BBC Womens pay gap

[Jockman]

Murph7355 said:

Jockman said:

What would you change, Murph?

I wouldn't insist that positions are kept open.

Perhaps way more controversially I'm not sure I'd have any set period for SMP. If an employer doesn't want to subscribe to it, their choice (for better or worse).

Protections during redundancy processes are OTT.

I wouldn't allow the accrual of holidays (not sure whether this is currently voluntary though).

Parental leave provisions also seem OTT.

Note that this does not mean I think employers offering these things is a bad thing. I think offering them out of free choice would be a key differentiator and actually enable some employers to attract the best talent.

However, enshrining these things in law is too far, IMO, and could cause smaller employers serious problems.

Ultimately having a child is a choice. And a fiercely expensive one (I have equally strident views on IVF being paid for out of public funds - I "blame" the game not the player on all fronts ). I don't think employers should be forced to carry some of the burden for that choice. I think forward thinking ones over a size where critical mass helps would do so anyway, and would be wise to do so (my OH's firm is one example). I don't think it's great use of legislation though, and think it potentially causes plenty of problems (including some employers not taking on women in the child bearing bracket JIC).

I think your final point is valid and is borne out by other posters on this thread. I personally don’t espouse this viewpoint but accept that it will affect others differently.

Holiday accrual is mandatory.

I think your annoyance with the system is contradictory and I think you know why. As a reasonable person, you believe that some form of protection is appropriate. You just believe it has gone too far?

The trouble with this viewpoint is that once the principle is established, how do you plug the dam? Once precedence has been set, how do you stop discriminatory dominos cascading?

What you do is you allow a minimum standard to be set. Then you allow companies to differentiate above this standard. In doing so they then compete for the best talent, or certainly those that prioritise this aspect. SMP hardly affects the bottom line of Employers as most is paid by the State.

What you also fail to grasp is that these rules can assist small companies by creating a level playing field to a reasonable level. If they did not exist then small companies would seriously struggle to attract female talent. Why would you work for an employer that offered you no protection during childbirth? As a mortgage lender, would you not be looking that wee bit closer at the application from a young married couple?

As for IVF, I’ve only an opinion on it as it gave me a third grandchild. Happy to subscribe to a majority viewpoint if they want to get rid of NHS funding for this.

[Moonhawk]

Maybe a change to the time a person has to be back at work before they have to pay back some of the leave pay.

3 months seems far too short and many people return from maternity with no intention of staying - they just come back for the minimum time so they dont have to pay back any of the money.

This leaves their employers in the lurch for a second time in quick sucession and potentionally denies somebody who may be backfilling or in the position as an interim the job (this has actually happened to me).

Perhaps allow for some leeway though - so if somebody on maternity/paternity wants to leave the job - they dont have to pay as much back if they inform their employer in advance (thus giving the option to the employer to make the backfill permanent or free up the position for permanent recruitment)

[Jockman]

You don’t pay back SMP, as you rightly infer.

When it comes to contractual maternity pay then a company has chosen to pay this as a means of attracting employees. It’s a risky strategy. Not for me.

[Murph7355]

The company has non-salary costs too... Even non-financial ones.

I'm not "annoyed" by the provisions. I simply do not feel they are healthy. Not legislating for them would not be discriminatory IMO. People who intend to work (at a company) are all treated the same. When they elect to take some time out, they all (potentially) get the same treatment. Or not depending on the view of the talent pool. If I'd had a beer I'd argue current maternity regulations are discriminatory

There would be nothing to stop small firms offering generous maternity benefits. If they see value in attracting talent and this being one avenue for that, then it will pay for itself. If they don't....

FWIW I'm not convinced things like the minimum wage are universally (or even mainly) healthy either for similar reasons.

[Previous]

amusingduck said:

John145 said:

Businesses need to accept biology is a fact....

Any business could take “the hit” but this is fundamentally a required risk for the joy of employ human beings and not robots.

What do you propose then?

AI and Robots!

[Jockman]

Murph7355 said:

The company has non-salary costs too... Even non-financial ones.

I'm not "annoyed" by the provisions. I simply do not feel they are healthy. Not legislating for them would not be discriminatory IMO. People who intend to work (at a company) are all treated the same. When they elect to take some time out, they all (potentially) get the same treatment. Or not depending on the view of the talent pool. If I'd had a beer I'd argue current maternity regulations are discriminatory

There would be nothing to stop small firms offering generous maternity benefits. If they see value in attracting talent and this being one avenue for that, then it will pay for itself. If they don't....

FWIW I'm not convinced things like the minimum wage are universally (or even mainly) healthy either for similar reasons.

Murph I’ll buy you that beer at the next Calcutta match

Yes, non financial considerations are an issue too.

You know I’m going to disagree on equating maternity with a normal absence from work. I’m pleased that we set a minimum support level for a young couple who decide to start a family and I’m pleased that business plays its role in this too.

There is a lot preventing small firms from offering generous maternity benefits. Affordability. In setting a minimum level the law ensures that not just the wealthy firms will avail themselves of good female talent.

The main reason for NMW is the same reason that Unions exist. Poor Employers. They do exist.

Ten years from now when Oscar comes home telling you he has to work the first 12 months before he is entitled to any holiday pay, you’ll know what I mean. Yes. It did happen.

