• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
sarahbell

Gender pay equality issue

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

Pay the men as little as the women. 
Will save lots of money for the licence payers too.

And it's a 'market' so if the blokes think they can earn more elsewhere they are free to go and find out.

Agree, but if that's not the agenda, I'll expect the opposite

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep,  completely agree.

The problem is it's very hard to quantify how much a presenter is "worth",  but by using this as a government mandate to push through lower cost contracts it will show who really will bother to hang around.

If all the decent presenters leave and quality drops they will be able to demonstrate the government /media are wrong that the original contract rates were "about right" regardless any supposed gender bias.  If not we've all saved a bit of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

I think they should get rid of all presenters on over £100,000 and just interview a raft of applicants for the roles advertised at £40,000. They would get a surfeit of just as capable people.

Yep.  The great majority are dentikit interchangeable presenters who bring nothing special to a programme.

I don't especially dislike any of them or like any of them because they are all so bland.

Michael Aspel, Fiona Bruce, Eamonn Andrews, Christina Bleakly, Nick Ross all fashioned huge and lucrative careers on being as exciting as plain wallpaper.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much is a footballer worth? The answer is I don't care, as I don't have to pay the Football Corporation if I only watch Cricket, and darts.O.o.

If you are in a postion with "flexible" pay grades, some will be paid more than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't really a gender pay gap in the So-Called BBC.  If you look at the wider 'normal' pay range it appears to be fairly fair.

However, there is a class pay gap, where people who've been to a fancy school are much more likely to be paid much more.  For some reason this aspect of it doesn't seem to get much publicity.

[I've decided that there isn't such a thing as a gender pay gap.  There is a shyness pay gap, where shyer, less aggressive people get paid less.  The 'gender pay gap' appears to be to do with the different proportions of males/females being aggressive (in general, not just towards pay), with a dollop of childcare career gap and lifestyle choice for good measure.  Sure, this appears to be a nuance -- it doesn't matter why only that there is a gender-average pay difference.  So lets make sure pay levels are equalised across genders.  

But, where are all the people shouting for the shy males?  Oh, yes, forgot.  They can just look after themselves, as being white and male means they've had it given to them on a plate and any deficiency in any way is entirely their own fault.  And if they get paid less than the average 'shy female' as a result of the gender pay battle then tough.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Libspero said:

Yep,  completely agree.

The problem is it's very hard to quantify how much a presenter is "worth",  but by using this as a government mandate to push through lower cost contracts it will show who really will bother to hang around.

If all the decent presenters leave and quality drops they will be able to demonstrate the government /media are wrong that the original contract rates were "about right" regardless any supposed gender bias.  If not we've all saved a bit of money.

Texttospeech software - 500.

Someone to type the bews. 20k.

Theres your numbers.

The problem for the beeb and media companies is tgat theres so many people chasing so few jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dipsy said:

Pay them by number of viewers. Aren't actors film contracts based on a % of the box office - seems reasonable way to do things.

I (ahem) think they already do that.

It's called Babestation.

Probably about as factually accurate as the So-Called BBC anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Libspero said:

Yep,  completely agree.

The problem is it's very hard to quantify how much a presenter is "worth",  but by using this as a government mandate to push through lower cost contracts it will show who really will bother to hang around.

If all the decent presenters leave and quality drops they will be able to demonstrate the government /media are wrong that the original contract rates were "about right" regardless any supposed gender bias.  If not we've all saved a bit of money.

I think Richard and Judy AKA the King and Queen of daytime TV found out how great they were when the moved to some digital channel .... and their audience did not follow them and they pulled in less than an old repeat of 'super market sweep'. Suspect it is the same with 99% of them, only exception seems to be Clarkson who when replaced by the superstar that is Chris Evans caused Top Gear ratings and viewers to plummet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.