Another bizarre "equality" case

mjt said:
VAT is 20%, so her shoes were significantly cheaper than yours even before you get into the VAT discussion.
Your should would've been around £120 + VAT, whereas hers would only have been £70 with VAT...
Click to expand...

That makes me feel a bit better. Just checked the Nike site and it seems her's must have had a further reduction when we got them or something as the 'Older Kids', as Nike describes them, at £95. Still had to pay an extra £50 but not quite as bad.
 
dowie said:
LOL - TFW you get the judge just inserting their subjective opinion in something totally out of their area:



I love how it's just broken down analytically like that... I mean what skill is there in acting etc.. anyway, they just read the scrip in the tone it was written... if they're given stage directions they just follow them....right???

Presumably Ahmed's show, just being a news show, only requires newsreader/journalistic skills whereas points of view requires a "personality" - as much as I like to scoff at pretentious artistic people even I resale that there is some "talent" in being a good presenter and that can command a different fee.
Click to expand...

This seems like it was all taken from the fact that Vine was paid more for "Points of View" than she was for "News Watch". Maybe the court completely ignored the fact that Ann Robinson was for years the presenter for "Points of View" and was in fact the highest paid presenter on the BBC at the time. She did off course host lot's of programs, just like Vine does, and not just 1 hardly watched program. The BBC should launch an apeel against this straight away.
 
so household name presenter should be worth exactly the same as someone that most will never have heard of...................

if anyone from hollywood is on here i'm available for blockbusters all through 2020 as long as you give me the same rates as Jennifer anniston
 
matt100 said:
It's naive to want equality? Okey dokey!
Click to expand...
False/forced equality is not good for anyone.

Or should I say "equality".

Today there is the push to make everyone equal even when it's blatantly obvious that their worth is different. The value of their contribution is different.
 
They should all be paid the exact same base salary. Then, an uplift could be applied based on what makes the jobs/demands different e.g. audience viewing figures, the requirements for travel resulting in time away from home/family, length of service/experience.

It's not complicated in the slightest. The way it works now, I'm not surprised she won her case.
 
String said:
It's not complicated in the slightest. The way it works now, I'm not surprised she won her case.
Click to expand...
Even tho the BBC said she was paid the same as her male predecessor, and the claim was on the grounds of gender discrimination?
 
The article tells you all you need to know:

The unanimous judgement said her work was like that done by Vine, and the BBC had failed to prove the pay gap wasn't because of sex discrimination.
Click to expand...

In other words it was a your typical far left kangaroo court, if she believes she is victim of sexual discrimination then the onus should be on her to prove it, the court shouldn't be working from the assumption that her claim is true and the BBC have to prove their innocence. It's like Brett Kavanaugh all over again who here would like to be accused of murder or rape or some other ungodly crime and you have to prove your innocence rather than them that prove that you did it. It's an insane pervasion of how our justice system should work.

It's also a waste of court time, if she didn't like the rate of pay then she should either ask for a pay rise or find another employer willing to pay her more if at all possible, in the media reputation is normally the biggest factor in how much someone is valued at and to be honest I've never heard of her.
 
Last edited:
matt100 said:
You're big on this "my half baked opinions are facts" thing aren't you :)
Click to expand...

That's rich coming from a boy who doesnt understand the word 'equality'.

Let's see what was said the last time this reared its head with the BBC:

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/b...yers-consider-experience-when-setting-salary/
Recognising experience
In a letter to staff, director of news and current affairs Fran Unsworth says it was right that the salaries offered by the BBC recognised their previous experience.

The employer needs to demonstrate a valid ‘material factor’ to explain the difference. This can include the experience of the candidates, but the difference needs to be significant, relevant and genuine” – Alex Kiernan, Loch Employment Law

“Equal pay is a legal entitlement to be paid the same if you are doing equal work. That does not mean, however, that everyone gets paid exactly the same for the same job – but rather that the reason for any difference must be unconnected to gender,” the letter says.

