BBC Salaries - progress

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

If the enemies of public funded broadcasting are given an open goal such as Lineker's unnecessarily high salary, we can't really blame them for shooting at it.

No, indeed. But it's a goal that the Beeb has been compelled to "open" - the competitors' pals in Government forcing them to make public, expenditure that the competitors can keep secret.

I don't think the public are all that worried about who gets what among the apparently irreplaceable TV presenting community, whether in the commercial sector or BBC, but I think they do care when they see their money being needlessly frittered on people doing rather pleasant and in demand jobs.

Yes - but, unless and until we're told what ITV and other commercial organisations pay for their presenters, we don't know if it is "needlessly frittered". Of course, it is not impossible that the commercial sector pays much less for their presenters - in which case, the Beeb is being needlessly profligate with the Licence Fee payers' money. But without knowing this, we can't say. (And I suspect that if they were paying much less, we'd've heard about it loudly and clearly in the past few weeks.)

[teamsaint]

I don't think the answer is to keep everything secret. The BBC might be in an unfair situation re disclosure , but they really just have to deal with that, and pay salaries that are in some way or other justifiable. It goes with the territory of having a very privileged position in terms of funding, and one in which , as you point out, many people do not get full value from their fee. ( Although of course many do feel they get great value).

As other broadcasters have to have a licence ( or whatever) to broadcast, is there any reason why these should not be subject to disclosure of top salaries?

Ferney, I added something to my #150 which might interest you.

[gradus]

Thanks for the link. I wonder if the rem. com. does get consulted or exercises any influence on the pay of 'other staff. Perhaps the presenters pay influences the pay of those executives who decide how much the presenters will be paid. Who knows.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I don't think the answer is to keep everything secret.

No - neither do I (and apologies that my post suggested that).

The BBC might be in an unfair situation re disclosure , but they really just have to deal with that, and pay salaries that are in some way or other justifiable. It goes with the territory of having a very privileged position in terms of funding, and one in which , as you point out, many people do not get full value from their fee. ( Although of course many do feel they get great value).

That's the problem, though - unless the "some way or other" are agreed on by the majority of Licence Fee payers, the "justification" can mean very different things to different people.

I'm not seeking to "justify" the obscene salaries of some presenters - and I would have thought that the Beeb would have realized that certain programmes would survive without seemingly "essential" presenters (the higher viewing figures for the last couple of series of Strictly - the first without Bruce Forsythe - should tell them that people watch for the programme content, not the amiability of the presenters) - just noting that the Corporation being forced to make these salaries public was not motivated by considerations of "the Public Interest".

[teamsaint]

No - neither do I (and apologies that my post suggested that).


That's the problem, though - unless the "some way or other" are agreed on by the majority of Licence Fee payers, the "justification" can mean very different things to different people.

I'm not seeking to "justify" the obscene salaries of some presenters - and I would have thought that the Beeb would have realized that certain programmes would survive without seemingly "essential" presenters (the higher viewing figures for the last couple of series of Strictly - the first without Bruce Forsythe - should tell them that people watch for the programme content, not the amiability of the presenters) - just noting that the Corporation being forced to make these salaries public was not motivated by considerations of "the Public Interest".

Well you may be right, but I'm sure that many of those with the BBC's best interests at heart are Ok with this process, flawed though it is. It may well be that this round of disclosure does a good deal to both allay public concerns about high salaries, and right a few inequalities into the bargain.
...and help to release a bit more cash for better conditions, or more jobs/commissions for young people .

[cloughie]

Well you may be right, but I'm sure that many of those with the BBC's best interests at heart are Ok with this process, flawed though it is. It may well be that this round of disclosure does a good deal to both allay public concerns about high salaries, and right a few inequalities into the bargain.
...and help to release a bit more cash for better conditions, or more jobs/commissions for young people .

Your glass is clearly half full ts. This personal greed and no doubt those involved feeling fully entitled to their remuneration whilst services to programmes are being lopped.

[french frank]

I'm not seeking to "justify" the obscene salaries of some presenters

It's all right for the BBC to pay 'obscene' salaries, if the market pays obscene salaries? One answer of yours was either ambiguous or inconsistent. When I asked in #143:

Do you also argue that if the commercial 'going rate' for women is lower, then the BBC can still use the 'going rate', or must they pay above it on equality grounds?

You said, No. No what? No, they shouldn't pay a lower 'going rate' for women? [But they must pay 'obscene' rates to men?] Does the BBC pay going rates or doesn't it? The BBC has been caught out paying obscene salaries to men, but lower rates to women - both in following the market (allegedly).

On the question of commercial broadcasters poaching BBC 'talent', has this been demonstrated? We know that the BBC poached Aled Jones and Katie Derham from Classic FM (and ITN in KD's case). We know that John Humphrys said that he had never asked the BBC for a pay rise in his life. How did the BBC decide/know what to pay him?

