BBC pay: Men still dominate star salaries list

Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,304
Fixed that for you.

It’s a simple fact that women, and minorities, are systematically underpaid and undervalued. Sure, posting the top earners without analysing the data to see perhaps hours worked is an issue but the fact remains. Sexism is rife and women are constantly overlooked for promotion and underpaid. We need to talk about that and fix it as it’s simply wrong.

What’s also missing is none of the BBC Studio produced programmes are included in the figures.

That isn't my experience. Every company I've worked for pays men and women exactly the same. Assuming they work the same hours, have the same qualifications/experience, etc.

It's not being fixed because when you look in to it, the problem doesn't actually exist.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
OP
Joined
28 Jan 2003
Posts
39,857
Location
England
Fixed that for you.

It’s a simple fact that women, and minorities, are systematically underpaid and undervalued. Sure, posting the top earners without analysing the data to see perhaps hours worked is an issue but the fact remains. Sexism is rife and women are constantly overlooked for promotion and underpaid. We need to talk about that and fix it as it’s simply wrong.

What’s also missing is none of the BBC Studio produced programmes are included in the figures.

Well they say a womens work is never done, so.....
 
Man of Honour
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,509
Location
Surrey
Fixed that for you.

It’s a simple fact that women, and minorities, are systematically underpaid and undervalued.

No that isn't a fact at all. It's illegal and the law is enforced where it is found. None of the companies I've worked for would ever do that. I'm sure it happens in some places but it's not a 'fact' that there is systematic discrimination. Indeed where I work the situation is reversed and there is a lot of 'positive' discrimination such that white males are at a slight disadvantage now.

If there was the systematic lower pay that you suggest is happening then companies would be falling over themselves to employ minorities and women to save money.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Jul 2007
Posts
3,443
No that isn't a fact at all. It's illegal and the law is enforced where it is found. None of the companies I've worked for would ever do that. I'm sure it happens in some places but it's not a 'fact' that there is systematic discrimination. Indeed where I work the situation is reversed and there is a lot of 'positive' discrimination such that white males are at a slight disadvantage now.

If there was the systematic lower pay that you suggest is happening then companies would be falling over themselves to employ minorities and women to save money.

Exactly. There may be reasons why women are overlooked for promotion and that is a potential issue but I have never come across a scenario in my working life where a woman is paid less for doing THE SAME job as her male colleague. In most cases I would suggest its twisting the scenario to suit the agenda.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jan 2016
Posts
8,757
Location
Oldham
I can understand why some of the people are on the list, i.e. if they have a show every day. But I don't understand how Gary Lineker, Alan Shearer, and maybe Graham Norton, are so high because I don't think none of them have a daily show?

I guess the question is, which women have daily shows that aren't on the list?
 
Caporegime
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
25,666
Almost as daft as not understanding how the free market works. Gary Linekar is worth £1.7m because other companies would pay him that or more, the BBC aims to be a competitive broadcaster so they need to pay their talent market rate, or at least close to that. I personally think the BBC football team are great, the ITV team is rubbish, so they're doing a good job and worth the money if you ask me.

The thing that annoys me though is most normal people could do the same job just as well for a fraction of the money, I've had better conversations about football down the pub. They're artificially limiting the pool of people they have to choose from by making it a requirement to be an ex-player, which is all that Gary Linekar really has going for him over most other football followers. Just because other companies are willing to pay squillions for celebrity status doesn't mean the BBC has to, they could just as easily set a wage ceiling and bring someone new in when the current person gets too big for their own boots.

Either way it's divisive politics like this that annoys me about the left today, constantly pitting one group against another rather than looking at individual cases.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2003
Posts
14,056
It's really hard to analyse these figures, in fact its pointless.

None of these people do the same job at the BBC so comparing their salary is not only pointless, it's impossible. It's really also nothing to do with how many shows they do or screen time, a lot of it has to do with how much of a household name they are and its a fact household names draw in viewers. Viewers are king in the TV world, even to a taxpayer funded service like the BBC. If no one watched the BBC then the funding would be abolished as its not value for money to fund something no one watches. The BBC is also extremely tight on remuneration for it's 'stars', all of them could get far more working for another network yet they choose to stay at the BBC.

Not everyone can do those jobs, it takes a lot of hard work and commitment to produce those shows. It also takes a certain type of personality and appearance to get people to watch you and follow you. People like Gary Liniker and Graham Norton have spend years and years building up their public profiles to get to where they are now.

If I was to read the news, no one would watch it. People like Huw Edwards are natural leaders and have a professional, respectable, 'trust worthy' appearance and thus is able to engage his audience so they listen to every word he says. Also reading off a teleprompter as if you know the words off by heart is not easy at all. Have you not noticed most proper news presenters fit a very similar profile in the UK?

