BBC Womens pay gap

[Zoon]

I assume she will refuse her BBC pension as well then.

[Zetec-S]

Joey Ramone said:

So how does that explain the BBC's Europe Correspondent, Katya Adler, also being paid vastly less that either Bowen or Sopel? Because I suspect that, Trump and Israel/Palestine notwithstanding, the average Brit is far more concerned with what happens in Europe (Brexit, obv) than either the US or Middle East

Not according to most media outlets. Even without the Trump debacle, far more coverage is devoted to the US. Compare election coverage (and not just the most recent) - most European campaign/results are no more than a footnote and quickly forgotten, whereas US coverage goes on for months.

As for Middle East, you could argue that should pay the most simply due to the risk of getting shot/blown up.

[Joey Ramone]

Zetec-S said:

Not according to most media outlets. Even without the Trump debacle, far more coverage is devoted to the US. Compare election coverage (and not just the most recent) - most European campaign/results are no more than a footnote and quickly forgotten, whereas US coverage goes on for months.

As for Middle East, you could argue that should pay the most simply due to the risk of getting shot/blown up.

Brexit is a far more complex, demanding and time consuming subject for analysis than the comedy cake and arse party that is the Trump administration.

[Zetec-S]

Joey Ramone said:

Her point isn't about the amount. It was about the fact that she was lied to when she accepted the job, insofar that she said that she took it on the assurance by the BBC that she would be paid the same as the three other regional editors.

But that could never happen as the other regional editors don't earn the same as each other anyway. If that's what she was told then it's incompetence by the BBC HR monkeys, but not gender discrimination.

If the argument is all regional editors should earn the same then surely Bowen should be complaining he doesn't earn as much as Sopel.

[Zetec-S]

Joey Ramone said:

Brexit is a far more complex, demanding and time consuming subject for analysis than the comedy cake and arse party that is the Trump administration.

Which is why it's also covered by the Political Editor (Laura Kuenssberg)

[Europa1]

Zetec-S said:

Compare election coverage (and not just the most recent) - most European campaign/results are no more than a footnote and quickly forgotten, whereas US coverage goes on for months.

That's because their election process goes on for months and months.

[anonymous-user]

Europa1 said:

The thorny issue is that in large part the BBC is in a commercial marketplace.

How does having a guaranteed income of over £3.7B put them in a commercial marketplace?

[anonymous-user]

Zetec-S said:

But that could never happen as the other regional editors don't earn the same as each other anyway. If that's what she was told then it's incompetence by the BBC HR monkeys, but not gender discrimination.

If the argument is all regional editors should earn the same then surely Bowen should be complaining he doesn't earn as much as Sopel.

HR monkeys? Drooling monkeys? Chimps? Is this the BBC or planet of the apes?

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 9th January 14:09

[Zetec-S]

Europa1 said:

Zetec-S said:

Compare election coverage (and not just the most recent) - most European campaign/results are no more than a footnote and quickly forgotten, whereas US coverage goes on for months.

That's because their election process goes on for months and months.

Campaigning in Germany started in June 2017, election in September 2017, and still no coalition agreement in January 2018 - 7 months and counting.

US Presidential nominations confirmed July 2016, election in November 2017 - 5 months.

[Zetec-S]

REALIST123 said:

Zetec-S said:

But that could never happen as the other regional editors don't earn the same as each other anyway. If that's what she was told then it's incompetence by the BBC HR monkeys, but not gender discrimination.

If the argument is all regional editors should earn the same then surely Bowen should be complaining he doesn't earn as much as Sopel.

HR monkeys? Drooling monkeys? Chimps? Is this the BBC or planet of the apes?

Edited by REALIST123 on Tuesday 9th January 14:09

A monkey would be unsuitable to work in HR. My point being whoever was stupid enough to tell Carrie Grace she'd be earning the same as the other editors is also unsuitable to work in HR.

[leef44]

Joey Ramone said:

motco said:

Far too much. A consultant surgeon in the NHS on the first level of seniority is paid less than that and he/she will work longer hours and certainly save more lives. Fifty thousand is enough.

No China specialist worth their salt would do the job for such a paltry sum.

Gracie's market value is far greater than what she's paid by the BBC. As a fluent Mandarin speaker with contacts throughout the Chinese Govt and an ecyclopaedic knowledge of that country's politics she could walk straight into any large corporation or investment bank. Just so happens she enjoys being a journalist, I suspect.

By all means, cap pay for BBC editors st 50k. As long as you're happy for the country to have itself informed on international matters by some drooling monkeys.

That's a very specific skill set. I can see the argument that in the market place, you are going to have to pay over £100k to get someone to do that job at that level.

As I understood it, part of her grievance is that she was then offered an extra £45k to put her in a similar pay category to her male colleagues. She felt that this was quite underhand. She challenges her pay compared to male colleague then BBC reacts. She felt that the whole set up was wrong.

I agree with others that it does look ludicrous that some of the roles are paid over £400k (say). I could understand £100k to £200k. However, as others have mentioned, it's partly driven by market economics. The more viewed areas demand higher pay, similar to how popular premier league is so demands ridiculously high salaries.

[Joey Ramone]

Zetec-S said:

Which is why it's also covered by the Political Editor (Laura Kuenssberg)

In the same way that US politics is also covered by the BBC's Washington Correspondent, Gary O'Donoghue.

[Camoradi]

It's a disgrace that Carrie Gracie is only paid too much for what she does, when all the men in similar roles are paid fking way too much

[Zetec-S]

Joey Ramone said:

Zetec-S said:

Which is why it's also covered by the Political Editor (Laura Kuenssberg)

In the same way that US politics is also covered by the BBC's Washington Correspondent, Gary O'Donoghue.

Touché

(although he's only a correspondent, rather than an editor)

[Gargamel]

Moonhawk said:

Gargamel said:

I think you are making excuses for a poor organisation, being badly managed. The BBC have known this is a sensitive issue for a couple of years, they could have got the house in order, but they haven't.

Many companies have salary banding for roles though. In some companies I have worked for - even relatively junior roles can differ by £15k-£20k between the top and bottom of the band for a given role.

Where you find yourself within that band is a function of experience, qualifications, years of service, annual appraisal results, your strength as a negotiator and whether you have come into the role as an internal or external candidate.

I am sure the BBC will have pointed all of this out to the female staffers. Interesting though that for comparable roles there aren't any situations where women are paid more.

Again, people are making excuses, this simply hasn't been done right and it needs fixing.

[Europa1]

Joey Ramone said:

Zetec-S said:

Which is why it's also covered by the Political Editor (Laura Kuenssberg)

In the same way that US politics is also covered by the BBC's Washington Correspondent, Gary O'Donoghue.

Not to mention in the 2016 US election, James Naughtie also did some reports (£150,000-199,999 bracket).

[The Surveyor]

Gargamel said:

I am sure the BBC will have pointed all of this out to the female staffers. Interesting though that for comparable roles there aren't any situations where women are paid more.

Again, people are making excuses, this simply hasn't been done right and it needs fixing.

When there is such a variation in roles and competences of the individuals performing those roles, its highly unlikely there will ever be two people paid the same. People being worth what the BBC is prepared to pay against the wider commercial broadcasting marketplace. Supply and demand and all that.

I would agree that it does indeed need a degree of 'fixing' where any perception of a gender pay gap is removed, but what we don't want is any forced positive intervention that see people put in roles and on pay grades primarily due to their gender rather than on merit. The BBC makes some brilliant programmes and is valued globally, it would be sad to see that reversed by further ill-judged management decisions.

[Moonhawk]

Gargamel said:

I am sure the BBC will have pointed all of this out to the female staffers. Interesting though that for comparable roles there aren't any situations where women are paid more.

Again, people are making excuses, this simply hasn't been done right and it needs fixing.

Are the types of roles we are talking about "comparable" though. It might be easy to say "they are both presenters - therefore should be paid the same" as you would for Tesco checkout operators - but the nuances of TV mean that the job is rarely as straightforward as that.

Take the one show as an example - fronted by Matt Baker and Alex Jones. Matt is in a higher salary bracket than Alex - and you could argue "gender discrimination" because they both front the same show pretty equally.

However looking at the other work they are involved in hosting and co-costing, it looks like Matt is involved in more and higher profile shows apart from the One Show (Countryfile, Crufts, the Olympics, The Commonwealth games etc). Their pay will likely be a function of not only their primary work on the One Show - but also all of the secondary work they carry out (both on and off screen). Unless we have a detailed breakdown of all of their activities - we cannot possibly make a determination of gender discrimination.

In addition, the fact Matt has been with the corporation 10 years longer than Alex might also go some way to explain his higher salary. Years of service counts in many companies - i'm sure the BBC is no exception.

It would be interesting especially where presenters are concerned to compare (and correct for) salary vs screen time and profile of show (perhaps related to viewing figures or value of the show to the BBC brand). I'm sure that would shake up the list somewhat.

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 9th January 19:19

[Moonhawk]

Joey Ramone said:

Her point isn't about the amount. It was about the fact that she was lied to when she accepted the job, insofar that she said that she took it on the assurance by the BBC that she would be paid the same as the three other regional editors.

But she is claiming gender discrimination - rather than the fact she was, in effect, "mis-sold" the job.

Every job I have ever had - I have been offered a salary and have either accepted the job based on that offer, or negotiated for more.

I have never known a company to promise that you will paid an identical amount as somebody else - if for no other reason than it would be a breach of privacy and data protection rules as you would in effect be being told what their salary was (which likely comes under the remit of personal data).

[OddCat]

The whole gender pay gap issue is becoming farcical.

Easyjet was touted as the worst overall last week.....but that is surely because most of the pilots are blokes and most of the cabin staff are girls. So not comparing apples with apples...