BBC equal pay row - Carrie Gracie quits post
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42598775

Quite a brave thing to do imo considering the effect it could have on her career, she's getting a LOT of support though from prominent women in the industry and politicians

still 30 years at the BBC and a nice little pension

im sure she wont starve

Well done her. This needs looking into once and for all and, if proven, the BBC should be in serious trouble. It is not acceptable.

I'd be interested to see the difference in experience, hours worked/content created, and traffic/views given to the content between those being paid differently.

That said, Carrie is probably too clever to fall for the "all women are paid less for equal work" thing thrown around, and the media is probably one of the few places it actually happens.

But you just know that some will be like "SEE! The pay gap is real!!111"

In terms of hours worked, there's this from the article...

"Last year, a report published by the BBC found there was a 10.7% gender pay gap in favour of men when the mean average hourly pay rates were compared."

There could be a lot of factors though tbf and I haven't read that actual report. But this does sort of suggest the BBC acknowledges a pay gap?...

Director general Lord Hall pledged to close the gap by 2020, saying the corporation should be "an exemplar of what can be achieved when it comes to pay, fairness, gender and representation".


I don't think she's suggesting that all women are paid less than men for the same work or taking it to the extreme, but from her letter she does seem to think a pay gap exists.

When it comes to news media, the biggest decider for pay (not counting big name writers) is views or clicks. I can't see BBC China being as well-viewed as BBC USA, for example.

Would the BBC make a lot (or any) money from those sorts of things though? Might be a stupid question lol, but they don't make money from advertising right? They're public funded

quite a few firms have started to publish data, but what i am seeing are headlines that are quite misleading. There may be an overall pay gap, but as far as I can see women are rewarded the same as men when they are doing the same job. If there are more male board members than women for example, that will skew results, but its a different type of gap than headlines are implying.

Weirdly, I have only noticed her of late.
Perhaps she has been in the background for years.
It would be interesting to see exactly who she compares her wage to.

The only way to prove anything is if a man has had the same role and been paid more.Otherwise I don’t think she’ll stand a chance against a high paid BBC lawyer

As it wouldn't be a source of income, the way it'd work would be "this part of the website isn't getting as many clicks as that part of the website, so we're going to dedicate fewer resources to this." Public money is being spent, so the money is spent on what the public uses more often.

Carrie Gracie
is still working for the BBC
she was working this morning on Radio 4.

Its a BBC Publicity stunt.


If the men are earning more
its Illegal under current laws
why did she not take it to court?


BBC breakfast
made sure everyone viewed her WORKING
Live on radio 4.

If you work in China after so many years
you have to leave.

She is Still working for them


Gracie - who revealed live on air in 2009 that she was paid £92,000 - says she intends to return
to her former job in the BBC's TV newsroom "where I expect to be paid equally".


https://news.sky.com/story/bbc-china...money-11200154

She reports from China.
One of the two men work at the same job in the Middle East, I know who should earn more.
The other one is John Sopell who is the American correspondent, again, he has worked his way up and gone through much more than report from China.
I think her present wage plus a £45K rise makes her far too overpaid as it is.

BBC world service is monetised for sure. Its only the UK bit that's funded by the UK public

Look at the boys in here, demanding to know how much experience she has. Even women at the top of their game are patronised. No one interested to know whether the men have more experience? No... of course not. Let's just take that as read.

Carrie Gracie has turned down a pay rise of £45,000, saying it was never about the money, it's about equality and that she'd be perfectly happy if the men got a pay cut to bring them into line.

Who'd have thought it was that simple.

Maybe if one man was saying he was getting paid less than another man, we might wonder which of them had the more experience etc.

We're not talking about men, we're talking about women. And women have been underpaid and underrepresented on boards forever. If they had been hired by the interview panel system I might agree. But they aren't, their agents negotiate their package and it's only recently that salaries gained in that way have begun to be disclosed in the name of clarity And what it shows clearly is that professional women are paid less than professional men. And let's face it, the BBC have paid women less forever - look at the high earners list last year, the highest earners are almost exclusively men.

It's a womb tax because women are a liability. Maybe companies should have a scheme where women's salaries increase to the same level as males if they have a full hysterectomy, or when they hit menopause :think:.

Wow TS. I would love to show your post to Mrs TS.

No one wonders, how does he do his job? He has three kids!

My brother took five years off when his kids were born, while his wife went back to work. That's called teamwork. Children aren't the sole responsibility of the women.... unless you've jaunted back to 1950.

That's true. Although I would wonder if some people might be more inclined to watch a male reporter than a female reporter and if that could be a factor rather than just the reporters skill/location etc. It's not unrealistic to think there could be a bias there with some people, it's a problem in the literary world for example where some female authors use a male pseudonym, it's a sad fact that some people do say they are more inclined to buy a book written by a man than a woman depending on the genre. It's not a perfect example and I'm not even sure how that would be 'solved' if it were the case but it's interesting to think about.

That's a reason for women not to be paid as much as a man?

No not at all :/ I'm suggesting prejudice exists in some people and could affect views and clicks (as we were discussing that as being something that could explain the pay divide). I think it's reasonable to assume that could be a factor? I'm not in any way suggesting that it's a valid reason to pay them differently though.