Putting up someone brand new into a high profile role or show is incredibly risky for a content producer like the bbc, the amount of money involved with each production and if the person fails to engage the audience it often ends up as a complete write off. It even goes wrong with established stars like putting Chris Evans up as the new host of Top Gear...
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Jul 2007
Posts
3,443
The thing that annoys me though is most normal people could do the same job just as well for a fraction of the money, I've had better conversations about football down the pub. They're artificially limiting the pool of people they have to choose from by making it a requirement to be an ex-player, which is all that Gary Linekar really has going for him over most other football followers. Just because other companies are willing to pay squillions for celebrity status doesn't mean the BBC has to, they could just as easily set a wage ceiling and bring someone new in when the current person gets too big for their own boots.

Either way it's divisive politics like this that annoys me about the left today, constantly pitting one group against another rather than looking at individual cases.

And there would be no end of complaints as each MOTD presenter left for better pay with BT and Sky because the BBC refused to pay the going rate and therefore were treating the licence fee payer as a second class citizen.
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Jul 2004
Posts
22,594
Location
Devon, UK
I can understand why some of the people are on the list, i.e. if they have a show every day. But I don't understand how Gary Lineker, Alan Shearer, and maybe Graham Norton, are so high because I don't think none of them have a daily show?

I guess the question is, which women have daily shows that aren't on the list?

I'm assuming the football thing is because it's a WC year and they're needed all summer to fly to another country and present multiple times a day. So basically in 2019/2021 etc they'll get paid a fraction of what they do in a Euro/WC year.
 
Associate
Joined
28 Jul 2003
Posts
1,219
Fixed that for you.

It’s a simple fact that women, and minorities, are systematically underpaid and undervalued. Sure, posting the top earners without analysing the data to see perhaps hours worked is an issue but the fact remains. Sexism is rife and women are constantly overlooked for promotion and underpaid. We need to talk about that and fix it as it’s simply wrong.

Oh, it's a simple fact is it?

As a director of multiple companies in several industries you know what I stare at each year? a payroll which shows me that women are earning more than their male counterparts and work on average 20% less hours each year and have done so since as far back as I've been looking at these reports. This also doesn't take into account maternity leave and other female only benefits.

And here's another *fact* for you, you know how many HR issues I've had to deal with in the last 3 years involving petty disputes with men? 16. Do you know how many petty issues I've had to deal with regarding women in the same period? 187. 114 of which came from 'minorities'.

Here's a third fact for you, the company I last resigned from sacked a male MD and promoted a female into the position who is known to have said the following words in a crowded employee gathering "I have no idea what I'm doing most of the time. I surround myself with people who know what they're doing so they can make me look good. It's not like anyone is going to do anything I'm one of the few female MD's". This tart was known to be utterly useless and hence I departed with the firm. By the way, she is still employed by the firm and she still earns 320,000 per year. She is on the same salary band as all other MD's yet she has taken a 12 month maternity leave and has been a net cost to the firm since she was hired. In other words, on the books she owes the firm more than she has contributed. By a wide, wide, wide margin.

There was perhaps once a time when there was a pay gap however, in the six firms I have worked in during my career women have been "systemically" overpaid for less work and have without fail been involved in the majority of both work and non-work related issues.

Oh and by the way, before you go labelling me as some sort of misogynist or whatever term your type is using for men who speak common sense these days, my wife is an HR director for a large multinational bank. Suffice to say, her experience has been the same. You would not believe how much women are getting away with in both pay and behaviour and how much headache they have caused the Bank because the Bank wants to avoid "politically sensitive litigation" at all costs. Here is an example for you which she is dealing with currently. A female was hired and was "utterly useless". Has shown up late for work 87% of the time as documented by her 'female' manager, and 4 days before her probation was to end (which she was going to be let go of when it did) she filed a claim against the bank stating she has been discriminated against because of her gender which has caused her "undue stress" and the Bank is going to settle with her to the tune of 3 years of pay.

They are also in hiring mode and do you know what their directive is? Women only - irrelevant if there is a better male candidate. 400 hires required this year with a quota to fill of 80% female. Even my wife is sick to death of hearing about 'female inequality in the workplace'.

Fact.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,509
Location
Surrey
Just to echo @kaktus point about banks hiring women, I work in a bank. We recently had an email cascaded to us about the gender pay gap. It explained that the reason was due to there being more men in higher positions. It then went on to say that to address this hiring managers should prioritise female candidates over men when hiring or promoting people. Those were not the exact words as it was careful to remind us that we are an equal opportunities employer and all candidates should be considered equally. But, wrapped around sentences to tell us that that gender balance should always be considered and prioritised, then it was exactly what it seemed to be saying.

So if I want to apply for a promotion I am right out of luck, whether I am the best or worst applicant. I simply won't be considered because I am a white male. The only chance of promotion is to move to another company and hope they don't have the same policy.

