BBC Editor Quits Over Gender Pay Gap.

The BBC has reported that one of its senior editors, Carrie Gracie, has resigned in protest over alleged pay inequality:

"Ms Gracie, who has alleged "unlawful pay discrimination", thanked the EHRC for "demanding facts on BBC pay".

The BBC said "fairness in pay" was "vital" to the corporation.

In a statement, the EHRC said: "Women have a legal right to equal pay with men for equal work."

The watchdog said it was aware of Ms Gracie's claims and would write to the BBC, "requiring them to provide us with information on their pay policy and the facts in this individual case".

It added: "We will consider whether further action is required based on this information."

It said a new requirement for thousands of firms to report on gender pay gaps would "do more to end discrimination" in the workplace."

The BBC's own audit said there was no "systematic pay inequality" in staff, but Gracie's decision to resign and challenge the BBC has opened up the debate about pay inequality in the workplace. The BBC has been wise enough not to provide a "Have Your Say" section on the subject, but I figure it is something that could be cautiously discussed here.

What is there really to discuss?

They offered her a raise, she declined. Now she's gone. Clearly they don't think she was worth as much pay as those colleagues and since I think the ability to negotiate wages is a good thing...I don't see the Issue.

But then again, I also don't assume that her having a similar position means that she is just as good at her Job as anyone with a similar Job.

So, from where I'm standing, maybe this is sexism, maybe she just isn't as good as she thinks she is.

Fischgopf:
What is there really to discuss?

They offered her a raise, she declined. Now she's gone. Clearly they don't think she was worth as much pay as those colleagues and since I think the ability to negotiate wages is a good thing...I don't see the Issue.

But then again, I also don't assume that her having a similar position means that she is just as good at her Job as anyone with a similar Job.

So, from where I'm standing, maybe this is sexism, maybe she just isn't as good as she thinks she is.

That says to me that a lot of the basic accusations of sexism could be avoided with flatter rates of pay; perhaps with set increments on a scale. This incidentally is how they do it in the NHS: salary is determined by a set of pay grades, and your pay within your grade is determined by completed years of experience, though pay rises can be postponed if a staff member doesn't meet the competence level. Once you get to higher pay levels, there seems to be a complete abandonment of standard salaries, which makes it possible for employers to potentially underpay/overpay people (even if it does turn out to be influenced on how hard a bargain candidates drive in the interview).

(also, the discussion is in the existence of a wage gap; it is the view of a lot of people that it doesn't even exist - here is a story about someone literally pointing it out in her work place, what do they have to say to that?).

maninahat:

Fischgopf:
What is there really to discuss?

They offered her a raise, she declined. Now she's gone. Clearly they don't think she was worth as much pay as those colleagues and since I think the ability to negotiate wages is a good thing...I don't see the Issue.

But then again, I also don't assume that her having a similar position means that she is just as good at her Job as anyone with a similar Job.

So, from where I'm standing, maybe this is sexism, maybe she just isn't as good as she thinks she is.

That says to me that a lot of the basic accusations of sexism could be avoided with flatter rates of pay; perhaps with set increments on a scale. This incidentally is how they do it in the NHS: salary is determined by a set of pay grades, and your pay within your grade is determined by completed years of experience, though pay rises can be postponed if a staff member doesn't meet the competence level. Once you get to higher pay levels, there seems to be a complete abandonment of standard salaries, which makes it possible for employers to potentially underpay/overpay people (even if it does turn out to be influenced on how hard a bargain candidates drive in the interview).

(also, the discussion is in the existence of a wage gap; it is the view of a lot of people that it doesn't even exist - here is a story about someone literally pointing it out in her work place, what do they have to say to that?).

pretty sure that is how most government agencies work in terms of salaries. You do not negotiate, everything is determined beforehand.

higher pay levels is also more about politics than anything else.

maninahat:

Fischgopf:
What is there really to discuss?

They offered her a raise, she declined. Now she's gone. Clearly they don't think she was worth as much pay as those colleagues and since I think the ability to negotiate wages is a good thing...I don't see the Issue.

But then again, I also don't assume that her having a similar position means that she is just as good at her Job as anyone with a similar Job.

So, from where I'm standing, maybe this is sexism, maybe she just isn't as good as she thinks she is.

That says to me that a lot of the basic accusations of sexism could be avoided with flatter rates of pay; perhaps with set increments on a scale. This incidentally is how they do it in the NHS: salary is determined by a set of pay grades, and your pay within your grade is determined by completed years of experience, though pay rises can be postponed if a staff member doesn't meet the competence level. Once you get to higher pay levels, there seems to be a complete abandonment of standard salaries, which makes it possible for employers to potentially underpay/overpay people (even if it does turn out to be influenced on how hard a bargain candidates drive in the interview).

(also, the discussion is in the existence of a wage gap; it is the view of a lot of people that it doesn't even exist - here is a story about someone literally pointing it out in her work place, what do they have to say to that?).

The NHS banding for pay is a good idea in my idea, but only if its implemented properly. I used to work in the NHS and I've seen roles where you had a regular version and a junior version that was on a lesser pay grade, both the standard and the junior agreed they did exactly the same job (due to staff shortages) but management wouldn't increase the junior to a regular. The junior quit and they replaced the role with a new one that was the same pay as the junior but had implicit in the contract they will help the regular if staffing needs require (its the NHS, staffing need always require).