[gradus]

It's all right for the BBC to pay 'obscene' salaries, if the market pays obscene salaries? One answer of yours was either ambiguous or inconsistent. When I asked in #143:



You said, No. No what? No, they shouldn't pay a lower 'going rate' for women? [But they must pay 'obscene' rates to men?] Does the BBC pay going rates or doesn't it? The BBC has been caught out paying obscene salaries to men, but lower rates to women - both in following the market (allegedly).

On the question of commercial broadcasters poaching BBC 'talent', has this been demonstrated? We know that the BBC poached Aled Jones and Katie Derham from Classic FM (and ITN in KD's case). We know that John Humphrys said that he had never asked the BBC for a pay rise in his life. How did the BBC decide/know what to pay him?

In the absence of any formal evaluation process, perhaps by reflecting on his value to the organisation, bigger jobs get bigger pay as they do in most organisations.
Losing staff to competitors and attracting them from competitors is a pretty reliable indicator of the sufficiency of salaries.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It's all right for the BBC to pay 'obscene' salaries, if the market pays obscene salaries?

No - it's obscene of them both. But chucking mud at the Beeb alone for doing so is legerdemain.

One answer of yours was either ambiguous or inconsistent.

... yes, it was - and downright careless. To clarify -

1) No; the BBC shouldn't pay different salaries to two employees doing the same job equally well.
2) Nor should the Commercial sector. BUT WE DON'T KNOW IF THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR IS DOING THIS. The Independent companies haven't been forced by the Government to publicize the salaries they pay to their presenters.

On the question of commercial broadcasters poaching BBC 'talent', has this been demonstrated?

Adrian Chiles (continuing the Gary Lineker "theme"), Rageh Omaar. (Going back somewhat, Morecambe & Wise.)

We know that the BBC poached Aled Jones and Katie Derham from Classic FM (and ITN in KD's case).

Oh - we can throw as much mud as we like at those decisions! Quite what talent the Beeb thought it would be bringing to the Corporation, I can't begin to imagine - although Aled Jones seems to have found his niche in daytime telly and Radio 2.

We know that John Humphrys said that he had never asked the BBC for a pay rise in his life. How did the BBC decide/know what to pay him?

I cannot answer this. Nor if the situation was any different for, say, Trevor MacDonald.

[jean]

...We know that the BBC poached Aled Jones and Katie Derham from Classic FM...

And Catherine Bott went from the BBC to CFM, for whatever reason. Is she still there?

[P. G. Tipps]

We know that John Humphrys said that he had never asked the BBC for a pay rise in his life. How did the BBC decide/know what to pay him?

Presumably that was 'negotiated' at the very start between the two parties? Who knows what automatic annual increments he might receive as part of the contract.

Judging by what we now know the lucky Humphrys earns he has had very little need to ask the BBC for any sort of pay rise whatsoever.

I have some sympathy for his lower-paid colleagues here, not just the complaining ladies. Imho he's the worst interviewer on the Today Programme. However, in many workplaces it always seems to be the least-merited workers who invariably get the top jobs and the higher pay. They clearly have attributes that are spotted by managements alone and are quite hidden from the rest of us.

Quite baffling ...

[teamsaint]

Presumably that was 'negotiated' at the very start between the two parties? Who knows what automatic annual increments he might receive as part of the contract.

Judging by what we now know the lucky Humphrys earns he has had very little need to ask the BBC for any sort of pay rise whatsoever.

I have some sympathy for his lower-paid colleagues here, not just the complaining ladies. Imho he's the worst interviewer on the Today Programme. However, in many workplaces it always seems to be the least-merited workers who invariably get the top jobs and the higher pay. They clearly have attributes that are spotted by managements alone and are quite hidden from the rest of us.



Quite baffling ...

...and without whom things keep going quite nicely. But take away the worker ants and see what happens..........

[jean]

...We know that John Humphrys said that he had never asked the BBC for a pay rise in his life. How did the BBC decide/know what to pay him?

He has also said

...in terms of his market value he had been offered a doubling of his salary by a rival radio broadcaster eight years ago but that he declined because he loved his job and the BBC which he said was “in his soul”...

So unless he made it quite clear to the BBC that he would never leave them, the might have been fiightened into increasing his salary unnecessarily (through his agent, of course).

[teamsaint]

The threat of leaving for a better offer elsewhere is of course pretty much the main weapon in obtaining a pay rise.

And agents don't live on fresh air.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The threat of leaving for a better offer elsewhere is of course pretty much the main weapon in obtaining a pay rise.

- and both Brucie and Bob Monkhouse showed very shrewd business sense when "playing" between the BBC and ITV in the '70s and '80s. (Remember, too, when Monkhouse was sacked by the producer of The Golden Shot because he reckoned the show would survive with a cheaper presenter. A couple of years - and Norman Vaughan, Charlie Williams, and plummeting audience ratings later - said producer was himself "let go" and Monkhouse was back on a significantly higher salary.)

And agents don't live on fresh air.

In fact, I believe fresh air is actually dangerous to them?