BBC Paid Departing Staff ''Too Much''

191012141529

Comments

  • mRebelmRebel Posts: 24,882
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    zz9 wrote: »
    Entitled to by their contract? Because a court would award them a lot more under the law. The law trumps an individual contract. Such a settlement could easily be less than what they could be forced to pay I'd it went to court. I've been there. My ex employer settled for more than my "entitled" amount.

    Then why hasn't the BBC mounted this defence?
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    mRebel wrote: »
    Then why hasn't the BBC mounted this defence?

    Because they're on the back foot.

    In recent times they have been a bit more aggresive in trying to be on the front foot with things (essential in a media driven environment), but on this one they're dancing to other's drums.
  • zz9zz9 Posts: 10,767
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mRebel wrote: »
    We are not talking about factory workers. I've posted quotes from the DTI report into exec pay offs twice in reply to your posts, perhaps you'd care to comment on it.

    Surely employment law applies to everyone whether they are a factory worker or a senior manager?

    Why would it be different?

    The reason I specifice factory worker is because you seem to be arguing that "ordinary workers" should have rights but senior managers should be able to be fired without any recourse.

    So to make it clearer, do you think a company should be able to make redundant/let go/fire/get rid of a worker with many years service without following the laid down procedure and be able to not pay any compensation/redundancy?

    It's a simple question.
  • zz9zz9 Posts: 10,767
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mRebel wrote: »
    Then why hasn't the BBC mounted this defence?

    Because publicly almost all of these execs "chose to leave".

    Same with me and my settlement with my employer. It included a confidentiality clause that prevented me and my employer from discussing the details. I even got them to agree that I would write the reference they would give to any prospective employer who was thinking of hiring me. Publicly I left by choice on good terms.

    The broadcasting industry is a small pond. It would hardly be in the BBCs interest to say "Yeah we fired his ass because we thought he was crap but he threatened to sue so we settled."

    It's exactly the same in the private sector. You really think Murdoch gave Ms Brooks £10 million just because he really likes her?
  • Standup2Standup2 Posts: 99
    Forum Member
    zz9 wrote: »
    Because publicly almost all of these execs "chose to leave"....

    The broadcasting industry is a small pond. It would hardly be in the BBCs interest to say "Yeah we fired his ass because ?

    This is my main issue with the payments. Not that people got their contractual/statutory entitlement but that the BBC uses this to manage staff out of a position. Some of the staff were leaving anyway but the BBC/Senior management wanted them gone faster so lets pay them to go away.

    It's relatively hard to fire someone at the BBC without a lot of management time so often redundancy is used as a method of making the problem go away. Part of me finds this very frustrating but equally its right that employees have some protection from the whims of management.
  • zz9zz9 Posts: 10,767
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Standup2 wrote: »
    This is my main issue with the payments. Not that people got their contractual/statutory entitlement but that the BBC uses this to manage staff out of a position. Some of the staff were leaving anyway but the BBC/Senior management wanted them gone faster so lets pay them to go away.

    It's relatively hard to fire someone at the BBC without a lot of management time so often redundancy is used as a method of making the problem go away. Part of me finds this very frustrating but equally its right that employees have some protection from the whims of management.

    Lots of companies make people redundant. If you want to reduce your payroll then paying people to leave saves money in the long run.

    And when you say "some of the staff were leaving anyway" how do you know? Publicly I chose to leave my ex employer. But actually they forced me out and I took them to a tribunal for constructive dismissal and they settled just before the case was heard. How do you know that wasn't the case with these execs who "chose to leave"?
    As we found out was the case with C4 and Duncan. And the NHS manager who got the big payoff that someone linked to. They were forced out and had a very valid and strong case to sue and win, so the employer settled to save money and legal costs.
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    According to The Sun today the BBC Trust is advertising for a ''savings tsar'' who will work two days a week and be paid £32,952 a year plus expenses. This works out at £89,490 a year if full-time.Looks like another big pay-off coming up then when he/she discovers a saving of £32,000 a year can be made by declaring themselves redundant.

    www.thesun.co.uk
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ftv wrote: »
    According to The Sun today the BBC Trust is advertising for a ''savings tsar'' who will work two days a week and be paid £32,952 a year plus expenses. This works out at £89,490 a year if full-time.Looks like another big pay-off coming up then when he/she discovers a saving of £32,000 a year can be made by declaring themselves redundant.

    www.thesun.co.uk

    That is rather confusing - it's not the BBC advertising the post (of Trustee), it is the Cabinet Office, and the Culture Department is defending the pay scale. Seems that The Sun is being rather creative with its reporting.

    Seems like it could be a Cabinet Office idea seeing as it is a Cabinet Office appointee?

    BBC Trust member

    The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is looking for an exceptional individual to help deliver a strong and independent BBC. We want to appoint a Trust member to work with the Chairman, Lord Patten, and the other members of the BBC Trust.

