Could Claire Roy make a claim under the Equal Pay act for The Crown?

[TimbuktuTimbuktu]

I was reading some of the gender sex pay gap stuff today and it kept saying that it's not about equal pay for the same work because that's been illegal since the 1970's. However it seems clear to me that it's not always true and that TV/film seems one of the worst high profiles examples.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/mar/20/petition-asks-matt-smith-to-donate-the-crown-salary-to-times-up

So what do you think? Would she have a case under the legislation. And could any female actress do this without sabotaging their own career?

No. Because he was much more high profile/big name actor than she was at the beginning of The Crown.

Also technically its not equal work as it's different roles? It's like two different project management jobs or something

I agree she was a relatively unknown actress before this role. And Matt Smith has a much higher profile, well recognised as Dr who. Though after her excellent work on the crown. She can start demanding the big bucks as she is more recognised now.

No. I've just finished watching big little lies. Nicole Kidman and Reece Witherspoon were paid more than their male co stars because they are higher profile. Same theory with Matt Smith.

But how is the fact that he is/was better known relevant to the actual work they are doing? She worked more hours doing more scenes, speaking more lines. Surely in a legal sense that is the job she is doing?

How does the relative public profile of the actors involved relate to the amount of work they are doing?

I think you have to take into account how many viewers the actor will bring to the channel.
I would love it if actors got paid on work done rather than how many viewers they can have and marketing. It will open so many doors for people. I hope so anyway. It means they can cast based on talent rather than how many fans the actor has.

Claire Foy

Is it not just the same as if you worked in the same job as someone more experienced and therefore earned more? Or negotiated a better salary based on their previous salary?

Because the high profile actors pull in the viewers and make the show more likely to be a success. They get more interviews, publicity to promote the show. The more viewers the more chance of the bbc selling the show round the world (which is where they make most or a lot of their income) and also dvd sales.

It’s standard in the film and tv industry.

Some shows the woman will earn more than the man.

A lot of people would have been like “oooh I loved Matt Smith in Dr Who, must watch his new show”.

Claire Foy was great but I’d not heard of her before and she wasn’t a household name.

But in between series 1 & 2 she got a BAFTA nom for Wolf Hall, so I think she should've been paid more for series 2

They did negotiations for both series 1 and 2 as a package, before they started filming season 1. So the bafta came after the negotiations. They had to sign up and commit to both prior.

“But how is the fact that he is/was better known relevant to the actual work they are doing? She worked more hours doing more scenes, speaking more lines. Surely in a legal sense that is the job she is doing?“

Same reason Beyoncé’s reported salary for lion king is bigger than Donald glovers

“But in between series 1 & 2 she got a BAFTA nom for Wolf Hall, so I think she should've been paid more for series 2”
Why in the world would they pay her more for a second season when they’d already agreed a fee and knew they weren’t going to be doing a third season with her

It does seem like this is a bit of a societal trap though- if we as a society give more weight to male stars profiles and accord them more status, if the papers choose to interview them more etc then women will never/very rarely be able to achieve pay parity.

(I acknowledge I'm playing devils advocate a bit here obviously there are female stars like Beyoncé which buck the trends)

It's like the bbc presenter pay argument. The male presenters are routinely paid more than women and sat in the more prominent position. Arguably they tend to have more experience as well but that is because they get rid of the older women presenters.

Channel 5 were one of the few places who had a pay gap in favour of women (2.8%) which I think does show that things can change if a company has will to address its biases and look for ways of doing things differently.

I think actors are always self employed pretty much so not covered by the equal pay act?

It's difficult though as it's very hard to compare like for like. Jarred Harris (King George) said this:

“She worked longer hours. Her performance is a huge reason why this thing is going to have a season three, four, five, and six … send her a paycheck and, in retrospect, bring her pay up to parity.”

And it is that simple. Companies could do better on women's pay. They are the ones who know who's getting paid what. Being able to get away with paying women less shouldn't be a prudent business decision.

There’s also the fact that actors aren’t offered a wage by the production company. They all have their own agents who negotiate a fee. So it will partly depend on how good their agent is.