[arista]

30% pay cut
mostly.


[A BBC spokesperson said:
"We are very grateful to Huw Edwards,
Nicky Campbell, John Humphrys,
Jon Sopel, Nick Robinson,
and Jeremy Vine,
who have agreed that their
pay will now be reduced.]


https://news.sky.com/story/four-male...y-row-11222837



BBC bosses will be grilled by MPs next week

[Livia]

Not surprised to see John Humphreys on the list, considering his comments about female colleagues aired recently. A little damage limitation?

Good for them, though. Nice to see a little solidarity.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Livia

Not surprised to see John Humphreys on the list, considering his comments about female colleagues aired recently. A little damage limitation?

Good for them, though. Nice to see a little solidarity.

Yes leaked as he spoke
in private to USA based , Jon Sopel

[Toy Soldier]

So the goal of pay equality is for everyone to take a pay CUT until it's equal? Corporations must be rubbing their hands together in glee.

Sue: "I earn 150k and Tim earns 200k!! This is a disgrace and affects my life terribly!"
Boss: "Tim... you're getting a 50k pay cut."
Tim: "Awh ffs Sue."
Sue: "Ahh, now I earn 150k and Tim earns 150k. Whew! This makes a huge difference in my life."
Boss: *buys new car for 50k*



The goal should be for women's wages to increase to the same level as male wages for the same job (if such a discrepancy exists) - not for men's wages to be cut to match ffs! If there aren't some female presenters at the BBC getting pay raises to match the pay cuts that the males are taking then this is an absolute farce.

[Livia]

I agree TS. Maybe what they should do is average it out and split the difference, if you see what I mean.

[Marsh.]

They should just all work for free. Duh!

[Oliver_W]

Sounds like a race to the bottom.

I'd be interested to see how long the higher earners have been in the 'biz, and how many hours they're on air a week, compared to the "lower" earners, and most important when it comes to pay in the media, how many viewers/listeners their shows get.

[LeatherTrumpet]

what a bunch of twats

[Wizard.]

Why don't they pay the women more?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Riley.

Why don't they pay the women more?

What a good idea?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Riley.

Why don't they pay the women more?

John Humphreys is 74 years old
been there for a long time. Same Job.
Sadly although older women want to carry on working
The UK BBC never permits it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Humphrys

[Alf]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

what a bunch of twats

That was the first sentence that came into my head.

[Tozzie]

pay cut? Why not bring the female presenters pay up to what the male presenters pay was or at least meet halfway in the middle.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

So the goal of pay equality is for everyone to take a pay CUT until it's equal? Corporations must be rubbing their hands together in glee.

Sue: "I earn 150k and Tim earns 200k!! This is a disgrace and affects my life terribly!"
Boss: "Tim... you're getting a 50k pay cut."
Tim: "Awh ffs Sue."
Sue: "Ahh, now I earn 150k and Tim earns 150k. Whew! This makes a huge difference in my life."
Boss: *buys new car for 50k*



The goal should be for women's wages to increase to the same level as male wages for the same job (if such a discrepancy exists) - not for men's wages to be cut to match ffs! If there aren't some female presenters at the BBC getting pay raises to match the pay cuts that the males are taking then this is an absolute farce.

Indeed. ****ing ridiculous to be cutting anyones pay in this, if something needs to be done then the lower paid ones salary is brought up to the level of the others surely..

[T*]

It shouldn’t be a pay cut for the men it should be a pay rise for the women? Where is there damn logic, they haven’t gotten rid of the glass ceiling they’ve made flooring out of it

[smudgie]

Hmmm, so are we to believe all the men doing these jobs earn the same, or even the women.
I hardly think so.
As in any job it should be based on merit.
Some people are more popular in the media and will attract more viewers, readers or listeners.
Journalism is very much like many jobs, you negotiate your contract on your merit, if you don't have the popularity and history of others then you won't get as highly paid, if you are a man or woman.
All about steps on the ladder and making your way to the top.
I would be interested to find out what the top women in these jobs earn.

