The BBC pay data could just have provided some evidence for tittle-tattle. I am sure many in the BBC might wish it had done just that. That's because it did so much more. It provided what seems to be pretty damning evidence that there is something wrong at the BBC, which appears to be living in a time warp when it comes to gender equality.
I make the point for several reasons. First I want the issue addressed.
Second, I want the information from all companies and organisations. I am quite sure the BBC is not alone in discriminating as it does so I see no reason why it alone should be required to disclose.
Third, this data proves the power of transparency to promote reform. The clamour for change that exists today would not have happened without information to fuel it.
The tax justice movement knows information has changed the way we work.
We also know that having consistent reliable data on who uses tax havens; who owns companies and on the activities of multinational corporations via country-by-country reporting would radically transform what we know about tax and its abuse. And just as the BBC will have to change so would tax behaviour change if we knew more about it.
No one wants to be known as a cheat. Tax transparency would reveal those who do cheat. That may not stop it all, but it would go a long way to solving the problem. Which is why we will keep in working for tax transparency, taking on the rearguard action being fought by tax haven operators in defence of their defenceless activities.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I agree with all your points.
But why did the Government not start on the City of London instead where female traders are shown the door if they get pregnant (sorry but I have heard of this happening from people who actually work there).
Its funny that most of the people in the Finance sector associated with the 2008 crash are men. It’s obvious to me that the City needs reform too.
It’s certainly interesting and would be good to have this done in other sectors. Perhaps also for disclosure of funding of media organisations.
Good points well made Richard
Lord Reith and the 1920/30s values still seems to stork the HR corridors of power of the BBC. The fact that the highest paid male employee received 4 times that of the highest paid female employee speaks volumes for the need for equality reform.
Is this just about gender equality – it seems they are arguing for an equal opportunity for unfair pay.
The rest of us in public service (local government anyway) have our jobs/pay put through these job evaluation toolkits, where everybody’s job/pay, top to bottom, is compared. You can compare the pay of (say) a swimming pool attendant with a finance manager.
There are problems with how some of these work (criteria etc.). And it can result in longstanding unfilled posts where the pay is too low to compete with the private sector. But at least there is a process that is fair – everybody has to undergo it.
If we want fairness in BBC pay, then put them through this process like the rest of us in public service.
The other problem is, of course, how do BBC programmes now ever discuss unfair pay elsewhere – bankers, chief executives etc? It will be an uncomfortable discussion, now to be swept under the carpet.
We do have to be a little bit careful here. The BBC publishes the names and functions of all its staff earning above £150,000 already. These are (if you like) the public servants. This tends towards equal balance – certainly more than that of the ones published yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/
It is the salary of presenters and stars etc who do NOT decide policy that has just been published.
Sorry, but this whole exercise that has been foisted on the Beeb is just another attack on it by the public sector hating Tory right, acting, as usual, as Rupert Murdoch’s obedient little helpers.
If the government is really so upset by gender inequality, why is only the BBC forced to do this? after all, this is a government that couldn’t care less about inequality in other areas of life. Why isn’t every other public body forced to do this?
Come to think of it, why not force the BBC’s competitors to do the same? This is a classic right wing attempt to undermine one of the few really successful British institutions.
I wonder what the result would be if similar data was published for say ITV or Channel 4 or Sky. Do you think the BBC is doing better or worse than them?
For what it is worth, I think too much is being made of a handful of exceptional cases, and data also contains evidence of equal pay for equal work: for example, it seems that the four Strictly judges (three men and one woman) are all being paid about the same.
Raising the pay of Claudia Winkleman, or reducing the pay of Gary Lineker or Chris Evans, would not solve the issue of gender equality and equal pay. And I suspect that all three of them could walk into higher paid jobs elsewhere if they so wished.
Perhaps the BBC should have a pay cap. Or just pay everyone the same amount, irrespective of how many hours they worked, or how much anyone else was willing to pay them. Would that make its programming better or worse?
” Second, I want the information from all companies and organisations…”
Won t happen friend. At keadt not out with the boundaries if the oubluc sector where the State ultimately controls all its Parliaments, Councils, Local Authorities , Quangos and nationalised actors including BBC.
Of course in that theatre ( directly subsidised by the taxpayer and thus …. theoretically …..under his/her cintrol) ALL operational units should publish yearly at minimum.
But private or close companies/ enterprises which do not directly depend on the public purse but on the venture capita ofh private shareholders these will not acquiesce and shoukd not be asked to succumb to third party intrusion of their opefations sanctioned by their Artickes of Association and thus entitled to comprehensive privacy unkess charged with a legal breach of any kind.
EWith respect, this was a legal requirement not so long ago and if parliament were to decide it should be again then it will be and they will have to comply
Maybe you should acquaint yourself with the way law works
Correct , it was a legsl requirement some years ago but was removed mainly because of its intrusive nature.
Never say never but I believe it wil not return.
Try a Corbyn government….
The BBC employs around 35000 staff: the issue is whether the rank and file have the same opportunities and are paid equitably.
Focussing on whether a group of under 100 outliers at the top meet grade distributions is a classic statistical error, akin to saying that the country is better off because the top-paid bank staff increased their income last year.
In the interests of transparency, do you publish your income and tax returns Richard?
I have heard that you arranged to be paid through tax free grants – which would be a little hypocritical for a tax campaigner to do, wouldn’t it?
I publish my accounts in full which the law does not require
I earn what I think is a pretty average salary for a UK Orofessor
I do not publish my tax return as I quite publicly saying I am not sure how useful thus is your itself
And I have paid tax on all grants I have ever received
Maybe you should spend less time on tittle-tattle
And grants your LLP received?
All taxed
And all disclosed bar one, which was done to protect the the main trustee of the donor fund, who was a single woman who was greatly concerned about potential abuse.
“…living in a time warp when it comes to gender equality.
I make the point for several reasons. First I want the issue addressed”
Says the man who on the one hand claimed his wife made a significant contribution to his LLP but on the other hand only gave her 1% of the profits.
You have no idea of the facts on the issue you think you are addressing
Like any other you seem to want to talk about
See, this comment and others like it are EXACTLY why the whole issue of who is paid what at the BBC or anywhere else is completely and fatally flawed.
Examining individual cases doesn’t present any kind of statistically significant outcomes, it merely encourages backbiting and petty jibes, usually fuelled by ignorance and/or jealousy.
Is there an issue with gender pay in the UK? Probably. Is identifying a handful of individual cases going to address or even clarify that issue? Probably not. Is it going to cause outrage and start fights which will take people’s attention away from the fact that there’s a real gender pay issue that urgently needs addressing? Absolutely.
But, as usual, here we are sniping at each other while the real problem continues.
Don’t look at the man behind the curtain, people… nothing to see here…
Individual cases – it’s distraction politics. The issues are what is important. On pay equality, I’ve said it previously, I want to see differentials diminished – a ratio of 4 or 5 to 1 seems about right. But there are many entrenched positions and the unions have historically been in favour of maintaining pay differentials.
Then tax. Again, a fair system with few, or no, tax bungs for the already wealthy, and yes, I do have my ISA’s. All income, whatever it’s source, whether it comes in a wrapper or not, should be taxed at the same rate and the few reliefs that may be necessary, e.g. for pension contributions, should only be at the basic rate. But reliefs, again, are only for those who earn enough to pay tax. Those on the lowest incomes get nothing. How unfair is that?