Gender pay gap at the BBC

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/an-equal-pay-revolution-is-nigh-in-the-uk-australia-take-note-20180202-p4yza7.html

Dangerous work that, reading the news. 

An equal pay storm that has been brewing for several months since the BBC was forced to publish the salaries of its highest earners, revealing only a third are women and the top seven are all men, finally broke on Wednesday, dumping a torrential downpour of righteous anger at a Parliamentary Select Committee convened to look into the issue.

A subsequent review conducted by the BBC in response to the initial outcry over top earners’ pay inequality revealed a 9.6 per cent average gender pay gap across the BBC. “Better than average,” blustered the BBC when those figures were released. Not surprisingly, those comments did not quell the storm.

The BBC is a cautionary tale for many other large employers in the UK, who are bracing themselves for the aftermath of new legislation which is forcing them to publish their pay gaps by April of this year, something some have suggested will lead to many “BBC moments”.

[odeon]

About time.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Total fucking fake news.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

[Al Swearegen]

Nope. Recently this anchor decided to quit in a huff over her salary being lower than her male co-anchor. She raised hell over it and the network let her go. Then it came out that his salary also included other components hers did not such as other yearly specials and such. She still thought they should be equal. There is the gender equality debate encapsulated.

[odeon]

The BBC numbers tell a different story.

[Al Swearegen]

The BBC numbers tell a different story.

Meh, in the case of Lisa Wilkinson and Karl Stefanovic there was a big outrage and the News company made the case that it was not prepared to pay Lisa the same because in his contract Karl had more duties including various specials he had to do that Lisa did not. It was a non-issue. To her, they were paid unequally for the same job.

Because the media controls the discourse, this very reasonable explanation is lost in the spin and outrage that promote Lisa as the victim and brave woman pushing but on equal pay.

Having said that, one article DID raise an interesting point. Whilst they both needed to get make up for the set. She had to have her hair done each day and so this put an extra hour a day on her prep time. Now THAT IS something that ought to be taken into account. an hour a day 5 days a week 52 weeks a year does add up and is obviously time he does not have to concern himself with.

That all said and done these people are both earning 1 million + dollars a year so I am not going to weep too much over either of them and the 1 percenter issues they have.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

The BBC numbers tell a different story.

Actually, they don't. You're making the same mistake you made with the Google employee numbers.

You just look at the surface numbers and don't scratch below the surface to see why there's a difference.

BBC has commissioned 3 different independent investigations over recent years and all 3 found that there were no gender bias in the wages of anyone who worked there.

THIS IS A FAKE STORY, PERIOD!

[odeon]

The BBC numbers tell a different story.

Actually, they don't. You're making the same mistake you made with the Google employee numbers.

You just look at the surface numbers and don't scratch below the surface to see why there's a difference.

BBC has commissioned 3 different independent investigations over recent years and all 3 found that there were no gender bias in the wages of anyone who worked there.

THIS IS A FAKE STORY, PERIOD!

How do you explain the fact that there is a 6.8% gap, then, according to their own numbers? How do you explain the fact that they will cut the salaries of some of their male journalists following the publication of their own study, the one where they claim there is no gender bias?

If you scratch below the surface a bit, you'll find a lot of criticism aimed at their studies. Yes, it's easier to just claim it's fake news but I'm guessing that you wouldn't if you were paid 6.8% less than a female colleague.

As for the Google numbers, you were the one to miss the division between tech and non-tech employees. Statistics are so easily misunderstood, aren't they? It happens to the best of us so it goes without saying that it happens to you. Happy to revisit the discussion if you can produce sources that back up your claims.

[Al Swearegen]

The BBC numbers tell a different story.

Actually, they don't. You're making the same mistake you made with the Google employee numbers.

You just look at the surface numbers and don't scratch below the surface to see why there's a difference.

BBC has commissioned 3 different independent investigations over recent years and all 3 found that there were no gender bias in the wages of anyone who worked there.

THIS IS A FAKE STORY, PERIOD!

How do you explain the fact that there is a 6.8% gap, then, according to their own numbers? How do you explain the fact that they will cut the salaries of some of their male journalists following the publication of their own study, the one where they claim there is no gender bias?

