Harriet Cass and Charlotte Green to leave R4

[kernelbogey]

....One Conservative MP spoke last week about tearing up a long-term agreement with the words "it's just a stupid contract". We could all follow that example and bring the private sector to its knees within weeks but contracts tend to be in the wider interest too....

A contract is an agreement between two parties, which may or may not be written. It seems that there is an increasing body of those who consider that the more powerful party is in a position to tear up an agreed contract, or to bully or coerce the other into relinquishing or renegotiating the contract. That seems to me to be asocial. And then there is the social contract too - to behave decently, pay taxes, contribute to society and so forth, as Lat implies. When this breaks down - whether it be in riots by the disaffected, or self-interested fraud by bankers - all of society suffers.

Whether this has any direct relevance for the situation of Mesdames Cass and Green is unclear at least to this poster. (And, Lat, it seems to me, with respect, that in this case you may be projecting your own thoughts and feelings onto these two BBC employees.) As another has observed above, 'voluntary' redundancy does not necessarily mean that it has actually been coercive. In the organisation in which I have worked a necessary reduction in costs - necessary because government funding was reduced - has been achieved partly by an universal offer to staff of voluntary redundancy on generous terms. No one was coerced; many took up the offer because it was generous and suited their current life circumstances.

[Lateralthinking1]

A contract is an agreement between two parties, which may or may not be written. It seems that there is an increasing body of those who consider that the more powerful party is in a position to tear up an agreed contract, or to bully or coerce the other into relinquishing or renegotiating the contract. That seems to me to be asocial. And then there is the social contract too - to behave decently, pay taxes, contribute to society and so forth, as Lat implies. When this breaks down - whether it be in riots by the disaffected, or self-interested fraud by bankers - all of society suffers.

Whether this has any direct relevance for the situation of Mesdames Cass and Green is unclear at least to this poster. (And, Lat, it seems to me, with respect, that in this case you may be projecting your own thoughts and feelings onto these two BBC employees.) As another has observed above, 'voluntary' redundancy does not necessarily mean that it has actually been coercive. In the organisation in which I have worked a necessary reduction in costs - necessary because government funding was reduced - has been achieved partly by an universal offer to staff of voluntary redundancy on generous terms. No one was coerced; many took up the offer because it was generous and suited their current life circumstances.

Thank you for your comments.

I am sorry about the bold type that follows in places as it leaps out a little but it also highlights the key facts.

Under BBC policy, employees with two or more years' continuous service are eligible for redundancy money, which is currently calculated at a rate of one month's salary for each completed year of continuous service up to a maximum of 24 years.

Under changes proposed as part of the Delivering Quality First cost-cutting initiative BBC management plans to reduce this to one month's salary for each year of service up to a maximum of 12 months' pay.

The changes will be introduced from September 2013 - ie in one year's time.

The current rules have provided a median redundancy payment to staff of £35,161. This is set to fall substantially under the new arrangements.

Delivering Quality First will lead to several thousand more redundancies between September 2013 and March 2017.

Compulsory redundancies, as opposed to redundancy described as voluntary in the light of significant reductions in compensation from next year, have already occurred, particularly in respect of BBC journalists.

Further compulsory redundancies have not been ruled out.

Not so much a "nudge" then as a juggernaut sized "push".

While the detailed arrangements are different from those in the Civil Service, Local Government, the NHS, the Police and the Armed Services, the (lack of) principle being applied is precisely the same.

[Carmen]

Very interesting thread! My first reaction on hearing about CG and HC's impending retirement was "two more women of a certain age thrown on the scrap heap by Nasty Men in Suits intent on replacing them with a slew of younger, ever-smiling, fawning, gushing girlies" - and I still think so. Older women are not seen or heard very much in the media. Fact. I would man the barricades, but I'd rather read a book.

[kernelbogey]

Lat - thanks: I agree that is scandalous.

Carmen - ok re TV presenters.

With radio, do you think one can tell the age of the broadcaster? Some women, Charlotte Green for example, have rather contralto speaking voices, others more soprano - but I don't think necessarily age related?

(BTW, I think Patricia Hughes was beloved partly because of a contralto pitch, as well as perfect enunciation.)

[Lateralthinking1]

Lat - thanks: I agree that is scandalous.

Carmen - ok re TV presenters.

With radio, do you think one can tell the age of the broadcaster? Some women, Charlotte Green for example, have rather contralto speaking voices, others more soprano - but I don't think necessarily age related?

