BBC salaries...

[cunning fergus]

Can anyone tell me how announcing this helps anyone? What is the purpose of doing it - and don't give me "transparency" because that simply isn't necessary.

All this will do is create resentment and wage inflation. All competitors, who almost certainly pay more already, will see the amount they need to pay to poach talent, meaning the Beeb will have to spend more money to keep them. Add in the resentment within the company when people moan about "what they are earning compared to me".

How has this helped the running or the organisation in any way shape or form?

It's vital transparency for the license fee payer.

If the BBC want to continue being funded by an effective universal tax, then it must demonstrate how it spends the money.

The BBC is content to stand behind laws that criminalise the poor for non payment of this tax, so they should have no complaint about the taxpayer understanding who gets paid the most. This is how boards and execs are treated on plc's so there is precedent.

I hope that this will hasten the end of the archronism of the licence fee and the legal basis in which people are criminalised for non payment. The BBC can then independently stand on its on feet supported by its many millions of die-hard fans.

In 20 years time I expect people will look at the way the BBC is funded now like the way we pay more to the EU than we get out. Absolute madness they will say.......

 

[kevo]

Can anyone tell me how announcing this helps anyone? What is the purpose of doing it - and don't give me "transparency" because that simply isn't necessary.

All this will do is create resentment and wage inflation. All competitors, who almost certainly pay more already, will see the amount they need to pay to poach talent, meaning the Beeb will have to spend more money to keep them. Add in the resentment within the company when people moan about "what they are earning compared to me".

How has this helped the running or the organisation in any way shape or form?

Completely agree. It was introduced by the Tories as a stick to beat the BBC with because they want to see it abolished. Initially the disclosure cap was 450k and above. This was changed by Theresa May to 150k. It's completely unnecessary and serves no purpose apart from annoying licence payers. F**k the Tories.

 

[hart's shirt]

John McEnroe gets £150-£200k for 2 weeks work a year.

You cannot be serious!

 

[Norman Potting]

Can anyone tell me how announcing this helps anyone? What is the purpose of doing it - and don't give me "transparency" because that simply isn't necessary.

All this will do is create resentment and wage inflation. All competitors, who almost certainly pay more already, will see the amount they need to pay to poach talent, meaning the Beeb will have to spend more money to keep them. Add in the resentment within the company when people moan about "what they are earning compared to me".

How has this helped the running or the organisation in any way shape or form?

Agreed. Quality rant headline from the "Mail" who are concerned that many of them "..earn more than the Prime Minister.." the salary of whom is probably considerably less than many "City" jobs, or even footballer pay!

 

[Jim Van Winkle]

Whatever amount Shearer makes, it's too much. A lump of coal would have more character and insight.

 

[Greavsey]

I like the bloke, but how the F can they possibly justify paying Lineker that much for an hour on telly (not even prime time!) once a week for 9 months of the year!?

At least Chris Evans is on the radio every day for his vast salary.

 

[Oscar]

Whatever amount Shearer makes, it's too much. A lump of coal would have more character and insight.

£450k apparently

 

[Steve in Japan]

Evan Davis and Emily Maitless need a payrise

 

[Lower West Stander]

It's vital transparency for the license fee payer.

If the BBC want to continue being funded by an effective universal tax, then it must demonstrate how it spends the money.

The BBC is content to stand behind laws that criminalise the poor for non payment of this tax, so they should have no complaint about the taxpayer understanding who gets paid the most. This is how boards and execs are treated on plc's so there is precedent.

I hope that this will hasten the end of the archronism of the licence fee and the legal basis in which people are criminalised for non payment. The BBC can then independently stand on its on feet supported by its many millions of die-hard fans.

In 20 years time I expect people will look at the way the BBC is funded now like the way we pay more to the EU than we get out. Absolute madness they will say.......

But we fund the public sector as taxpayers.

If you follow this argument to its logical conclusion, every doctor, teacher, civil servant etc who has a salary over £150k should have it disclosed. To some extent the BBC haven't helped themselves with some of the ludicrous redundancy payments they have awarded but this just smacks of populist nonsense and double standards to me.

 

[CHAPPERS]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...laries-bbc-stars-pay-inequality-least-worries

As a leftwinger, I was thrilled to discover this morning that people are very angry about income inequality. Even the normally right-leaning Daily Mail and Sun have published stories – whipping up outrage about an elite class earning more than five times the average UK salary of £27,600.

The focus is on workers at the BBC, which has published a report today on some of its employees’ salaries, but presumably the main points can be generalised: it’s simply not fair that a small minority of people earn so much more than the rest of us. Arguments about preventing talent being poached by competitors don’t cut it. Nobody is worth these sorts of amounts. There should be less of a gap between the highest and lowest earners within an organisation – and between the rich and poor more generally.


Or perhaps I’ve misunderstood. Both the Sun and the Daily Mail, you see, have some extremely highly paid employees themselves. Both Rupert Murdoch and chief executive Robert Thompson receive several million each year from News Corp, and Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre took home £1.5m in 2016. Though full data isn’t available, it’s estimated that top-paid columnists at those papers are paid salaries roughly in line with those of high-earning BBC talent. In media, as in most all other industries, gross income inequality is the norm.

There’s one reason the BBC is receiving all of this attention: it’s part of the public sector. This means the government has the power to dictate what information is made public. Forcing the BBC to reveal the names of employees earning over £150,000 has been justified on the grounds it makes the broadcaster “more open and transparent about its operations while making sure the public broadcaster continues to thrive in the future”.


