BBC transparency

I was putting together two things which seem to me to be very closely connected, dj That these are white middle-aged men who are getting more than the non-whites, and that therefore their pay should be cut. Ergo, that they should get a paycut because they are white and middle class.

Tha has been the tone of posts on here.

"Conservative former minister Anna Soubry, who used to be a television presenter, said she kept a “very beady eye” on pay levels when she was a mother of the chapel at a branch of the National Union of Journalists. “I just wonder whether or not the de-unionisation of many places of work ... they played an important point in making sure there was fairness,” she said."

I wonder if she is in the right party.

Sorry, elegran, but who has said that anyone's pay should be cut because of their skin colour?
You do get hung up on some strange ideas.
Toby Young recognised that those at the top are all white middleclass men. He's right. Nothing wrong with recognising that.
By the way, it would be illegal, just as it's illegal to say a woman gets less pay because of her sex, but we all know it happens. This has at least brought both problems more into the open.

Ofcom are being asked to look into the problem of racist bias in BBC pay.

I would still rather they paid for quality programmes than overpaid presenters.

There you are then. The Beeb is aware and working on it. But they do have to renegotiate (which implies talking about it to the employee and reaching mutually agreeable solution), not just say "Your pay has been cut because of your skin colour.

BBC contracts are renegotiated all the time. John Humphrys has taken a drop in pay, and does not get as much as stated on the list.

TAs contracts in County Durham are being renegotiated so they are all getting a drop in pay.
I hope you have signed up to get that stopped, Elegran.

The way forward is not to give such contracts in the first place

Completely agree with that Elegran.

I have never said that they are NOT getting more money than they should! I have said that suddenly cutting someone's salary is not on - and they have a contract which would then be broken and cost a lot in legal fees. The way forward is not to give such contracts in the first place.

The women don't get millions, gillybob.

Elegran, Toby Young said it five minutes into the Andrew Marr show yesterday. He recognised that he is a white middle aged man getting more money than he should because of that.
Strange that he can recognise it, but you cannot.
Most of the newsreaders do not have the top inflated salaries. It's the entertainment people whose salaries should be cut.
In fact, many salaries are renegotiated every few years, so now it's out in the open, it will be interesting to see how many salaries are cut in the next round.
If all the white middleclass men's names suddenly disappear from the list, it will probably be because they are no longer paid directly by the BBC.

I agree with your last two paragraphs, Eloethan. If the BBC is undermined and Murdoch gets his way, we will be all the poorer for it.

The inflated egos of Evans, Ant and Dec, graham norton etc. Make them believe that they are worth that kind of money !
So the top 7 (?) are all men . Guess what ? They are where I work too . Shit happens .

Have i been rude to you Eloethan ? Have I upset you ? Called you a liar? Been nasty to you ? Directly sarcastic ?

If I have then do accept my apologies . Like you I have a right to opinion . I stand by my post that I have not named individual women . Actually there are a few I have a lot of respect for . But Are they worth millions ? Nope .

You said "I don't go with this gender pay gap thing at the BBC and would not like to see female salaries being raised in order to close this so called gap...... I could laugh my head off at these women beating on about how hard done by they are..... I mean bless them how do they survive?"

Your above staement appears to encompass all women working at the BBC and I was merely pointing out that people like Emily Maitlis, Kirsty Walk, etc. etc. are being unfairly discriminated against. You and I might think they are all paid too much but that is a different issue, and not a straight forward one.

You have suggested on other threads that some posters are unduly confrontational. I see your post to me,as being abrupt and quite rude - merely because I have voiced a different opinion from your own.

Gillybob, as Emily Maitliss is one of the women that you are laughing your head off about, one of the ones who is complaining about how hard done by she is in comparison to her male counterparts, it's difficult to see that she is not one of the ones you are referring to.

What I said is not that "bringing down top salaries is wrong" baldly like that. I said that cutting someone's salary because they are white is wrong. How can you say to someone "You are getting a pay cut because of your skin colour"? They will answer "I was worth that last month, what have I done to deserve less this month? Have I not done my job? My skin is the same colour as it was when we signed my contract. Have I changed since then?"

Cutting "anyone's* salary is wrong because they have commitments which they will be unable to meet, and if you cut for one, you have set a precedent for cutting for another. If you don't want or can't afford to pay very high salaries, then the next time their contract is due for renewal, you change the amount, and if they won't sign up again and you take on a replacement, you set their price somewhere lower.

"Equalising upwards is better than discriminating downwards" is the exact opposite of "the way forward is to bring down the salaries of those at the top to meet those nearer the bottom...."

Difficult to respect both these opinions. It's called sitting on the fence.

It is quite easy to respect different opinions Jen, it's known as having an open mind and not trying to be a know it all

Let's pay everyone the same as Evans then . Will that please you ?

Although I think you probably already know the people to which I refer . But why spoil a good argument eh ?

I don't recall mentioning any names in my last posts Eloethan .

gillybob How can you describe people like Emily Maitlis as having "big egos"? I think she, and other females who front news programmes, is a thoroughly competent member of the team and her contribution is equal to that of her male colleagues. It is, in my opinion, quite right that they should receive the same remuneration for the same or very similar work.

The issue of whether these sort of people merit the pay they get is a different one. Again, whilst I agree that some of the figures quoted are miles away from what the average person earns, they are no different from other high profile jobs and in fact much less than many. I really don't understand why such ire is directed at this relatively small group of people.

I can't see how you can expect an organisation like the BBC - a network that is highly regarded and whose programmes are sold throughout the world - to be run on completely different grounds from its commercial counterparts. My own feeling is that the motivation behind all these measures is to undermine the BBC and eventually do away with it. Obviously, some people on here will be very happy with this outcome, but I think it would be a great shame.

Perhaps we should do what they do in some of the Scandinavian countries - make it mandatory for every person's income, and tax paid, to be listed and available for all to see.

granny you are now rather perversely in the same position as those tax dodgers!!

You are not saying the same thing at all.
Gillybob says bring down top salaries; Elegran says it's wrong to do that.
"Equalising upwards is better than discriminating downwards" is the exact opposite of "the way forward is to bring down the salaries of those at the top to meet those nearer the bottom...."

Strange that someone can agree with both as well.

I am happy to report that as DH is over 75 we do not require a TV licence. Even happier to record that, thanks to a Gransnet trial when we had FreeSat installed and were allowed to keep it for free after the trial, we pay 0, zero, zilch for our TV service.

As my income has recently dropped, I no longer pay any Income Tax either. I suppose I should be upset that I am 'poorer' but find I am inordinately pleased that I no longer have to contribute to the biased BBC, Trident, High speed rail, the DUP, etc. but am still free to donate (albeit small amounts) to the charities and causes which I do support.

Well said Gilly and Elegran and I would like to add, as a left handed I have faced discrimination all my life ?