BBC transparency

Yes, we should question these salaries as it is OUR licence fees that pay them.

I think the notion of the 4 to 1 differential in Norwegian pay comes from this article in 2011

sciencenordic.com/culture-smaller-wage-differences

However this 2013 article in "Newsinenglish" from Norway paints are rather different picture, showing a 16 to 1 differential. Note that this is between the pay of top executives and average, not minimum, pay of workers.

"Aftenposten reported that new figures from pension, finance and life insurance agency KLP along with academic estimates show that Norwegian chief executives earn roughly 16 times the incomes of “average” workers. Executive pay has increased more than the average raises granted to Norwegian workers over the past 20 years, but executive salaries are still small compared to CEOs in other countries."

www.newsinenglish.no/2013/05/29/executive-pay-low-in-norway/

I do agree that it would be best if we were a more egalitarian country, like Norway and the other Scandinavian countries, but it is important not to get the facts right.

Having said that, it is not actually that outrageous to suggest that a surgeon's pay might be £1,200 per week, compared with a hospital cleaner on £300. Surgeons in training (ie below the grade of consultant) could well be on £1,200.

Ok have a good day.

Thank you white wave, no need, I was just curious

I'll google it this evening if you are still interested only I'm busy today.

Just curious whitewave, can't see how it would work . McDonald was on Andrew Marr flashing a wage slip of a hospital cleaner , weeks pay was under £300. Should a surgeon work for £1,200 per week?

annie perhaps the clerk or cleaner has a higher base rate to begin with? I don't actually know as I've never looked at it.

A surgeon should only earn four times the salary of a filing clerk or cleaner ?

Didn't Harold Wilson try to bring in something of the sort? I seem to remember some sort of restriction.

That is so civilised

4 to 1 in Norway. Could that be why they are a happier society?

Isn't that what happens in Germany?

I was bought NOW TV with a free two months Sky subscription.
After the two months I realised I had only watched a few films on it, just because it was there, and I saw no point in paying another £10 a month on top of my licence just for the odd film.
I think the licence is good value for money.
Perhaps now that the pay has come out into the open, some of them will realise how obscene it is having those salaries.
Could the idea that those at the top should not earn more than 20 times those at the bottom work here?

I liked TW but he wasn't the whole of the BBC - I really value a whole range of programmes on R4. I know not everyone wants to listen to them but one of the points of the BBC is that it caters for all tastes. When I can't sleep at night I sometimes listen to LBC and it is incredible how ignorant and biased so many of their presenters are. There is not one who would survive 5 mins on R4 honestly. One idiot was discussing the Charlie Gard case and talking about the operation the little boy could have. There is no operation - completely false. It just wouldn't happen on the Beeb.

I get your point Rigby but how do we quantify excellence?
My concept of it probably differs from yours although most of us seem to be in agreement re. Terry Wogans successor!

This subject of salary will always be emotive. In many cases we will be appalled simply because we do not know all the facts, just the large sum of money. How do you value the talent, if that is what it is, of someone who does what we may not be able to do?

Are we satisfied with the BBC overall? Do we think that the BBC ought to provide more good entertainment, drama, music, enervating discussions and more or do we think that having personalities is more important? I have always thought that those who bring us the best programmes are the personalities we value. On that basis I cannot understand why some are paid so much, overpaid in my view, and I would not miss them if they moved to Sky or wherever.

There are very, very few who become as good as Terry Wogan who was worth every penny they paid him. That is easy to define. For the also rans the difficulty must be in deciding just where they should be in the pay pecking order. We may and do disagree but could we take the responsibility and the decisions?

If they get offered more from commercial stations then so be it. Goodbye .
Mind you I'm not sure if itv, sky or channel 4 have enough room for all those egos .

I value the BBC. I don't watch much what used to be called "light entertainment" but Ive enjoyed recent Dark dramas like Top of the Lake, Broken, in the dark to name a few. Three Girls was moving, had a great cast and managed to accurately reflect the reality of child sexual exploitation. Neither the drama, or the documentary that followed could be accused of being 'politically correct', an accusation so often made about BBC programmes.
I listen to many radio 4 programmes, I find their news coverage more detailed than the 24 hour news. My go to tv news channel is channel 4. I loathe Jeremy Vain (!) but often listen, I enjoy it more when Paddy O'Connell or Venessa Feltz do the show, they're much better at getting the best out of guests or listeners who phone in. jV patronises and is imo, too full of his own importance. Never listen to Chris Evans' show, enjoy Steve Wright. I listen to some radio five.
So, I get my money's worth and more from the BBC. I'd hate to lose it, or see it advertising to raise funds.
On salaries, phew some folks earn a lot of money. Some of them I wouldn't pay in washers but I'm not running a broadcasting service, so what do I know. The only issue I'm interested in is the fact that the women who earn a lot don't seem to be in anything other than 'light entertainment', where lots of makeup, flash their teeth and often other attributes but just because I'd rather listen to Jane Garvey or
Laura Kunsberg doesn't mean I should get what I want.

Anyway, that's my response to this subject. But hey, it's part of public service, so it must be a Bad Thing.

When I was working if I covered for someone while they were away I didn't get paid extra, so why should the BBC presenters get more because they do 2 programmes instead of 1. Stop employing them through agencies and production companies, take them on as employees and pay them a flat salary no matter how many programmes they do (although of course that would mean they would not be able to avoid paying tax and N.I.)

Anyone who resigned from the BBC over this wouldn't be joining the real world but would probably get much much more from one of the commercial stations.

It made sense Pamela but just measuring by revenue bringing would ignore other really important aspects of the BBC. For example, there is a reporter, Jane Deith who does File on 4 and items for C4 as well. She probably doesn't bring in any revenue but the quality of her work and the way it aids understanding is beyond price. It's all that's good about the BBC and there isn't a commercial station that could come anywhere near what she does.

Izzey, In my paper it says that the presenters on BBC breakfast are all paid the same. Dan Walker earns more because of other programmes he is on. (Football Focus)
I listened a year or so ago to programmes on radio 4 that was trying to evaluate who was worth what. For example David Beckham is worth a lot to his club because he puts bums on seats. His footballing career is also fairly short.
If we apply the same thinking to the salaries of the BBC then programmes such as Strictly are justified in paying their staff more because they earn a lot of money for the corporation.
Therefore some programmes should be paying their presenters a lot less because the programmes don't bring in any revenue.
Am I making sense?

I don't think there will be resignations where else would they get such inflated wages in the real world.

Breakfast News on BBC tv is one of the few BBC programmes I watch (apart from listening to some of their radio programmes.)
The last 2 mornings you could see the tension between Dan Walker and Louise Minchin, Then today between Nada, and Charlie Stayt (she earns more than him).
I wonder if there'll be resignations? Or the BBC receiving legal threats from those offended?

Were not we're.