In the context of sustained attacks on the public sector by the Conservative government, though, it’s hard not to feel a little cynical. With the public sector pay cap eroding the real incomes of prison officers, paramedics and nurses by more than £3,000 annually – forcing some to borrow money and use food banks just to survive – it perhaps helps to identify an alternative scapegoat. Highly paid TV stars who have spoken out about the consequences of government policy – such as Gary Lineker, who is earning up to £1.8m from the BBC, the report says – will no doubt be dismissed as hypocrites.

The truth is we absolutely should be angry about the gross economic inequality in our country. Basic moral reasoning tells us it’s perverse that billionaire investors buy up homes and leave them empty, while other people sleep in the streets. That the wealth of the 1% continues to accumulate, while minimum wage employees work gruelling hours on insecure contracts and still struggle to make rent. That the UK’s per capita GDP is among the highest in the world, but children are going to school hungry and with holes in their shoes.

Taking a broader view, the salaries of TV stars like Graham Norton and Fiona Bruce should really be the least of our worries. The world’s eight richest men own as much wealth as half the world’s population. In the UK, billionaires buy up media outlets and donate to political parties (most commonly, the Conservatives) in an attempt to influence our democracy.


Rupert Murdoch (net worth: £9.3bn) doesn’t only want you to be angry at BBC performers being paid more than £150,000 per year. His newspapers frequently attack unemployed benefit claimants as a drain on the working population, while simultaneously suggesting that migrant workers are to blame for Brits being unable to find jobs. The more that ordinary people can be encouraged to blame each other for their hardship, the less likely it is that elites will be challenged.

Maybe, though, this BBC report could be used to spark a more sincere debate about inequality. Another piece of research released today is likely to receive less attention, but also deserves consideration in this context. The TUC has found a 25% salary gap between the richest and poorest regions of the UK, with major knock-on effects for local economies. People living in places like the West Midlands, Wales and the north-west are far less likely to be able to find well-paid work than those in London and the south-east.

We need to stop viewing extreme income equality as unavoidable, and realise that our economy is something we have significant power to shape. If you have thoughts on BBC employees’ renumeration, take a step back and broaden that out. What would a fair society look like?

I

 

[Meade's Ball]

I hope for that amount of pay Adam Woodyatt is a method actor and was living as a homeless chip shop owner for a number of weeks to fully get into his character.

 

[Steve in Japan]

And I would pay Jeremy Vine no more than minimum wage. Howe DARE he earn 3 times The Bruce?

 

[carlzeiss]

Can anyone tell me how announcing this helps anyone? What is the purpose of doing it - and don't give me "transparency" because that simply isn't necessary.

All this will do is create resentment and wage inflation. All competitors, who almost certainly pay more already, will see the amount they need to pay to poach talent, meaning the Beeb will have to spend more money to keep them. Add in the resentment within the company when people moan about "what they are earning compared to me".

How has this helped the running or the organisation in any way shape or form?

Perhaps the idea is to shame the cheaters who are avoiding paying their license fee to cough up and support the struggling BBC staff .

 

[lawros left foot]

Agreed. Quality rant headline from the "Mail" who are concerned that many of them "..earn more than the Prime Minister.." the salary of whom is probably considerably less than many "City" jobs, or even footballer pay!

I would love to see how much the Mails editor, deputy editor, columnists, and senior journos earn

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

And I would pay Jeremy Vine no more than minimum wage. Howe DARE he earn 3 times The Bruce?

Yes but pop master apart, Bruce does exactly the same thing every day 5 days a week.
You can set your clock to his show, even the traffic reports.
Ok he sometimes has a guest playing the piano.
I find the music on his show often boring as well.
Honestly, I could host his show, there is zero input to make that show more listenable and exciting.
Great radio voice though.

 

[LlcoolJ]

It's vital transparency for the license fee payer.

If the BBC want to continue being funded by an effective universal tax, then it must demonstrate how it spends the money.

The BBC is content to stand behind laws that criminalise the poor for non payment of this tax, so they should have no complaint about the taxpayer understanding who gets paid the most. This is how boards and execs are treated on plc's so there is precedent.

I hope that this will hasten the end of the archronism of the licence fee and the legal basis in which people are criminalised for non payment. The BBC can then independently stand on its on feet supported by its many millions of die-hard fans.

In 20 years time I expect people will look at the way the BBC is funded now like the way we pay more to the EU than we get out. Absolute madness they will say.......

Apart from being totally wrong about everything, that's a great post.

 

[Steve in Japan]

Yes but pop master apart, Bruce does exactly the same thing every day 5 days a week.
You can set your clock to his show, even the traffic reports.
Ok he sometimes has a guest playing the piano.
I find the music on his show often boring as well.
Honestly, I could host his show, there is zero input to make that show more listenable and exciting.
Great radio voice though.

Yes, but those mellifluous tones, the overall comfort of the man. And of course not being an irritating tit. Important qualities. And then there's Vine.....

 

[severnside gull]

Meaningless without (a) comparison with other TV stations and (b) inclusion of money paid through independent production companies.
As it stands it's merely a tool to beat and ultimately dismantle the BBC with by vindictive/paranoid politicians.

 

[HalfaSeatOn]

Eye opening figures but compared to the football industry, tame.

 

[severnside gull]

Apart from being totally wrong about everything, that's a great post.

If I could give you a thumbs up for every point Cunning Fergus is arse up about I would :thumbs up: