|
|
Post by reverend on Jul 23, 2017 8:46:21 GMT
I remember when I first qualified and comparing the salaries for what some of the charities / public sector companies were offering for first movers from practice vs. the rest of the private sector... You just ended up skimming over any of the charitable organisations because the salaries were not remotely in line (across some of them.) Unfortunately life isn't free and there would have to be some serious perks in a role for you to decide to remain in it and be significantly underpaid. I agree there are two issues here. A) Are the Beeb stars "overpaid" and B) should the Beeb receive taxpayer money. I think they're completely separate and if you are opposed to b) does a) really matter. Tbh I don't really care, since it's not my tax money and it isn't as if I know any of those high paid names. They're just names to me. I was merely commenting that I was surprised that this information hasn't been released before now. Also I was commenting on why some people appear to be ticked off about it all. The fact that it has now come out that women are paid less is interesting though. Interesting in that it ignores the fact that the women are also paid more than some men and some men are paid more than other men! According to the guy from the BBC Evans is paid such amounts as he is a "top talent"  , so if it's your talent that is the deciding factor then gender has no role in the negotiations especially if the talented presenters happen to be one gender, just who decides who's top talent is another matter however. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Jul 23, 2017 10:33:48 GMT
Tbh I don't really care, since it's not my tax money and it isn't as if I know any of those high paid names. They're just names to me. I was merely commenting that I was surprised that this information hasn't been released before now. Also I was commenting on why some people appear to be ticked off about it all. The fact that it has now come out that women are paid less is interesting though. Interesting in that it ignores the fact that the women are also paid more than some men and some men are paid more than other men! According to the guy from the BBC Evans is paid such amounts as he is a "top talent" , so if it's your talent that is the deciding factor then gender has no role in the negotiations especially if the talented presenters happen to be one gender, just who decides who's top talent is another matter however. Yes gender may not be relevant - but given the gender pay gap is a real thing doesn't hurt to ask the question and make sure you are genuinely paying on merit. And asking whether it's just coincidence that in average the female employees earn than less than the male ones. "Talent" is highly subjective after all. |
|
|
|
Post by reverend on Jul 23, 2017 12:55:37 GMT
Interesting in that it ignores the fact that the women are also paid more than some men and some men are paid more than other men! According to the guy from the BBC Evans is paid such amounts as he is a "top talent" , so if it's your talent that is the deciding factor then gender has no role in the negotiations especially if the talented presenters happen to be one gender, just who decides who's top talent is another matter however. Yes gender may not be relevant - but given the gender pay gap is a real thing doesn't hurt to ask the question and make sure you are genuinely paying on merit. And asking whether it's just coincidence that in average the female employees earn than less than the male ones. "Talent" is highly subjective after all.This is the bit where it gets rather confused, how do they decide who is "top talent"? Chris Evans is unwatchable for me, I can't stand the guy, yet someone decides he's worth 2 million, so that to me seems unjustifiable as I think he's crap, but then I don't have a say in this despite contributing. Then if it is based on this talent concept there is no gender wage gap but a "talent wage gap". Your paid for your talent and someone has decided these people are paid on a scale that reflects that, as it stands more men are ranked as a higher talent, and this is where it descends into farce, should another broadcaster be paid equally to Evans , not because of a perceived talent but because of gender, which then makes the whole notion of market value based on talent bollox. I don't see this as any way workable without someone benefitting from their gender alone, which is equally unjustifiable, total can of worms. You should be paid on your talent irrespective of gender, race or political leaning and if that means one group is more represented then tough, or, just pay them a rate for the job, which in my reasoning means cutting all their pay to the average. |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Jul 23, 2017 13:29:50 GMT
Who are these people? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40696402I vaguely recognise the aristocratic rugmuncher and the child-burning, post-op Bob Monkhouse, but as for the rest. Are there male "stars" you'd recognise better, who you think deserve more? |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Jul 23, 2017 13:37:47 GMT
And the thing about subjectivity and talent, is that it appears as if the kind of men at the BBC who decide which presenter is more talented seem to think that men are more talented.
BBC pay isn't directly related to talent, it's related to what the blokes in charge of the BBC think is more in demand.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Jul 23, 2017 13:55:43 GMT
Who are these people? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40696402I vaguely recognise the aristocratic rugmuncher and the child-burning, post-op Bob Monkhouse, but as for the rest. Are there male "stars" you'd recognise better, who you think deserve more? Depends on what you mean by deserve. "Stars" is a fair description. |
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Jul 23, 2017 18:25:12 GMT
What the 'stars' attract in terms of viewers/listeners must be an easily trackable metric, surely?
Pay them on that basis and ignore gender.
|
|
nobody
New Member
Posts: 8,733 
|
Post by nobody on Jul 23, 2017 18:27:59 GMT
How much does Carol Kirkwood get? She starts my day off with a smile, I might even listen to the weather forecast one of these days.  |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Jul 23, 2017 18:36:28 GMT
Yeah, she's a sort of Supermilf. That dress on Friday .....
|
|
nobody
New Member
Posts: 8,733
|
Post by nobody on Jul 23, 2017 19:25:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on May 14, 2019 7:33:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on May 14, 2019 7:37:13 GMT
I really must just sit down at my desk and get on with sorting a job out, without saying to myself: "I know, I'll just check the news before I ...."
Oh well, at least I don't find PornHub a distraction. Different sort of gyno-fixation, that.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,009
|
Post by mids on May 14, 2019 8:05:31 GMT
It's just so grimly unoriginal and safe yet presented as if it's akin to that bloke in TiananmenSquare. Women were doing that sort of thing in the 70s.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on May 14, 2019 15:35:19 GMT
The BBC only reports on this stuff now because it's so utterly safe and conservative. It's almost Daily Mail like with harmless sex clickbait that's basically there to draw eyes to the massive platform that they give the Tories and Farage and Trump and Orban.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on May 14, 2019 15:36:23 GMT
If you shut down the BBC the UK would probably be a socialist utopian republic in a few years.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,009
|
Post by mids on May 14, 2019 16:31:45 GMT
The BBC reports on this because it thinks it edgey and cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on May 22, 2019 7:20:32 GMT
Amongst the usual stories of "my struggle with my periods as a female footballer" and "how many times do female characters in GOT speak?" Is the following gem: "Film director Amma Asante came across an old photograph taken in Nazi Germany of a black schoolgirl by chance. Standing among her white classmates, who stare straight into the camera, she enigmatically glances to the side." www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-48273570Now, at least two of this girl's classmates are also looking away from the camera. Why do they write this nonsense? It's just odd. It's a shame because this could be an interesting story but it fails the objectivity test at the very outset. |
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,009
|
Post by mids on May 22, 2019 7:33:01 GMT
How can you characterise a look in a photograph as a glance?
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on May 22, 2019 9:45:39 GMT
Amongst the usual stories of "my struggle with my periods as a female footballer" and "how many times do female characters in GOT speak?" Is the following gem: "Film director Amma Asante came across an old photograph taken in Nazi Germany of a black schoolgirl by chance. Standing among her white classmates, who stare straight into the camera, she enigmatically glances to the side." www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-48273570Now, at least two of this girl's classmates are also looking away from the camera. Why do they write this nonsense? It's just odd. It's a shame because this could be an interesting story but it fails the objectivity test at the very outset. You really got hung up on that comment in the entire article? Bloody hell man! |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on May 22, 2019 10:24:14 GMT
Well, it is a glaring error/bit of bullshit right at the very beginning of what could be an interesting and illuminating article about a very tragic period.
Now, if I'm interested in a factual account of what went on, I'd be put off by that.
|
|
