BBC Golden Goodbyes

[thinfourth2]

bhstewie said:

thinfourth2 said:

SCRAP the BBC

That's the thing, I don't want to, nor I suspect do many of us. They do some fantastic stuff.

That doesn't change the fact that "they" just don't seem to get it.

No No no

You can't say this here

AJS will get very angry

[Randy Winkman]

10 Pence Short said:

AnotherClarkey said:

Of course, in the private sector things are much more reasonable - Rebekah Brooks being cast out of News International with nothing more than a clip round the ear for example......

Remind me how News International is funded? Is it the same tax payers as those who fund the BBC?

Why do people make these, frankly, fking ridiculous comparisons?

Surely public sector pay/renumeration should in some way be compared with private sector - otherwise nobody would want to join the public sector.

[tubbystu]

hornetrider said:

The amount that leaving managers are given is simply staggering. Whatever happened to simply leaving and finding another job?

hornetrider said:

My outrage is bolstered by the fact that these are not just redundancy payments. They are people leaving their job.

But they are just that. Redundancy or severance agreements. Still too high, but contractual or negotiated settlements none the less.

Telegraph piece said:

A spokesman for the BBC said: "Staff who are made redundant receive what they are entitled to in their contract. While redundancies involve costs in the short term in th long-term they represent significant savings. We offer our full co-operation with the National Audit Office."

Perhaps its the BBC contracts dept that needs sorting out...........

[hornetrider]

What's your point Stu? Severance is different to redundancy. Why a massive golden goodbye for severance? And of course it's a problem with the contracts.

Also, the implication here is many have received more than was written into their contract. Entwhistle being the prime example.

[BOR]

Why is the well known communist, Lord Patten, authorising these scandalous pay offs ?

[greygoose]

Randy Winkman said:

10 Pence Short said:

AnotherClarkey said:

Of course, in the private sector things are much more reasonable - Rebekah Brooks being cast out of News International with nothing more than a clip round the ear for example......

Remind me how News International is funded? Is it the same tax payers as those who fund the BBC?

Why do people make these, frankly, fking ridiculous comparisons?

Surely public sector pay/renumeration should in some way be compared with private sector - otherwise nobody would want to join the public sector.

Exactly, how is comparing two media groups ridiculous?

[DonkeyApple]

BOR said:

Why is the well known communist, Lord Patten, authorising these scandalous pay offs ?

Because there isn't enough proof to survive tribunals. Ergo in order to satisfy the beast you pay a few people to take early retirement.

[10 Pence Short]

greygoose said:

Randy Winkman said:

10 Pence Short said:

AnotherClarkey said:

Of course, in the private sector things are much more reasonable - Rebekah Brooks being cast out of News International with nothing more than a clip round the ear for example......

Remind me how News International is funded? Is it the same tax payers as those who fund the BBC?

Why do people make these, frankly, fking ridiculous comparisons?

Surely public sector pay/renumeration should in some way be compared with private sector - otherwise nobody would want to join the public sector.

Exactly, how is comparing two media groups ridiculous?

The outrage about the BBC and their pay-offs is ultimately because WE are paying for it. If it was executives at GlaxoSmithKline or BP or almost any other private organisation, there would be no story.

If Rupert Murdoch wants to pay his staff a generous severance package, it's none of our business because we're not forced to pay for it. It's immaterial to our lives.

If a publicly funded organisation chooses to hand out contracts that spend tax payer's money in a wasteful way, that IS our business.

If you cannot see the difference, I wonder how you manage to tie shoelaces or even remember to breath in once in a while.

[Randy Winkman]

10 Pence Short said:

If a publicly funded organisation chooses to hand out contracts that spend tax payer's money in a wasteful way, that IS our business.

If you cannot see the difference, I wonder how you manage to tie shoelaces or even remember to breath in once in a while.

I think we can see the difference between a private sector company and a public sector organisation. But we can also see that people have the choice of working for either - and many switch back and forth. Hence, the pay/renumeration in one is relevant to the other.

[tubbystu]

hornetrider said:

What's your point Stu?

Perhaps I misread your OP as if you thought they were leaving of their own free will.

hornetrider said:

Severance is different to redundancy. Why a massive golden goodbye for severance? And of course it's a problem with the contracts.

Many of the recent payouts will be caused by the move of much of the BBC's production to Manchester. If you have a fixed term contract to work for the BBC in London, and mid-term they shift the location to Manchester you would either get offered a relocation package, redundancy or severance depending on the job/role/person/needs/contract etc. Because the employer is changing the terms of the contract, the carrot waived will be generous.

hornetrider said:

Also, the implication here is many have received more than was written into their contract. Entwhistle being the prime example.

Entwhistle negotiated the maximum term in his contact. Allegedly for going quickly/quietly. Quite how you get clauses for 100% of salary for being sacked against 50% for resignation beggars belief. More contractual term nonsense.

[Pesty]

BOR said:

Why is the well known communist, Lord Patten, authorising these scandalous pay offs ?

So he gets one too when he finally fks off.

What qualification or experience did he have for holding that position anyway?

anybody know how much he gets paid?

[daveydave7]

Its just a kick in the teeth for working class people in my opinion
Mind you I think footballers earn far too much as well

[unrepentant]

Haven't you read the BBC mission statement?

"It's the unique way that the BBC is funded that allows us to piss away your money with such abandon".

[Gene Vincent]

Any large organisation that becomes 'a trusted institution' becomes top heavy with management and it starts to crush the root that supports it.

Add to this the English trait of Empire building (which is ingrained) and a virtually unchecked hand on the purse and we have almost every large publicly funded organisation in the UK today.

The country has a burden, not just of debt, but the additional burden of institutionalised exploitation of position.

Why do these people get the large sums or special treatment?

It is institutionalised, that's why.

[hidetheelephants]

greygoose said:

Randy Winkman said:

10 Pence Short said:

AnotherClarkey said:

Of course, in the private sector things are much more reasonable - Rebekah Brooks being cast out of News International with nothing more than a clip round the ear for example......

Remind me how News International is funded? Is it the same tax payers as those who fund the BBC?

Why do people make these, frankly, fking ridiculous comparisons?

Surely public sector pay/renumeration should in some way be compared with private sector - otherwise nobody would want to join the public sector.

Exactly, how is comparing two media groups ridiculous?

It's ridiculous because the Sun, Times etc. each have one editor-in-chief, and they get fired unceremoniously if they fk up. BBC news appears to have dozens of mandarins with vague jobtitles, apparently no management/hierarchy tree indicating who is responsible for what, and little consequence for careers if they do balls up as they can just 'move sideways'; despite serial fk-ups the titular head and deputy of news get to retire.

[anonymous-user]

not one copper coin of mine has gone to the BBC for a long long time now

so I am not in a position to be outraged about this

[hidetheelephants]

JPJPJP said:

not one copper coin of mine has gone to the BBC for a long long time now

so I am not in a position to be outraged about this

There's plenty spare to go round; my levels of outrage have reached the heady heights of 'having another cup of tea and eating a biscuit'.

[bitchstewie]

How common are these kind of severance deals? I'm sure if most of us went into their boss and said "I'm handing in my notice, how much are you going to pay me?" we can guess what the answer would be, but I work in a very normal industry.

[BrabusMog]

bhstewie said:

How common are these kind of severance deals? I'm sure if most of us went into their boss and said "I'm handing in my notice, how much are you going to pay me?" we can guess what the answer would be, but I work in a very normal industry.

Are you one of these "ordinary people" they are going on about, then?

[DonkeyApple]

bhstewie said:

How common are these kind of severance deals? I'm sure if most of us went into their boss and said "I'm handing in my notice, how much are you going to pay me?" we can guess what the answer would be, but I work in a very normal industry.

Depends on whether your company wants to stop you from taking your expertise to a competitor. If that is the case then generally they will pay you.

It also depends on what is in your employment contract in way of covenants.

And finally, it depends on how solid their case is if they are getting rid of you.

Seeing as the public want blood for Jimmy and there is no one to directly blame then the compromise of paying people to take a ceremonial fall to appease the gods is the only real option.