A piece by Matthew Moore (Media Correspondent) on the front page of today’s Times, emphases ours:
More men than women will receive salary rises at the BBC after managers carried out a review of presenter pay to address allegations of discrimination from female staff members.
Nearly 200 on-air staff will be entitled to automatic pay boosts as the corporation looks to impose a clear structure for talent salaries for the first time. The broadcaster was forced to take action after dozens of female staff complained that they were earning less than male colleagues.
However, the “fair and transparent” framework announced yesterday will benefit a larger number of men than women. Analysis by the auditors PwC identified 98 male presenters and 90 female presenters who are entitled to a rise because their salaries are below the new pay ranges for their roles.
The prospect of male presenters being awarded larger salaries threatens to inflame tensions within the corporation at a time when many women staff feel that their complaints about pay inequality are not being taken seriously. [J4MB: Women staff “feel” that, do they? Well, then. THINGS MUST BE DONE – HOWEVER STUPID AND DAMAGING – UNTIL THEY “FEEL” HAPPY AGAIN.]
Lord Hall of Birkenhead, the BBC’s director-general, and Sir David Clementi, its chairman, will be questioned today on the proposals by MPs. The development comes after Carrie Gracie resigned this month as China editor, accusing the BBC of illegal gender discrimination and reviving the pay dispute.
The PwC review of 824 presenters’ salaries found that the BBC’s excessive respect for established male stars, combined with a lack of consistency and transparency, was to blame for on-air pay “anomalies”. There was no evidence of unlawful gender bias, however: the 6.8 per cent gender pay gap among presenters was smaller than its overall figure of 9.3 per cent.
The worst disparities occurred in lower-profile presenting roles. Among the top tier of hosts and correspondents, the gender pay gap was 0.4 per cent. Some male stars, including John Humphrys, have agreed to a pay cut. [J4MB: Their alternative option being…?]
You can subscribe to The Times here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
When will they learn. They weren’t supposed to look at individuals. They were supposed to give women more money.
LikeLike
Hahaaa ! But this is absolutely correct, unfortunately…
LikeLike
I would say that it is high time that those who work for the BBC for more than say, 15% of their time, should be employees. They would have to give full disclosure of their earnings to HMRC and they would have to pay Sch E tax, ie a lot more.
I feel it would be good for them.
If they want to be self employed then they should have to be really self employed.
LikeLike
‘The broadcaster was forced to take action after dozens of female staff complained that they were earning less than male colleagues.‘
Use of ‘earning’ rather than paid might reasonably be taken as an admission by the women that they do less work than the men, if the report is verbatim.
LikeLike
Women learned from Wimbledon, that it IS possible to earn equal money for lesser performance. Now they want all corporations in Britain to do what Wimbledon has done. So there is a precedent. If men, on gentleman’s grounds, agreed that female players be given same money as men at Wimbledon, why should this same logic not apply elsewhere then? Men must be consistent. Either we agree to this racket across the board or nowhere.
LikeLike
‘Women learned from Wimbledon, that it IS possible to earn equal money for lesser performance.‘
Wrong. Women learned from Wimbledon that it is possible to be paid equal money not just for lower performance but for less actual work, as in playing two sets instead of three. It’s not just inferior quality tennis when compared to the men’s game, it’s also two thirds of the quantity.
As with so many activities and areas in which women have made gains, to men’s cost, women’s tennis is a different game from men’s and should be regarded as such when the rewards are considered. As an example, take sardines: as nourishing and tasty as the tinned product is, and I eat several hundred tins a year, fresh sardines are far more glamorous and so much more expensive, so much so that I regard them as entirely different products. As with sardines, and other tinned versus fresh products, so with tennis, and almost every other activity in which men excel and women participate to a much lower standard.
Women want their tinned sardines to be judged as no different from our fresh ones and to charge us accordingly. Only a madman would agree to do so.
LikeLike
They are all overpaid. No one should get a rise. They should all get a pay cut including and especially “the very brave” Carrie Gracie. I’d never heard of this overpaid mediocrity.
LikeLike
I really hope all the men with bigger pay cheques take a picture of themselves in a car park somewhere (preferably whilst wearing suits…) holding all their bigger pay cheques, whilst standing under a banner that goes “Thanks feminism”. I know they’d mean it non-ironically, but it would have me in stitches.
LikeLike
Why did you feel the need to inform them? We don’t inform for any other licence we don’t want. I haven’t bothered and laugh at their monthly threatening letters.
LikeLike
I too. I’ve never had a television set, although my first wife couldn’t live without one, which went into the cupboard after she left, and my second wife had one when we set up home together. Seeing the sense in my suggestion, as she went on and on about what rubbish the output was and what a waste the licence fee was, she disposed of it and went to claim her refund at the Post Office. The counter clerk engaged in some puzzled head scratching at her request because amongst the list of reasons why it was claimed none offered the option ‘I no longer watch television’.
LikeLike
Given that the PWC methodology used is the one that generally results in the reverse I’d hazard that what is actually uncovered by this review is that men have been deliberately underpaid as individuals as part of the BBCs long term “positive action” for women.
LikeLike
I’m still waiting for that backdated payment of state pensions. For 60 years women got a state pension 5 years earlier than men. Of course, most of the men who are owed money are dead now. We can’t give it to them. So how about spending that extra money on;
domestic violence shelters exclusively for men
paternity fraud screening
extra homeless shelters for men (many of whom are combat veterans to whom our society owes a massive debt)
Just a few suggestions.
Of course we shouldn’t spent the backdated payments on prostate cancer screening or research. That funding should come from a backdated policy of equal funding on healthcare.
I wonder how long the mainstream media can keep the general public from noticing such glaring, obvious truths ? How much longer will their fraying, tired propaganda keep the public quiet?
Another 6 months? A year?
LikeLike