[Firewire]

They shouldn’t need to take cuts, the salaries of women should be increased to reach parity.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

So the goal of pay equality is for everyone to take a pay CUT until it's equal? Corporations must be rubbing their hands together in glee.

Sue: "I earn 150k and Tim earns 200k!! This is a disgrace and affects my life terribly!"
Boss: "Tim... you're getting a 50k pay cut."
Tim: "Awh ffs Sue."
Sue: "Ahh, now I earn 150k and Tim earns 150k. Whew! This makes a huge difference in my life."
Boss: *buys new car for 50k*



The goal should be for women's wages to increase to the same level as male wages for the same job (if such a discrepancy exists) - not for men's wages to be cut to match ffs! If there aren't some female presenters at the BBC getting pay raises to match the pay cuts that the males are taking then this is an absolute farce.

It matters not how it impacts on their lives, it's a point of principle.

We don't know whether the wages have been brought in line, it would be up to the female counterparts to respond as to whether they've had any increment.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It matters not how it impacts on their lives, it's a point of principle.

We don't know whether the wages have been brought in line, it would be up to the female counterparts to respond as to whether they've had any increment.

If wages are being cut "on principle" and not raised elsewhere to compensate - then the employer is keeping that money instead of paying it to employees. It's a stupid principle that completely misses the point of real equality.

I mean what? What's the end game there? Most normal working men and women get paid the same crappy wages while more and more money rises to the top? But that's fine because the wages are equally low.

This all reeks of simple-minded PR and appeasement rather than something that any real thought has been put into. A waste of time.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

So the goal of pay equality is for everyone to take a pay CUT until it's equal? Corporations must be rubbing their hands together in glee.

Sue: "I earn 150k and Tim earns 200k!! This is a disgrace and affects my life terribly!"
Boss: "Tim... you're getting a 50k pay cut."
Tim: "Awh ffs Sue."
Sue: "Ahh, now I earn 150k and Tim earns 150k. Whew! This makes a huge difference in my life."
Boss: *buys new car for 50k*



The goal should be for women's wages to increase to the same level as male wages for the same job (if such a discrepancy exists) - not for men's wages to be cut to match ffs! If there aren't some female presenters at the BBC getting pay raises to match the pay cuts that the males are taking then this is an absolute farce.

Excellent points TS
I've nothing to add.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

If wages are being cut "on principle" and not raised elsewhere to compensate - then the employer is keeping that money instead of paying it to employees. It's a stupid principle that completely misses the point of real equality.

I mean what? What's the end game there? Most normal working men and women get paid the same crappy wages while more and more money rises to the top? But that's fine because the wages are equally low.

This all reeks of simple-minded PR and appeasement rather than something that any real thought has been put into. A waste of time.

The point of principle was there before the wage cut for the men..
We don't know whether other salaries have been brought in line either.

Wages in this instance are not equally low, country wide in ordinary jobs they may well be. We've had years of wage equality to address this and it hasn't happened.
The end game is wages are cut seemingly, that is not the fault of the female workforce, it's not right or fair and only serves to show generations of mismanagement.
We can't however be expected to maintain the status quo here, I agree that the media fanfare this grand gesture has received is pathetic and will do nothing but further marginalise women wanting equal pay in the eyes of the public.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It matters not how it impacts on their lives, it's a point of principle.

We don't know whether the wages have been brought in line, it would be up to the female counterparts to respond as to whether they've had any increment.

It matters to them. No doubt they have worked bloody hard for it. Thankfully it isn’t your decision.

[Alf]

Does this mean the TV licence will be reduced?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

It matters to them. No doubt they have worked bloody hard for it. Thankfully it isn’t your decision.

What on earth are you blowing up about now?... I was referring to the discrepancy impacting on the lives of the female employees not the males. The women in organisations work equally as hard and for as long as the men therefore they deserve equal pay.

Of course it isn't my decision this is a discussion forum, I'm discussing the tpic in question :/

[arista]

Originally Posted by Alf

Does this mean the TV licence will be reduced?

Sadly Not