[Dr Jekyll]

Jockman said:

Ten years from now when Oscar comes home telling you he has to work the first 12 months before he is entitled to any holiday pay, you’ll know what I mean. Yes. It did happen.

I really don't see the point of statutory paid holiday. It just means you get paid a bit less the rest of the year and anyone who doesn't take all their holiday is subsidizing those who do.

A friend of mine works for a firm that gives 25 days 'paid holiday' but she can buy an extra 5 days or sell 5 days. In other words it's 20 days paid holiday plus the option of up to 10 days unpaid. Naturally everyone likes this flexibility, so why not take it to it's logical conclusion?

[Jockman]

Dr Jekyll said:

Jockman said:

Ten years from now when Oscar comes home telling you he has to work the first 12 months before he is entitled to any holiday pay, you’ll know what I mean. Yes. It did happen.

I really don't see the point of statutory paid holiday. It just means you get paid a bit less the rest of the year and anyone who doesn't take all their holiday is subsidizing those who do.

A friend of mine works for a firm that gives 25 days 'paid holiday' but she can buy an extra 5 days or sell 5 days. In other words it's 20 days paid holiday plus the option of up to 10 days unpaid. Naturally everyone likes this flexibility, so why not take it to it's logical conclusion?

Dr J your friends company is illegal but I think you just posted awkwardly

All Employers are faced with this situation.

The stat minimum is 28 days as it now includes bank holidays. Pro rate for part time etc.

The theory behind this is to afford workers sufficient rest period, allowing them to be more productive (yeah, I know what you’re going to say). This is why it is illegal to purchase stat holidays from an employee but it is totally permissible to purchase contractual holidays.

Like in the realms of maternity, once an employer exceeds these stat levels in order to attract workers then the situation can become confused.

[anonymous-user]

Jockman said:

Dr J your friends company is illegal but I think you just posted awkwardly

All Employers are faced with this situation.

The stat minimum is 28 days as it now includes bank holidays. Pro rate for part time etc.

The theory behind this is to afford workers sufficient rest period, allowing them to be more productive (yeah, I know what you’re going to say). This is why it is illegal to purchase stat holidays from an employee but it is totally permissible to purchase contractual holidays.

Like in the realms of maternity, once an employer exceeds these stat levels in order to attract workers then the situation can become confused.

I'd guess the employer gives 25 days plus bank holidays, hence the sell 5 option gives 20+8. Which is a very common option.

[Jockman]

wsurfa said:

I'd guess the employer gives 25 days plus bank holidays, hence the sell 5 option gives 20+8. Which is a very common option.

[Cotty]

Apparently the BBC has been paying Martina Navratilova £15,000 and John McEnroe £150,000

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/19/navr...

How in the hell did she think that £15,000 was acceptable for a male or female. Does she not have an agent who negotiates this sort of thing?

[del mar]

I would imagine she asked for £15,000, he asked for £150,000, the evil BBC .....

[Cold]

I would imagine that the BBC think McEnroe is worth more than her and that their respective genders are of no significance to their respective wages packets.

[markcoznottz]

del mar said:

I would imagine she asked for £15,000, he asked for £150,000, the evil BBC .....

Some people are better negotiators. It doesn't matter what anyone else gets payed.

[Not-The-Messiah]

Cotty said:

Apparently the BBC has been paying Martina Navratilova £15,000 and John McEnroe £150,000

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/19/navr...

How in the hell did she think that £15,000 was acceptable for a male or female. Does she not have an agent who negotiates this sort of thing?

Personally I think 15k is perfectly acceptable of a couple of weeks work talking about something you are interested in.

Some people will work hard for months for that for of money.

I don't begrudge anyone who can get paid £150k for 2 weeks work if a company or individual wants to pay them that. But I do begrudge people who think it's beneath them to be paid below a certain amount.

[Cotty]

del mar said:

I would imagine she asked for £15,000, he asked for £150,000, the evil BBC .....

This is the problem she should have asked for more in the first place and/or someone should have been telling her what to ask for.. Although not the same as she had 10 appearances and he had 30.

Mind you she must have thought that £15,000 was acceptable as she did it for that amount.

[PurpleMoonlight]

I though she was a man.

[Type R Tom]

Not a fair comparison according to the Guardian, apparently he does more work and has a different contract.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/19/navr...

[JagLover]

Cold said:

I would imagine that the BBC think McEnroe is worth more than her and that their respective genders are of no significance to their respective wages packets.

McEnroe is one of the best tennis commentators IMO, while some of the BBC team are dire.

[Moonhawk]

Type R Tom said:

Not a fair comparison according to the Guardian, apparently he does more work and has a different contract.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/19/navr...

Yep. It’s also a bit disingenuous to look at tv personality or movie star pay and cite them as examples of a gender discriminatory pay gap.

Many of these people are paid based on the perceived value they bring to the movie, programme, franchise, viewing figures etc - not solely on the work they do.

Like it or not John McEnroe is a lot better known and has a lot higher profile than Martina. He likely also drew much larger audiences when he played (as the Mens tennis game tends to - even to this day. In 2015 the men’s final drew more than double the viewing figures that the ladies final got).

If Martina thinks she is worth £150k - surely she would negotiate for that much?

This type of thing explains why RDJ got $10 million for Iron Man 2, whereas Chris Evans only got around $2 million for The Winter Soldier. RDJ is simply perceived as having a higher value to the franchise (and rightly so).

Edited by Moonhawk on Monday 19th March 14:25