If you scratch below the surface a bit, you'll find a lot of criticism aimed at their studies. Yes, it's easier to just claim it's fake news but I'm guessing that you wouldn't if you were paid 6.8% less than a female colleague.

As for the Google numbers, you were the one to miss the division between tech and non-tech employees. Statistics are so easily misunderstood, aren't they? It happens to the best of us so it goes without saying that it happens to you. Happy to revisit the discussion if you can produce sources that back up your claims.

I dunno? Fear? Public outrage? Allaying the sponsor's concerns? Being seen as Progressive?

Could be many reasons.

[Lestat]

Statistics are all too often either the tools of the selfinterested when manipulating those they see as 'useful idiots', outright liars, or people who don't themselves understand the statistics but think they do.

(this isn't pointing any fingers at any specific people here btw) more, as a general principle relating to statistics themselves. 74% of all statistics are bollocks, if your talking about external genitalia that might possibly be about correct. But otherwise its still bollocks.

Statistics can be made to say what the person coming up with them WANTS them to say, all too often.

[odeon]

The BBC numbers tell a different story.

Actually, they don't. You're making the same mistake you made with the Google employee numbers.

You just look at the surface numbers and don't scratch below the surface to see why there's a difference.

BBC has commissioned 3 different independent investigations over recent years and all 3 found that there were no gender bias in the wages of anyone who worked there.

THIS IS A FAKE STORY, PERIOD!

How do you explain the fact that there is a 6.8% gap, then, according to their own numbers? How do you explain the fact that they will cut the salaries of some of their male journalists following the publication of their own study, the one where they claim there is no gender bias?

If you scratch below the surface a bit, you'll find a lot of criticism aimed at their studies. Yes, it's easier to just claim it's fake news but I'm guessing that you wouldn't if you were paid 6.8% less than a female colleague.

As for the Google numbers, you were the one to miss the division between tech and non-tech employees. Statistics are so easily misunderstood, aren't they? It happens to the best of us so it goes without saying that it happens to you. Happy to revisit the discussion if you can produce sources that back up your claims.

I dunno? Fear? Public outrage? Allaying the sponsor's concerns? Being seen as Progressive?

Could be many reasons.

I take it that you don't have any sources either?

[Jack]

Statistics are all too often either the tools of the selfinterested when manipulating those they see as 'useful idiots', outright liars, or people who don't themselves understand the statistics but think they do.

(this isn't pointing any fingers at any specific people here btw) more, as a general principle relating to statistics themselves. 74% of all statistics are bollocks, if your talking about external genitalia that might possibly be about correct. But otherwise its still bollocks.

Statistics can be made to say what the person coming up with them WANTS them to say, all too often.

Statistics aren't bollocks; they're facts, often important and useful facts, and shouldn't be dismissed because sometimes there's fault in the analysis.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Statistics are all too often either the tools of the selfinterested when manipulating those they see as 'useful idiots', outright liars, or people who don't themselves understand the statistics but think they do.

(this isn't pointing any fingers at any specific people here btw) more, as a general principle relating to statistics themselves. 74% of all statistics are bollocks, if your talking about external genitalia that might possibly be about correct. But otherwise its still bollocks.

Statistics can be made to say what the person coming up with them WANTS them to say, all too often.

Statistics aren't bollocks; they're facts, often important and useful facts, and shouldn't be dismissed because sometimes there's fault in the analysis.

True. And there can also be faults in the methods used to gather the statistics.

[Jack]

Statistics are all too often either the tools of the selfinterested when manipulating those they see as 'useful idiots', outright liars, or people who don't themselves understand the statistics but think they do.

(this isn't pointing any fingers at any specific people here btw) more, as a general principle relating to statistics themselves. 74% of all statistics are bollocks, if your talking about external genitalia that might possibly be about correct. But otherwise its still bollocks.

Statistics can be made to say what the person coming up with them WANTS them to say, all too often.

Statistics aren't bollocks; they're facts, often important and useful facts, and shouldn't be dismissed because sometimes there's fault in the analysis.

True. And there can also be faults in the methods used to gather the statistics.

You mean like opinion surveys, or small sample sets?