There's a few people on here who think because they've some contact with broadcasting that the rest of us are daft enough to accept their opinions.
They fail to accept that the BBC commendably, got through a strike by a reported 4,100 NUJ members of the news departments.
These same people defended the high pay some of these people get particularly at the top of the pile as it's because of their "market value." I did suggest if they were so in demand why don't they leave the BBC?
I doubt if there's 100 jobs presently on offer by other channels as we are in a recession.
These NUJ employees have "kicked the BBC horn of plenty" and unfortunately, nothing has dropped out, because the government has refused to keep topping it up, so they went on strike. Big deal, their absence was hardly noticed by the majority of viewers. There were no massed protests by viewers because of "diminished news depth" were there? (that's often trivia anyway).
The BBC have the opportunity to come out of this a leaner and more efficient company. Well I won't get carried away, at least maybe in this area, but there's still plenty to do.
It was a refreshing change to see some new faces reading the news probably on a fraction of the pay of the so-called "stars" and it was patently obvious it only needs there to be just one for each bulletin.
.
There's a few people on here who think because they've some contact with broadcasting that the rest of us are daft enough to accept their opinions.
They fail to accept that the BBC commendably, got through a strike by a reported 4,100 NUJ members of the news departments.
These same people defended the high pay some of these people get particularly at the top of the pile as it's because of their "market value." I did suggest if they were so in demand why don't they leave the BBC?
I doubt if there's 100 jobs presently on offer by other channels as we are in a recession.
These NUJ employees have "kicked the BBC horn of plenty" and unfortunately, nothing has dropped out, because the government has refused to keep topping it up, so they went on strike. Big deal, their absence was hardly noticed by the majority of viewers. There were no massed protests by viewers because of "diminished news depth" were there? (that's often trivia anyway).
The BBC have the opportunity to come out of this a leaner and more efficient company. Well I won't get carried away, at least maybe in this area, but there's still plenty to do.
It was a refreshing change to see some new faces reading the news probably on a fraction of the pay of the so-called "stars" and it was patently obvious it only needs there to be just one for each bulletin.
.
I wasn't aware that the government had anything to do with the BBC Pension fund - it certainly doesn't ''top it up'' and never has done.The fund has its own independent trustees including representatives of BBC staff - they are the ones you should be putting your questions to, they got the fund in this mess, not the government. The BBC management were culpable as well as they are represented on the fund.I agree with you about the highly-paid senior managers - it will be interesting to see if Mark Byford can find work in the private sector on a similar salary to his BBC pay now he has become redundant. All this business about having to compete with the private sector is complete nonsense put about (for obvious reasons) by senior BBC management. Who knows of one senior BBC manager who has left for more money in the private sector ?
I wasn't aware that the government had anything to do with the BBC Pension fund - it certainly doesn't ''top it up'' and never has done.The fund has its own independent trustees including representatives of BBC staff - they are the ones you should be putting your questions to, they got the fund in this mess, not the government. The BBC management were culpable as well as they are represented on the fund.I agree with you about the highly-paid senior managers - it will be interesting to see if Mark Byford can find work in the private sector on a similar salary to his BBC pay now he has become redundant. All this business about having to compete with the private sector is complete nonsense put about (for obvious reasons) by senior BBC management. Who knows of one senior BBC manager who has left for more money in the private sector ?
From where do the journalists at the BBC think the money that will maintain the pension fund terms at the present rate will come?
From shrewd investments by the pension fund managers at fantastic rates of interest denied to the private sector? Or from a "top up" from the BBC from its annual budget?
The BBC is in the same position as are many companies where final salary pensions are being dropped at an alarming rate.
Why the journalists think the BBC should be any different I fail to understand.
Pension rates are determined by actuaries who forecast income and expenditure long term, but they all caught a cold when Brown "robbed them." The "double whammy" is that interest rates are now at an unprecedented unforeseen all time low.
I'm only surprised the BBC didn't take action sooner.
.
Comments
I'd rather be pathetic than rude.:)
They fail to accept that the BBC commendably, got through a strike by a reported 4,100 NUJ members of the news departments.
These same people defended the high pay some of these people get particularly at the top of the pile as it's because of their "market value." I did suggest if they were so in demand why don't they leave the BBC?
I doubt if there's 100 jobs presently on offer by other channels as we are in a recession.
These NUJ employees have "kicked the BBC horn of plenty" and unfortunately, nothing has dropped out, because the government has refused to keep topping it up, so they went on strike. Big deal, their absence was hardly noticed by the majority of viewers. There were no massed protests by viewers because of "diminished news depth" were there? (that's often trivia anyway).
The BBC have the opportunity to come out of this a leaner and more efficient company. Well I won't get carried away, at least maybe in this area, but there's still plenty to do.
It was a refreshing change to see some new faces reading the news probably on a fraction of the pay of the so-called "stars" and it was patently obvious it only needs there to be just one for each bulletin.
.
I wasn't aware that the government had anything to do with the BBC Pension fund - it certainly doesn't ''top it up'' and never has done.The fund has its own independent trustees including representatives of BBC staff - they are the ones you should be putting your questions to, they got the fund in this mess, not the government. The BBC management were culpable as well as they are represented on the fund.I agree with you about the highly-paid senior managers - it will be interesting to see if Mark Byford can find work in the private sector on a similar salary to his BBC pay now he has become redundant. All this business about having to compete with the private sector is complete nonsense put about (for obvious reasons) by senior BBC management. Who knows of one senior BBC manager who has left for more money in the private sector ?
From where do the journalists at the BBC think the money that will maintain the pension fund terms at the present rate will come?
From shrewd investments by the pension fund managers at fantastic rates of interest denied to the private sector? Or from a "top up" from the BBC from its annual budget?
The BBC is in the same position as are many companies where final salary pensions are being dropped at an alarming rate.
Why the journalists think the BBC should be any different I fail to understand.
Pension rates are determined by actuaries who forecast income and expenditure long term, but they all caught a cold when Brown "robbed them." The "double whammy" is that interest rates are now at an unprecedented unforeseen all time low.
I'm only surprised the BBC didn't take action sooner.
.
on the bbc news channel. I am a big Chris Rogers fan xxxxx
Or indeed a cage full of gorillas, who would be equally capable of presenting the news.