“Within the BBC we use pay ranges for each job. The purpose of this structure is that it allows us to make consistent decisions about individual pay, in line with our pay principles. In any job we expect to see a spread of pay across the job pay range.

“Where an individual is positioned will be based on a balance of three key factors: the market; the role i.e. what they actually do; and individual factors such as experience.”

What the law says
There are circumstances that allow employers to offer men and women differing salaries in the same role without being in breach of equal pay legislation, explains Alex Kiernan, a lawyer at Loch Employment Law.

“The employer needs to demonstrate a valid ‘material factor’ to explain the difference. This can include the experience of the candidates, but the difference needs to be significant, relevant and genuine,” he says.

“Employers need to carefully consider their rationale when using this defence, as the employment tribunal will look very closely at the material factors relied upon and whether sex has played a part in the organisation’s decision making process.”

If Karen Martin were to take an equal pay claim to an employment tribunal, the BBC would need to be very clear about how it has calculated the salaries for both staff, explains Beverley Sunderland of Crossland Employment Solicitors.

“They would need to, very particularly, set out what was considered in setting Karen and Roger’s salary and why a higher salary for Roger is justified. It’s not as easy as just saying ‘he has more experience’.
Click to expand...

That paragraph in yellow, that's the bit the BBC failed to do in this case.

Stop trying to find fault with my posts, Matt. It's incredibly sad.
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
The article tells you all you need to know:

In other words it was a your typical far left kangaroo court, if she believes she is victim of sexual discrimination then the onus should be on her to prove it, the court shouldn't be working from the assumption that her claim is true and the BBC have to prove their innocence.
Click to expand...
But the BBC said she is/was paid the same as her male predecessor.

How does that not prove that it wasn't sex discrimination??

I don't understand that part.

It basically means that two men can be paid unequally and the lower paid man has nothing he can do except change employers.
But if a woman is paid less, she can just bring a sex discrimination claim, and win it.

So how is that "equality"? I ask someone like @matt100
 
FoxEye said:
But the BBC said she is/was paid the same as her male predecessor.

How does that not prove that it wasn't sex discrimination??

I don't understand that part.

It basically means that two men can be paid unequally and the lower paid man has nothing he can do except change employers.
But if a woman is paid less, she can just bring a sex discrimination claim, and win it.

So how is that "equality"? I ask someone like @matt100
Click to expand...

Well, apparently he [Raymond Snoddy] had told 'Press Gazette': “Samira was paid the same as I was as Newswatch presenter, but the disparity between that and Jeremy Vine’s Points of View, despite being ‘an entertainment’ programme, is surely unacceptably large.”
 
james.miller said:
That's rich coming from a boy who doesnt understand the word 'equality'.

Let's see what was said the last time this reared its head with the BBC:

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/b...yers-consider-experience-when-setting-salary/


That paragraph in yellow, that's the bit the BBC failed to do in this case.

Stop trying to find fault with my posts, Matt. It's incredibly sad.
Click to expand...

I know you're salty about me calling you out on the S10 thread but I wouldn't overthink it. I just happened to be in this thread at the same time and before you rocked up. I doubt you're worth stalking.

FoxEye said:
But the BBC said she is/was paid the same as her male predecessor.

How does that not prove that it wasn't sex discrimination??

I don't understand that part.

It basically means that two men can be paid unequally and the lower paid man has nothing he can do except change employers.
But if a woman is paid less, she can just bring a sex discrimination claim, and win it.

So how is that "equality"? I ask someone like @matt100
Click to expand...

Literally the only points I made were that 1) this sort of thing is catnip to a lump of the forum who seem to get properly triggered by anything about equality, women in general or ethnic minorities regardless of the specifics of the story. Then when challenged about it I simply said I hope we were being equal.

It's a fairly quantifiable fact that women are paid less than men, the fact we're discussing an edge case of a pair of people who were both paid a lot of money to be on TV simply throws the bbc into it too which hits another bit of triggery bingo into the mix.

I've no idea whether this specific case has any validity or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom