BBC makes 'progress' in sexist pay
...by paying £11m more per year (£159m total), with 11 more people being paid more than £150k.
Is it just me who thinks they're addressing the complete wrong part of the argument? Personally I have absolutely zero sympathy for someone paid even £70k (twice the national average) but wants to be paid more. That's for them within their company to work out, and I'd rather the extra money be given to the lower paid in that company than the already higher paid who are having some sort of competition with each other.
This is manipulation of the public's goodwill towards equal pay. And it's funded by the TV license, something that's almost compulsory for most people, and certainly enforced as if it is.
I have nothing against Lineker, but £1.75m is crazy. People are still going to watch football if he's not sitting there, it isn't him that's the draw. Someone like Evans I can understand being 'talent' (even though personally he annoys me) because he's a larger part of the radio show, and Norton interviews people very, very well. But even if you believe such salaries are justified, why is that enough of a concern for you the TV license payer, being paid far less, to want more people to be paid over £150k?
And of course, if you don't believe such salaries are justified, then it's nonsensical to want more people to be paid such amounts.
What do you think? Is this progress for equality? Is there a better solution staring us right in the face?
Is it just me who thinks they're addressing the complete wrong part of the argument? Personally I have absolutely zero sympathy for someone paid even £70k (twice the national average) but wants to be paid more. That's for them within their company to work out, and I'd rather the extra money be given to the lower paid in that company than the already higher paid who are having some sort of competition with each other.
This is manipulation of the public's goodwill towards equal pay. And it's funded by the TV license, something that's almost compulsory for most people, and certainly enforced as if it is.
I have nothing against Lineker, but £1.75m is crazy. People are still going to watch football if he's not sitting there, it isn't him that's the draw. Someone like Evans I can understand being 'talent' (even though personally he annoys me) because he's a larger part of the radio show, and Norton interviews people very, very well. But even if you believe such salaries are justified, why is that enough of a concern for you the TV license payer, being paid far less, to want more people to be paid over £150k?
And of course, if you don't believe such salaries are justified, then it's nonsensical to want more people to be paid such amounts.
What do you think? Is this progress for equality? Is there a better solution staring us right in the face?
Scroll to see replies
They could've reduced the highest paying males' wages like Lineker's and shared that out to the women, not make the public pay for their ludicrous wage increase by getting rid of the free TV license for 75+ year olds. It doesn't make any sense. I'm sure Lineker could live comfortably and survive on less than a million a year. It's so frustrating watching these rich greedy people getting richer and greedier at the cost of the poorest people in the country. 
I don't know how people like Lineker could live with that wage knowing it's costing some of the most vulnerable and poorest people to fund it.
I don't know how people like Lineker could live with that wage knowing it's costing some of the most vulnerable and poorest people to fund it. Original post by ThomH97
...by paying £11m more per year (£159m total), with 11 more people being paid more than £150k.
Is it just me who thinks they're addressing the complete wrong part of the argument? Personally I have absolutely zero sympathy for someone paid even £70k (twice the national average) but wants to be paid more. That's for them within their company to work out, and I'd rather the extra money be given to the lower paid in that company than the already higher paid who are having some sort of competition with each other.
This is manipulation of the public's goodwill towards equal pay. And it's funded by the TV license, something that's almost compulsory for most people, and certainly enforced as if it is.
I have nothing against Lineker, but £1.75m is crazy. People are still going to watch football if he's not sitting there, it isn't him that's the draw. Someone like Evans I can understand being 'talent' (even though personally he annoys me) because he's a larger part of the radio show, and Norton interviews people very, very well. But even if you believe such salaries are justified, why is that enough of a concern for you the TV license payer, being paid far less, to want more people to be paid over £150k?
And of course, if you don't believe such salaries are justified, then it's nonsensical to want more people to be paid such amounts.
What do you think? Is this progress for equality? Is there a better solution staring us right in the face?
Is it just me who thinks they're addressing the complete wrong part of the argument? Personally I have absolutely zero sympathy for someone paid even £70k (twice the national average) but wants to be paid more. That's for them within their company to work out, and I'd rather the extra money be given to the lower paid in that company than the already higher paid who are having some sort of competition with each other.
This is manipulation of the public's goodwill towards equal pay. And it's funded by the TV license, something that's almost compulsory for most people, and certainly enforced as if it is.
I have nothing against Lineker, but £1.75m is crazy. People are still going to watch football if he's not sitting there, it isn't him that's the draw. Someone like Evans I can understand being 'talent' (even though personally he annoys me) because he's a larger part of the radio show, and Norton interviews people very, very well. But even if you believe such salaries are justified, why is that enough of a concern for you the TV license payer, being paid far less, to want more people to be paid over £150k?
And of course, if you don't believe such salaries are justified, then it's nonsensical to want more people to be paid such amounts.
What do you think? Is this progress for equality? Is there a better solution staring us right in the face?
