Equal pay for equal work

mathie

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-50599080

Presenter Samira Ahmed has won the employment tribunal she brought against the BBC in a dispute over equal pay.

Ahmed claimed she was underpaid for hosting audience feedback show Newswatch when compared with Jeremy Vine's salary for Points of View.

The judgement said "her work on Newswatch was like Jeremy Vine's work on Points of View under section 65(1) of the Equality Act 2010".

Ahmed said she was "glad it's been resolved".

"No woman wants to have to take action against their own employer," she said, adding: "I love working for the BBC."

The corporation said: "We know tribunals are never a pleasant experience for anyone involved. We want to work together with Samira to move on in a positive way."

Excellent news.

This should pave the way for me getting the same weekly rate as Cristiano Ronaldo when I line out for my five-a-side team.

AndrewJRenko

You seem to have forgotten about the 'equal work' bit of your thread title.

mickuhaha

Thing is that the BBC could decide to cut Jeremy Vine's pay instead and Jeremy might decide to move on to other projects.

mathie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten about the 'equal work' bit of your thread title.

Some might say the quality of the work is different.

The BBC responded by saying she and Vine performed "very different roles".

I would imagine the next logical step for BBC would be to base the salary of a person on the ratings drawn by their shows, and work out how many people watching, equates to how much money you get paid?

That way no one can really complain (albeit of course, people will ultimately get paid less as a result, and shows that become too popular, especially with multiple hosts, risk being cancelled as the costs increase with them).

AndrewJRenko

mathie wrote: »

Some might say the quality of the work is different.

Some might indeed say that, but the employment tribunal that looked at the matter in detail came to the conclusion that she was underpaid because of her gender

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would imagine the next logical step for BBC would be to base the salary of a person on the ratings drawn by their shows, and work out how many people watching, equates to how much money you get paid?

That way no one can really complain (albeit of course, people will ultimately get paid less as a result, and shows that become too popular, especially with multiple hosts, risk being cancelled as the costs increase with them).

That would ignore the public service remit of the BBC. It's not all about ratings.

MonsterCookie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Some might indeed say that, but the employment tribunal that looked at the matter in detail came to the conclusion that she was underpaid because of her gender

Not to be pedantic but was it not the conclusion that the BBC failed to justify the gap in pay I.e. the tribunal was not convinced by the employers claim that the roles were different. Quite different to saying it was proven to be based on gender.

suicide_circus

fair play to her. if it was about ratings that would have been very easy foe the BBC to prove.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

mathie wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-50599080



Excellent news.

This should pave the way for me getting the same weekly rate as Cristiano Ronaldo when I line out for my five-a-side team.

Your five-a-side team is a professional squad?

AndrewJRenko

MonsterCookie wrote: »

Not to be pedantic but was it not the conclusion that the BBC failed to justify the gap in pay I.e. the tribunal was not convinced by the employers claim that the roles were different. Quite different to saying it was proven to be based on gender.

Isn't that the same thing, at the end of the day?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Having watched both programmes regularly I would say that Vine's effort doesn't warrant anything like three thousand per episode but it still involves more than Newswatch. The two programmes are not comparable - apples and oranges. The fairest solution would be to reduce Vine's payment substantially.

Millie Embarrassed Gunslinger

Millie Embarrassed Gunslinger wrote: »

Having watched both programmes regularly I would say that Vine's effort doesn't warrant anything like three thousand per episode but it still involves more than Newswatch. The two programmes are not comparable - apples and oranges. The fairest solution would be to reduce Vine's payment substantially.

I never heard of him, or the show, but £3,000 seems like very little money? I was assuming he was a bit of a 'top dog' kinda position but that seems a bit crappy, money wise..?


(Don't get me wrong, it's multiples more than I make, but i just assumed TV presenters would be doing better in general).

colm_mcm

€3000 isn’t bad for a weekly 15 minute show, reading off autocue, with no research etc required.

The likes of Ryan Tubridy who is consistently criticized for being on €500k does a lot more in comparison.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Deleted User wrote: »

I never heard of him, or the show, but £3,000 seems like very little money? I was assuming he was a bit of a 'top dog' kinda position but that seems a bit crappy, money wise..?


(Don't get me wrong, it's multiples more than I make, but i just assumed TV presenters would be doing better in general).

It's a 15 minute show once a week for a limited season, the script is written by others and he just reads the autocue. He does other BBC work and fits this in while in the studio.

Ah in that case, it's a bit different alright. I presumed it was like a 'late late show' kinda thing he did, and was thinking £3,000 just seemed a bit crappy.

Seems like better pay now that I know more about it alright. Handy work if you can get it.

MonsterCookie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Isn't that the same thing, at the end of the day?

i wouldn't have seen them as the same tbh. one scenario is wilful discrimination and the other could be down to a number of reasons.

anyway, fair play to her.

volchitsa

MonsterCookie wrote: »

i wouldn't have seen them as the same tbh. one scenario is wilful discrimination and the other could be down to a number of reasons.

anyway, fair play to her.

I think the tribunal just finds facts, and doesn't have to take into account the motivations behind them.

In this case their conclusion was that the BBC couldn't convincingly explain the massive difference in salaries (he was earning several times more than she was, not 10 or 20% more). It didn't have to be wilful to be illegal, just unjustified by any of the reasons the BBC put forward - which left the traditional one of sex discrimination, women being paid less for the same job because reasons.

B.A._Baracus

A tribunal huh?
Not sure if that was the smartest of moves from her. Sure she got the result she wanted but what about going forward. Always a possibility she will hit the glass ceiling in bbc because of this.

MonsterCookie

volchitsa wrote: »

I think the tribunal just finds facts, and doesn't have to take into account the motivations behind them.

In this case their conclusion was that the BBC couldn't convincingly explain the massive difference in salaries (he was earning several times more than she was, not 10 or 20% more). It didn't have to be wilful to be illegal, just unjustified by any of the reasons the BBC put forward - which left the traditional one of sex discrimination, women being paid less for the same job because reasons.

Yeah I know. And it could have been gender discriminatory or just poor management or whatever.