I sold all my shares in the company as a result. Clearly they are focusing on gender balance rather than hiring the best people. So they will get hit hard by foreign competitors in the long run. I don't want to be holding their shares when they do.
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
Fixed that for you.

It’s a simple fact that women, and minorities, are systematically underpaid and undervalued. Sure, posting the top earners without analysing the data to see perhaps hours worked is an issue but the fact remains. Sexism is rife and women are constantly overlooked for promotion and underpaid. We need to talk about that and fix it as it’s simply wrong.

What’s also missing is none of the BBC Studio produced programmes are included in the figures.


Well where I work is the biggest employer in the area. Theyve just released thier gender data women earn more than men here by just under 1%


This is in an industrial/engineering factory environment to.....
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
14,662
I think that top 12 displays a real dedication to diversity, you've got quite a selection in there:
  • LGBTQ
  • Ginger
  • Welsh
  • A septuagenarian
  • Two 'big ears'
  • A fat Irish bloke
  • A Millennial
People focusing solely on gender are missing the bigger picture. :D
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
6,554
I think we are in the early stages of vast unintended experiment around gender and the workplace.

On one hand we have the Asian economies who generally give very little priority to 'family' friendly policies, 'positive' recruitment initiatives or diversity and on the other we have the West where some countries and firms are determined to force an equality of outcomes (in terms of averaged gender pay rates and gendered job role ratios*)

*but only in some fields
 
Associate
Joined
14 Feb 2004
Posts
1,103
Location
London
Love an angry poster oof go on

Are you not? Or do you enjoy waking up every day to an ever widening feminist and diversity narrative? Here's the funny thing. I am an ethnic minority and I am enraged daily. I have a black friend who works for the FCA as an IT project manager. she was recently told by her manager she should apply to become a manager because she is "a minority and guaranteed to get it". She got a 2/2 in Uni and by her own confession is average at best at her job and lazy. Is this not enough to make you enraged?
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Posts
29,256
Location
Dominating rooms with symmetry
Oh, it's a simple fact is it?

As a director of multiple companies in several industries you know what I stare at each year? a payroll which shows me that women are earning more than their male counterparts and work on average 20% less hours each year and have done so since as far back as I've been looking at these reports. This also doesn't take into account maternity leave and other female only benefits.

And here's another *fact* for you, you know how many HR issues I've had to deal with in the last 3 years involving petty disputes with men? 16. Do you know how many petty issues I've had to deal with regarding women in the same period? 187. 114 of which came from 'minorities'.

Here's a third fact for you, the company I last resigned from sacked a male MD and promoted a female into the position who is known to have said the following words in a crowded employee gathering "I have no idea what I'm doing most of the time. I surround myself with people who know what they're doing so they can make me look good. It's not like anyone is going to do anything I'm one of the few female MD's". This tart was known to be utterly useless and hence I departed with the firm. By the way, she is still employed by the firm and she still earns 320,000 per year. She is on the same salary band as all other MD's yet she has taken a 12 month maternity leave and has been a net cost to the firm since she was hired. In other words, on the books she owes the firm more than she has contributed. By a wide, wide, wide margin.

There was perhaps once a time when there was a pay gap however, in the six firms I have worked in during my career women have been "systemically" overpaid for less work and have without fail been involved in the majority of both work and non-work related issues.

Oh and by the way, before you go labelling me as some sort of misogynist or whatever term your type is using for men who speak common sense these days, my wife is an HR director for a large multinational bank. Suffice to say, her experience has been the same. You would not believe how much women are getting away with in both pay and behaviour and how much headache they have caused the Bank because the Bank wants to avoid "politically sensitive litigation" at all costs. Here is an example for you which she is dealing with currently. A female was hired and was "utterly useless". Has shown up late for work 87% of the time as documented by her 'female' manager, and 4 days before her probation was to end (which she was going to be let go of when it did) she filed a claim against the bank stating she has been discriminated against because of her gender which has caused her "undue stress" and the Bank is going to settle with her to the tune of 3 years of pay.

They are also in hiring mode and do you know what their directive is? Women only - irrelevant if there is a better male candidate. 400 hires required this year with a quota to fill of 80% female. Even my wife is sick to death of hearing about 'female inequality in the workplace'.

Fact.

Holy atomic blackpill, it's over for men in the west.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
Well where I work is the biggest employer in the area. Theyve just released thier gender data women earn more than men here by just under 1%


This is in an industrial/engineering factory environment to.....

that kind of makes sense though, I'm assuming the shop floor is predominantly male and the females employed there are likely to be university graduates working in HR, Finance etc.. and perhaps some graduate engineers

likewise IIRC the bike shop Halfords has a very big gender pay gap in favour of females
 
Back
Top Bottom