If you want another example of this kind of virtue signalling lunacy.
I have a great example for you. The company i work for has an intitiative on to increase the number of female executives to make up 40% of the total number of executives (which is a stupid initiative to begin with but w.e). To this end they have hired several new female executive level employees each on 75k+ per year.
At the same time they have also made 60 people redundant from 2 different teams/departments of which around 50% are female and cancelled overtime for everyone.
Go figure.
I have a great example for you. The company i work for has an intitiative on to increase the number of female executives to make up 40% of the total number of executives (which is a stupid initiative to begin with but w.e). To this end they have hired several new female executive level employees each on 75k+ per year.
At the same time they have also made 60 people redundant from 2 different teams/departments of which around 50% are female and cancelled overtime for everyone.
Go figure.
Original post by -Eirlys-
They could've reduced the highest paying males' wages like Lineker's and shared that out to the women, not make the public pay for their ludicrous wage increase by getting rid of the free TV license for 75+ year olds. It doesn't make any sense. I'm sure Lineker could live comfortably and survive on less than a million a year. It's so frustrating watching these rich greedy people getting richer and greedier at the cost of the poorest people in the country. I don't know how people like Lineker could live with that wage knowing it's costing some of the most vulnerable and poorest people to fund it.
I don't know how people like Lineker could live with that wage knowing it's costing some of the most vulnerable and poorest people to fund it.They're wasting money on a 'problem' that most likely doesn't even exist. TV people get paid for their appeal, possibly their experience, whether they're friends with the person above them, and so on, not their gender.
But, having set themselves up as the country's chief champion of social justice and equality, the BBC can't possible allow themselves to be seen as part of the problem, so... yay, free money...
But, having set themselves up as the country's chief champion of social justice and equality, the BBC can't possible allow themselves to be seen as part of the problem, so... yay, free money...
*Equal pay, OP.
Equality is when you have more female millionaires.
Equality is when you have more female millionaires.
Typical "gender pay gap" nonsense from the BBC.
This is a pretty good example of how feminism is aimed at advancing upper-middle class women at the expense of others.
This is a pretty good example of how feminism is aimed at advancing upper-middle class women at the expense of others.
Original post by -Eirlys-
They could've reduced the highest paying males' wages
They did.
"The figures show that some male stars, including Jeremy Vine, John Humphrys and Steve Wright, have taken significant pay cuts."
Maybe read the article before going off on one? Or at least going off on one at the right targets...
Wages aren't set by what some people on the internet 'think' certain jobs are worth, they're set by the labour market. Organisations almost never pay any more than they have to in order to secure the talent they want. That's why there's lots of companies saying they can't find talent, when actually they just aren't willing to pay up.
Lineker, for example, is very popular in the sporting community. Removing him would remove much more than the £1.75M he's paid, so that's why it makes financial sense to keep him and pay him so. It's the same with those other high earners: they either produce more than their paid in revenue, or they have skills/experience rare enough to demand such pay.
Your saying 'waah people paid too much' is meaningless in a free society. Your saying that even £70k is getting too high is also interesting. Come on, admit it, you want the workers to sieze the means of production too, right?
I do, however, think that the fact that the BBC is taxpayer funded complicates matters. I don't care about sport, so I don't want to pay Lineker! Then again, I pay taxes that pay benefits, which I don't get. I don't have a TV anyway,
Lineker, for example, is very popular in the sporting community. Removing him would remove much more than the £1.75M he's paid, so that's why it makes financial sense to keep him and pay him so. It's the same with those other high earners: they either produce more than their paid in revenue, or they have skills/experience rare enough to demand such pay.
Your saying 'waah people paid too much' is meaningless in a free society. Your saying that even £70k is getting too high is also interesting. Come on, admit it, you want the workers to sieze the means of production too, right?
I do, however, think that the fact that the BBC is taxpayer funded complicates matters. I don't care about sport, so I don't want to pay Lineker! Then again, I pay taxes that pay benefits, which I don't get. I don't have a TV anyway,
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by -Eirlys-
They could've reduced the highest paying males' wages like Lineker's and shared that out to the women, not make the public pay for their ludicrous wage increase by getting rid of the free TV license for 75+ year olds. It doesn't make any sense. I'm sure Lineker could live comfortably and survive on less than a million a year. It's so frustrating watching these rich greedy people getting richer and greedier at the cost of the poorest people in the country. I don't know how people like Lineker could live with that wage knowing it's costing some of the most vulnerable and poorest people to fund it.
I don't know how people like Lineker could live with that wage knowing it's costing some of the most vulnerable and poorest people to fund it. They could've closed down and fired everyone. When everyone makes £0, everyone has equal pay and nobody's overpaid!