(BTW, I think Patricia Hughes was beloved partly because of a contralto pitch, as well as perfect enunciation.)

Yes, many thanks for your response. Just a final bit of clarification that may be of interest to people. You might hear a slightly higher average current sum being mentioned- £40,000 odd. The average I have cited takes into account every leaver and picks the middle one's level of redundancy payment. The alternative higher figure favoured by the BBC is based on adding all of the redundancy packages and dividing the total by all the people leaving - the "mean" average rather than the median average.

The alternative figure is higher because it is distorted by a small handful of people who left with huge payouts - one was on over £900,000, one on over £600,000 and one on over 400,000. These are the kinds of figures you will see mentioned in the Daily Mail but the figures apply to a tiny, tiny, fraction of people, all very senior. I think one may have been for the Deputy Director.

The Government and the BBC would argue, if pressed, that even a median sum of £35,161 is a generous payout compared with statutory obligations on private sector employers under which many can be made redundant on less than £10,000. The difference is that the statutory position there hasn't been changed. People know what to expect when deciding to go, or not, for an interview. Here long-standing terms that have applied for 25 years or more in many cases have simply been torn up since 2010.

Such changes would represent a personal blow to many in ordinary circumstances. However, three other factors have added to the burden. One is that the unemployment rate is unusually high. That makes getting alternative employment more difficult. The second is that the pension age has been increased so that people are having to work longer and yet are losing their jobs.

The third - and I am not underestimating the considerable difficulties facing young people now for they are immense - is that in the 1990s and earlier, working experience was more attractive to employers than a lack of working experience. Now experience is less favoured because it equates to greater expense. That is because older people still retain some of the earlier provisions, not least in regard to pension accrual. So there has been an emphasis on getting many of the 40 to 60 age group out. It might be denied but that is how the new packages are designed. It is the best way of saving money on pensions ultimately taken at retirement age.

So you are getting many of, say, 45 or 55 who may well have to work until 66, 68 or 70 but are jobless and have money to get them through a very few years at most. All the sympathy in the media is with those who are younger and have sadly never been employed. The jobless middle age are categorised as well off. Of course, senior people in middle age are still very employable. They are seen to have crucial influence in the corridors of power. So it is ordinary folk who are being abandoned. Charlotte and Harriet almost certainly fall between those two categories but there will be many unknowns in the BBC in lower positions with anxiety now.

[MrGongGong]

To those of us who are self employed the whole idea of somehow being paid a huge amount of money to stop doing what we do seems rather surreal.
Not that I begrudge anyone being paid well etc etc but why is the underlying assumption always that "WORK" is something one does unwillingly for someone else who will have no respect for you and will treat you badly ?

[kernelbogey]

Employment contracts are often, I believe, open-ended so the assumption in that case would be lifetime employment agreed between two willing parties. If the employer wishes to exit the agreement then compensation is appropriate. Being self-employed (which I have been) is an individual choice IMV of freedom over security.

[Lateralthinking1]

To those of us who are self employed the whole idea of somehow being paid a huge amount of money to stop doing what we do seems rather surreal.
Not that I begrudge anyone being paid well etc etc but why is the underlying assumption always that "WORK" is something one does unwillingly for someone else who will have no respect for you and will treat you badly ?

There's no assumption of unwillingness from me or many who I know. I had what might be described as the old common value of public service. Few have it now. Many of us were very willing but our employers were unwilling to honour commitments. It has not always been the case with me that employers were considered to have no respect and to treat people badly. This is principally a recent phenomenon. It coincides with the financial crisis which was and is based on gross mismanagement, ie post 2007.

You make choices about employment. If you choose to be self-employed, you know that the conditions from the word go are likely to be less favourable in terms of holidays, sickness, compensation and so on. You also have free will in determining how you undertake your work, how much of it you will do and when you will do it. No one sets a limit on your profit or loss. I have never earned more than the average national wage but I had very close dealings with Ministers. And time was never my own.

So you do what you do. If self-employed, you will consider that you are to some extent going to be affected by economic policy. That could have a detrimental effect on your business. You know that from the outset and decide that you will have to rely on trust. You might even think - I don't know - that the public sector needs to be subjected to the same sorts of economic fluctuations which to a greater or lesser extent it will be. But what you wouldn't expect is a fundamental moving of goalposts.

Supposing in addition to the economic risk, the Government decided overnight that every private working arrangement was to be undertaken on a gentleman's agreement. That no longer would you be able to ask the law to intervene in non-payment. I think that you might have asked yourself at 22 or 25 whether what you were choosing was the right choice in the long run and made a different kind of choice. The idea is so ludicrous that it would never have even entered your mind for why should it have done? So imagine getting to 40, 45 or 50 and then finding that the goalposts had changed that significantly. Suddenly you are out of work, for payment from others is no longer forthcoming, and you wonder why you weren't forewarned much earlier when it mattered.

[MrGongGong]

I wasn't complaining at all
just pointing out that there are sometimes underlying assumptions
I'm a bit fed up of some folk moaning about how "goalposts have moved" , in some cases this seems justified
but there is a point where one has to simply accept that what happens in the world is largely unpredictable
as has been said many times
"shit happens, get over it"

[Lateralthinking1]

I wasn't complaining at all
just pointing out that there are sometimes underlying assumptions
I'm a bit fed up of some folk moaning about how "goalposts have moved" , in some cases this seems justified
but there is a point where one has to simply accept that what happens in the world is largely unpredictable
as has been said many times
"shit happens, get over it"

But that is one of the Cameron lines. The other is that it is good news for the individuals concerned. This isn't a one off. What are you proposing? That I simply say it happened to me 20 months ago, it doesn't matter even though the practical impacts are for all time, and hard luck to others that it will occur annually because that is just how things are now.

I can't be involved in every future case, even though it will happen to many I know. But emotionally where this has the principal impact is in terms of citizenship. Many in the private sector want the country to let them do want they want to do without ludicrous constraints. I have moved from having a closer relationship with the state to a point at which I have hardly any relationship with it at all.

When do you suggest disabled people "get over" the ATOS tests? I need to know when I can be fed up with hearing about them. Why should I pay for people I don't know? The ultimate cost of indifference to others plight is that we will all say "mate, you are on your own". No disabilty benefit. No child benefit. I could be won over to that position in response to attitudes on this forum.

[MrGongGong]

But that is one of the Cameron lines. The other is that it is good news for the individuals concerned. This isn't a one off. What are you proposing? That I simply say it happened to me 20 months ago, it doesn't matter even though the practical impacts are for all time, and hard luck to others that it will occur annually because that is just how things are now.

I can't be involved in every future case, even though it will happen to many I know. But emotionally where this has the principal impact is in terms of citizenship. Many in the private sector want the country to let them do want they want to do without ludicrous constraints. I have moved from having a closer relationship with the state to a point in which I have hardly any relationship with it at all.

When do you suggest disabled people "get over" the ATOS tests?

I'm not proposing anything at all
and in pointing out an assumption does not mean that I am advocating what the more extreme Tory idiots would suggest ............

I do think that there is a point to be made about levels of insecurity that one is capable of dealing with
many people seek a level of security that is not achievable
some people (and this is particularly true for those with ASD) are unable to cope with insecurity
IMV we should be providing more security for those with disabilities
i'm sure that the average dentist, doctor or university lecturer will be able to cope with a bit less security
many people I know and whom I work with can hardly cope with any

[Lateralthinking1]

I'm not proposing anything at all
and in pointing out an assumption does not mean that I am advocating what the more extreme Tory idiots would suggest ............

I do think that there is a point to be made about levels of insecurity that one is capable of dealing with
many people seek a level of security that is not achievable
some people (and this is particularly true for those with ASD) are unable to cope with insecurity
IMV we should be providing more security for those with disabilities
i'm sure that the average dentist, doctor or university lecturer will be able to cope with a bit less security
many people I know and whom I work with can hardly cope with any

And yet many people with disabilities live in a comfortable home while many single people without disabilities are homeless.

We have people with disability at the Paralympics with the security of several people combined and people without disabilities taking tablets for depression and anxiety in their millions, all being told to "get over it".

Maybe it is time for more of us of a sympathetic nature to lose sympathy and vote for the extreme Tory idiots.

I might just do so on the grounds that it can't affect me now so why should I give a damn. I won't believe in it but it would make me more in line with the average level of spite of Joe Public.

What a miserable bunch of twisted amoral con artists we have now in this country. For once, I am in agreement with Jeremy Clarkson. Now we know the playing field, let me see what other idiotic comments are on the boards from all the mature name callers today. The place is littered.

[Angle]

Meanwhile, I still mourn the retirement of Patricia Hughes.