven by agents & managers who have no scruples!
The industry, that produces very little, is rife with excessive reward for very little input. Remember Jonathan Ross?
I say with feelings of total resentment as a 71 year-old who was striving to stay alive for my free TV License, some hope now?
Paying over £150 a year for the rubbish we currently receive is bad enough, but it will now get worse, as the right for parity is proven, which means that all will be paid above their real worth! IGICB MM

Her comparators no longer earn those monies aiui, but did during the reference period, hence the settlement. It will not necessarily result in increased cost at the BBC.

[carpetcleaner]

I'm not bothered what people earn. That's what we have taxes for, or it would be if we had a fairer Government,

I'm bothered about public sector wages because I pay them via my taxes. It is my business.

The BBC equal pay affair shows many of us just how much money some BBC staff earn and we can ask if we want to go on paying for such wages for the jobs they do and whatever sex they are. We don't need to if we don't want to and we can vote for people who promise to do something about it, and the prime minister has indicated a way forward on this by saying the payment of the TV licence fee could be decriminalised.

Employers always discuss the pay rates of their employees and for BBC staff the public is their employer.

[PH]

the prime minister has indicated a way forward on this by saying the payment of the TV licence fee could be decriminalised.

As far as I'm aware the payment of the TV License fee has never been a criminal offence