Female stars including Zoe Ball, Vanessa Feltz, Sara Cox, Jo Whiley, Gabby Logan, Rachel Burden, Laura Kuennsberg and more handed pay rises of between £20,000 and £200,000 after gender pay gap row;
Vanessa and Laura are alright but even then we can question the amounts they're paid, the rest are a bunch of lightweights who would never command such fees anywhere else on the planet and the BBC have become a politically-aligned and intelligence-insulting grotesque trough.
A refreshed Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Group will help advise the BBC on how it portrays all of the UK’s communities on air, and represents them in its workforce.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2019/bbc-diversity-inclusion-advisory-group
Interesting reading for shareholders, we want to know where those billions of our money are going and if put to good use. Opinions will be divided for sake of diversity and representation, some will see it as money well spent, others will question the need for all this and the rest will see it as an example of the place disappearing into a black hole and turning into a cultist congregation. There will be no end to this, the place will just carry on sucking up money from wherever they can. Good value for money?
Original post by -Eirlys-
They could've reduced the highest paying males' wages like Lineker's and shared that out to the women,not make the public pay for their ludicrous wage increase by getting rid of the free TV license for 75+ year olds. It doesn't make any sense. I'm sure Lineker could live comfortably and survive on less than a million a year. It's so frustrating watching these rich greedy people getting richer and greedier at the cost of the poorest people in the country. I don't know how people like Lineker could live with that wage knowing it's costing some of the most vulnerable and poorest people to fund it.
I don't know how people like Lineker could live with that wage knowing it's costing some of the most vulnerable and poorest people to fund it.Seeing as anyone with a TV set, who uses it to watch broadcast television, has to pay this I fail to see how you can claim anyone is being exploited here? I mean surely if theyre THAT poor and and vulnerable they should have more pressing things to buy than televisions anyway, no?
Original post by Baron of Sealand
They could've closed down and fired everyone. When everyone makes £0, everyone has equal pay and nobody's overpaid!
I'm sure the 35,000+ employees would be delighted with your suggestion of having them all sacked?
Original post by -Eirlys-
They could've reduced the highest paying males' wages like Lineker's and shared that out to the women, not make the public pay for their ludicrous wage increase by getting rid of the free TV license for 75 year olds. It doesn't make any sense. I'm sure Lineker could live comfortably and survive on less than a million a year. It's so frustrating watching these rich greedy people getting richer and greedier at the cost of the poorest people in the country. I don't know how people like Lineker could live with that wage knowing it's costing some of the most vulnerable and poorest people to fund it.
I don't know how people like Lineker could live with that wage knowing it's costing some of the most vulnerable and poorest people to fund it. Reversing the BBC salary increases won't even make a dent in the funding of free TV licences for over-75s....
The poorest pensioners are eligible for pension credit, and will retain their free TV licence.
(edited 4 years ago)
The publication of pay was not motivated by gender gaps at all. It was the Tories wanting to harm the BBC in some way, especially after a former Culture Secretary was embarrassed by something in his private life.
Original post by -Eirlys-
They could've reduced the highest paying males' wages like Lineker's and shared that out to the women, not make the public pay for their ludicrous wage increase by getting rid of the free TV license for 75+ year olds. It doesn't make any sense. I'm sure Lineker could live comfortably and survive on less than a million a year. It's so frustrating watching these rich greedy people getting richer and greedier at the cost of the poorest people in the country. I don't know how people like Lineker could live with that wage knowing it's costing some of the most vulnerable and poorest people to fund it.
I don't know how people like Lineker could live with that wage knowing it's costing some of the most vulnerable and poorest people to fund it. They can’t do that, Gary Lineker (and all other BBC staff will have a salary in their employment contract, the BBC can’t just decide to pay less because they want to pay someone else more.
Original post by Underscore__
They can’t do that, Gary Lineker (and all other BBC staff will have a salary in their employment contract, the BBC can’t just decide to pay less because they want to pay someone else more.
Okay, well after his contract ends, they should create a new one with a much lower salary. I'm sure they had to create new contracts for the female employees to get an increase in their wages.
Original post by -Eirlys-
Okay, well after his contract ends, they should create a new one with a much lower salary. I'm sure they had to create new contracts for the female employees to get an increase in their wages.
I’m sure it’s a lot easier to get people to sign new employment contracts that have an increased salary
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Ux design apprenteship
- BBC Degree Apprenticeship 2023
- should i pay for the first date if i asked him out?
- BBC journalism fast track apprenticeship 2023 Application
- 57 great titchfield street
- BBC solicitor apprenticeship
- Future Career
- how can i access moocs?
- BBC Journalism L7 apprenticeship 2024
- How to progress within the Civil Service?
- Apprenticeships
- Medicine Route: Switching from GP to Surgical Training
- Queen Mary offer
- BBC Apprenticeship 2024
- UCAS Application Update
- About the profession pharmacy?
- Stay in current role or move roles
- Border Force vs RSPCA
- What are the best online A-level providers?
- What’s your default streaming service?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