This wasn't sexism as both were women, but it just shows that depending on contract you can get away with some really unfair things.

maninahat:

(also, the discussion is in the existence of a wage gap; it is the view of a lot of people that it doesn't even exist - here is a story about someone literally pointing it out in her work place, what do they have to say to that?).

Fair enough. But if you are invested in this, surely you realize that a big part of claims that it doesn't exist is that Feminists have a really bad habit of misrepresenting the Gap that does exist. They have no one to blame for that but themselves.

Who is she supposed to be comparing her salary to?

She's a radio host, an entertainer, how can you set a wage for that sorta thing?

The problem is, pay equality at the top is not the same as pay equality through the ranks. TV personship is to do with personal branding and what you bring to the show. It's arbitrarily valued similar to football transfer fees, and you can't expect hard and fast rules.

That said, it will be interesting to see what facts the watchdog comes back with.

Yeah I don't think salary should be entirely based on years of experience, because then you end up with situation where people who work more/better end up being paid the same as people who do less. So the people who do more then to just lower there output based on whoever does the less work("Well X only filed 100 reports in his 40 hours, I just filed 100 reports in 20 hours, guess I'm done for the week!").

Salary is doubly complicated when you get to post that have few equivalent and are based on popularity. It's really hard to prove that any difference is due to discrimination versus any other factors. Maybe someone get higher listener number, but this could be due to the timeslot that they are given. Or someone could have lower listener, but the type of people that do listen are more valuable to advertiser and so they can argue that they deserve a better salary.

I imagine if she's pressing suits she got some good argument for it, should be interesting.

maninahat:

That says to me that a lot of the basic accusations of sexism could be avoided with flatter rates of pay; perhaps with set increments on a scale. This incidentally is how they do it in the NHS: salary is determined by a set of pay grades, and your pay within your grade is determined by completed years of experience, though pay rises can be postponed if a staff member doesn't meet the competence level. Once you get to higher pay levels, there seems to be a complete abandonment of standard salaries, which makes it possible for employers to potentially underpay/overpay people (even if it does turn out to be influenced on how hard a bargain candidates drive in the interview).

(also, the discussion is in the existence of a wage gap; it is the view of a lot of people that it doesn't even exist - here is a story about someone literally pointing it out in her work place, what do they have to say to that?).

Isn't that shifting the discrimination though? Instead of gender based it is now age based. And it's not really motivating for younger employees who will feel screwed because they may be working harder and better and still earn much less as their older peers simply because they are younger... Now in a healthcare environment this is less problematic because usually the personnel feels a lot more involved with their work due to the direct results of their labor and satisfaction it gives. But for most office jobs it isn't the case . There are reasons why public administrations are notorious for their disastrous productivity, and this is definitely one.

But onto the original topic, good for her i guess? If she felt she wasn't paid enough for her work she made the right choice. Now whether the wage gap is linked to her gender has yet to be proven.

generals3:

maninahat:

That says to me that a lot of the basic accusations of sexism could be avoided with flatter rates of pay; perhaps with set increments on a scale. This incidentally is how they do it in the NHS: salary is determined by a set of pay grades, and your pay within your grade is determined by completed years of experience, though pay rises can be postponed if a staff member doesn't meet the competence level. Once you get to higher pay levels, there seems to be a complete abandonment of standard salaries, which makes it possible for employers to potentially underpay/overpay people (even if it does turn out to be influenced on how hard a bargain candidates drive in the interview).

(also, the discussion is in the existence of a wage gap; it is the view of a lot of people that it doesn't even exist - here is a story about someone literally pointing it out in her work place, what do they have to say to that?).

Isn't that shifting the discrimination though? Instead of gender based it is now age based. And it's not really motivating for younger employees who will feel screwed because they may be working harder and better and still earn much less as their older peers simply because they are younger.

Yes, you are right; when the main measure used for competence is length of service, it unfairly benefits older employees, even if they are far less competent than younger people, and from personal experience that is sometimes the case. It's harder to set quotas for some jobs though, the NHS being one; you don't have commissions.

More like-minded people should follow her brave lead.

Maybe even go further and exile themselves in protest to an isolated, uninhabited island somewhere. That'll show us!

Meiam:
Yeah I don't think salary should be entirely based on years of experience, because then you end up with situation where people who work more/better end up being paid the same as people who do less. So the people who do more then to just lower there output based on whoever does the less work("Well X only filed 100 reports in his 40 hours, I just filed 100 reports in 20 hours, guess I'm done for the week!").

Honestly this is the exact reason why I do the bare minimum at my work. My senior caught something like 5 incidents a night, while I averaged catching 11 incidents a night, as well as completing my reports with more detail(With pictures) AND faster than him, but when I brought up my performance to my boss I was told I wouldn't get a larger annual raise than him because of his time with the company.

Since there was absolutely 0 incentive to do more, and better, work I just said fuck it and do only what I have to do. Why bust my ass and make the company look good and do the best by our customers if all that matters is how long I work for the company. If my hard work was acknowledged for anything other than

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here