[riverrock]

In the interest of accuracy Chris Evans radio show attracts 9.01 million listeners per week (not per show).

In the interest of accuracy, Chis Evans radio show attracts 9.354m (Q3 2017) unique individuals listening for at least 5 consecutive minutes in an average week.

As most people listen to the same things, that probably means around 9 million per show, but I'm not paying RAJAR to get at that info!

[gasman]

Mark your diaries for 8th Feb when RAJAR release the Q4 viewing figures

[kanga]

Not for the first time, I am impressed by the transparency and balance with which the BBC News 'correspondent' staff are reporting on the issue. Note that I do not include in the above the different (and, we now know, often much better paid) 'presenter' staff of the BBC 'news magazine' programmes like, eg 'Today':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42872363

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42858624

[Katamarino]

It was interesting to note that an independent report into BBC pay found that there was no gender bias, and differences were fully explained by non gender-related issues.

This suggests that any men who are getting their pay cut because they are male would have a case for gender discrimination.

[Paul_Sengupta]

This suggests that any men who are getting their pay cut because they are male would have a case for gender discrimination.

I don't think they're getting their pay cut just because they're male, I think they're getting their pay cut because (and they themselves admit it) they are overpaid in today's climate, having gained their pay deals back in "the good old days".

[morticiaskeeper]

Shirley this is being looked at from the wrong angle.

I am of the firm opinion that there is a rate for the job. If someone is not getting that rate, the employer should fix that and pay the going rate, NOT reduce the pay of the others. If that causes budgetary concerns, it's a separate matter and maybe the management haven't managed things properly.

So why are the rates being reduced? Is it a media / management led shaming? Or is it virtue signalling by the wealthy to show how much they care?

There should be one rate for the job. Pay the going rate, if you find that rate is too high, that is mismanagement, sort it out at contract renewal time.


Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[PeteSpencer]

Carrie Gracie has just given a brilliant exposition of her situation to the Commons Committee:

Go Carrie!

Peter

[defcribed]

I just don't think you can look at 'personality-based' employment in such a simplistic manner.

It isn't the same as a postman or a coal miner where you do the job and who you are is essentially irrelevant - the work is done and your own personality/opinions/appearance /judgement have no little or no bearing on the work outcomes.

Television presenters/personalities are essentially paid to be who they are. Their value is determined by things like their perceived gravitas, popularity with viewers, etc.

I don't believe you can directly compare any two of the sort of BBC employees that are being discussed in this context. Jon Sopel is paid according to Jon Sopel's perceived market worth and Carrie Gracie according to Carrie Gracie's. I don't believe there's anything wrong with this. Would anyone argue for a rule requiring that all footballers in a professional team be paid the same?

I'm not a journalist, I just work in a business environment. But the same is the case in my team - my peers will not be paid exactly the same as me. Some may be paid more, some may be paid less. It'll be a factor of our perceived value to the company (which is not necessarily the same just because we have the same job description) and also of our own ability to negotiate a favourable package.

I believe most of these people at the BBC are overpaid and that their skills are not particularly rare or unique, but that's a different point.

[Paul_Sengupta]

I am of the firm opinion that there is a rate for the job.

It appears to be that the rate for being at the top of the tree in terms of international correspondence is £135k a year. Anything on top of that is a "celebrity extra".

Actually it might be less than that, and Carrie Wossername herself (I hadn't heard of her before this row, obviously some others have) may be being paid extra for her "well known-ness status" as well.

[Pete L]

Having just seen Jeremy Bowen's report tonight he's worth every penny. Made his point expertly by not getting in front of the witnesses.