AIBU - BBC salaries

[Turvey94]

www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/bbc-salaries-full-list-wages-10827889

There is such anger at these salaries. I'm a bit conflicted tbh.

I just don't think these salaries have any value when there's no benchmark? I have no idea what similar presenters get paid on competitor channels (I assume it's less). How can I judge?!

I do think the BBC provides real quality. Some of these journalists are really talented. I also love the dramas and documentaries the BBC produces...

I couldn't give a shit. I care about the disparity between males and females doing similar jobs but at different rates of pay. But at the salaries themselves, not overly-interested except Chris Evans because I can't stand him.

It's so obviously a diversionary tactic by the Tories to create a backlash against the BBC to make Murdoch seem acceptable.

Didn't Chris Evans get a multi-million pound deal when he was a DJ for Virgin? Also, I'm sure I read Thierry Henry gets about 4 million a year from Sky, which would be over double what Linekar gets.

I find it hard to get worked up about the salaries. Like the previous poster, Im much more concerned by the female wages being so much lower than their male counterparts.

It's incredible that a mediocre actor (and I'm being generous here) like Charlie Woodentop is paid £400k to turn up on the set of Casualty. No other tv or film company would pay him anything that amount of money so the BBC is wrong when it says they are at the mercy of market forces.

I think the disparity between the sexes is far more of an issue. I wonder how far down the line that continues?

(Though I do have a problem with shite radio 2 DJs being paid so much - Steve fucking Wright? If it wasn't for him, Chris Evans, Christian O'Connell et al with their egotistical zoo-radio crap wouldn't even exist.)

Those twonks who host the One Show four days a week get just shy of half a million quid a year...that's ridiculous. The Welsh one can't even string a coherent sentence together.

Even with the information provided it's very hard to conclude there is such a huge disparity in salaries between sexes.

There is no information about the contracts they are under which could be hugely different.

Although not relevant here, people forget there is a natural pay gap between the genders because women are more likely to take a break to raise children and/or work part time. This is always going to have an arithmetical impact on average salary figures.

But why should it always be the women taking the career break? The disparirty cuts right through society's set up, not just in the workplace.

I can't get angry about relativity mediocre salaries. More important is gender gap and ageism against women.
I also have an issue with this whole fat cat salaries witch hunt that is horrible for those vilified in the press for earning a decent wage. It's not just the BBC it's education, politics, health (particularly GPs). These hardworking people are demonised and made to feel awful- some even give up - but public have no real idea what the costs associated with certain jobs are.

I was also amazed about the actor who plays Charlie - surely the show could kill him off at any moment (so he has zero bargaining power) and afaict he hasn't ever had any other major roles?
Is he benefiting from some kind of terribly written ancient contractual clause where salary increases by a certain percentage every year, and no-one expected Casualty to run for so long or keep the same actor all the way through??

I fail to understand why Laura Kuenssberg, the BBC's political editor FFS, should get paid less than a bunch of male news readers. Or why Sarah Montague gets less than John Humphreys.

Biology requires that women have to take a short break after having children

Anything more than that is a choice to a degree and the opportunity for men to stay at home is as available as for women. Society doesn't dictate anyone should take a career break for children.

When I go back from maternity leave, why shouldn't my equal grade colleagues (men and women) be earning more from the experience they've gained while I have not been at work?

Agree- no benchmark - all meaningless! Although Charlie Fairhead does seem to be getting more than is necessary. I for one cannot bear the idea of the BBC having to exist in competition with the likes of horrible commercial nasties like Sky. I love the independence of the corporation.

I fail to understand why Laura Kuenssberg, the BBC's political editor FFS, should get paid less than a bunch of male news readers.

Age, experience, qualifications, hours she works per week? All nothing to do with the fact she's a woman.

Arguably there is no really good reason why everyone in every sector salary shouldn't be published.

Then real comparison can be made and for young people going into a sector they can have a more realistic understanding of likely salary.

I agree 100% Crumbs1 - it is undignified.

OP, commercial channels can afford to pay considerably more in many cases.

This transparency gives ITV and Sky a fairly clear indication of what they need to offer to tempt someone away, and is a gift to agents of other people at the BBC to say, well if you're paying her that, my client deserves more.

Also it would make so much more sense to do rough hourly wage. Eg clare balding who seems always to be working would have a low relative hourly wage compared to say Alan yentob

Surely it's impossible to really know if there is parity? We don't know how many hours, days etc people are contracted to work and what additional other contractual commitments that they may have. Also, news presenters/journalists (John Humphries on the Today program for example) will arguably have more research to do for his role than other presenters on lighter weight shows.

Personally I'd be more concerned about gender ageism (how many older women were on the list?) than worrying about whether somebody earns £350k or £400k....

Presenters, actors, anchors and journalists on competitive channels are paid more. They'd effectively work in the private sector iyswim? Sky can pay their equivalent correspondent a great deal more than the beeb can.

I'm bloody shocked at how much some of the Eastenders lot earn. I don't think I could be paid to watch that show!

I'm pretty annoyed at the gap between male and female, but I guess there's not much info there.

I'm amazed Chris Evans is the top paid star, I must admit I'm not a fan of his, but judging by that I'm in the minority!

They are all earning such mega bucks, that I couldn't care less about any of the discrepancies, they are all immensely wealthy.

The public are being played by the conservatives and Murdock.

We sometimes forget that it is often the shows that make the 'talent' not vice versa. I have no issue with the BBC being a training ground for fresh talent that move on and leave space for newcomers.

The Today programme existed for a long time before John Humphries and it will continue after he retires. Charlie didn't make Casualty the show made him. In fact for a long time it was where ex soapies went to die.

If Chris Evans or Graeme Norton went to Sky the BBC would find someone just as good to replace them.

The gender pay gap is appalling.

The more I read your comments, the more I realise so much is missing... You're right paperandpaint - these salaries also lack the context of hours worked which is very important.

I do think it's a bit unfair individual names have been used. Argh.