    The BBC Trust is the governing body of the BBC, responsible for setting the strategic direction of the Corporation. Its role is to get the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers.
    http://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/appointments/download/51d6ef51e4b08c82314cb5f6

    Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    BBC TRUST MEMBER

    ROLE SPECIFICATION

    Introduction
    The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is seeking an exceptional individual to join the BBC Trust and help deliver a strong and independent BBC.
    http://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/appointments/download/51d6ef66e4b08c82314cb5f8


    Job Advert:

    http://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/applications/51d6ef88e4b08c82314cb5fc
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    A bit more information:
    Appointment process

    Appointments to the BBC Trust are made by the Queen on recommendation of DCMS Ministers through the Prime Minister. The appointment process will follow Nolan principles and is regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This involves a number of formal steps including:

    • public advertising of the post in the national press and on the DCMS and Cabinet Office websites

    • consideration of all candidates against the criteria set out in this role specification

    • interviews of short-listed candidates

    • the involvement of an Independent Assessor


    If the role generates savings, or clamps down on waste (and creates savings that at least equal the cost of the salary)then it has to be a good idea surely?
  • technologisttechnologist Posts: 13,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The BBC trust is having found by DCMS .. a new member to take over from Anthony Fry who leave to head the Premier League .....
    If you want to apply .... http://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/applications/51d6ef88e4b08c82314cb5fc
    And it just mentions the standard Duties of the Trust ... But no mention of a starring Role on BBC Parliament
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    OK, some definitive information here:
    Remuneration of Trustees

    The remuneration for BBC Trustees is determined by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and paid for by the BBC.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Trust#Remuneration_of_Trustees

    So the salary point is decided by the DCMS, the work is in common with other Trustees - 8 days per month


    Odd how the facts can change the story isn't it.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The BBC trust is having found by DCMS .. a new member to take over from Anthony Fry who leave to head the Premier League .....
    If you want to apply .... http://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/applications/51d6ef88e4b08c82314cb5fc
    And it just mentions the standard Duties of the Trust ... But no mention of a staring Role on BBC Parliament

    Amazing - yet more facts which shed a totally different light on that Sun story - so full of spin that it could be lifted straight out of the Daily Mail
  • Dan's DadDan's Dad Posts: 9,880
    Forum Member
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    Seems that The Sun is being rather creative with its reporting.
    Robert Oxley, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, branded it “astonishing”

    Once again that wrongly titled and unaccountable right-wing lobbying outfit shouts about something it clearly doesn't understand --

    no change there then!

    No surprise, either, that the comment remains unchallenged by a News International hack;

    sorry, make that News UK, and we'll pretend the last several years never happened.
  • dynamicsdynamics Posts: 905
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mRebel wrote: »

    No. For the last 30 years there's been a steady corruption and criminalisation of business and politics. We're beginning to look like the Roman Empire shortly before it fell.

    Has there?:eek:

    Now, was that just a fiction of hyperbole, or do you actually have anything specific to accuse specific people of?
  • technologisttechnologist Posts: 13,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    and that the Trustees have ( like most of BBC Exec management did ) sacrificed one month of salary ....
    The level of fees for Trust members is £35,935 a year. BBC Trust members are currently taking a voluntary reduction in their fees.
    The reduced level of fees is £32,952 a year.

    While I am on a paying back theme -
    John Smith who of course was NOT paid by the LF has paid back six months PILON as he after 7 months got a job ....
  • human naturehuman nature Posts: 13,175
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I've stayed away from this thread until now because, quite frankly, I'm so angry with the BBC. As a lifelong supporter, I feel they've let me down as a licence payer. I've read all the points people have been making and I realise there are arguments for and against what's happened, but I don't find the defences particularly compelling.

    I expect the BBC to spend my money wisely and when it's used to make programmes I think they largely succeed. But what we've learnt in the last week shows they can sometimes be totally irresponsible when it comes to looking after their senior staff.

    As Margaret Hodge said, the contracts dished out to the top people are clearly crap to start with, but when you add on all the unnecessary extras it becomes indefensible. If I was employed by the BBC I'd be even angrier - you can bet your life the average 'worker' doesn't get the same care or attention from HR when they hand in their notice.

    I feel like I've been slapped in the face by the very people I've always stood up for. I'm still a supporter of the BBC - their programmes are good and I think the world is a better place for having the BBC in it - by my god they're going to have to work hard now to restore my faith and confidence. Fortunately it looks like the new DG is a safe pair of hands and may the very person to do that.
  • technologisttechnologist Posts: 13,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    human nature
    - I think that things are different now - but when the BBC started large scale redundancies
    - which was about thirty years ago with Priorities for the Future (aka Black spot)
    it was not unexpected that (all) staff would have PILON ...
    so there was no discrimination between SM and others ..except for the notice period....

    and there were sometimes Training / and resettlement courses thrown in - which has become more common recently

    A number of things happened
    John Birt recruiting from outside - which inflated senior staff salaries quite a bit..
    (as was the feeling at the time -the BBC bred management was not good enough- something Lord Patten seems to agree with by his interventions )

    .... and even though Greg ran an informal discount structure
    - pay at the top of the Media industry is high
    - looking say 7 years ago the top TWO people in the publically owned PSB got paid MORE than the sum of the top SIX people in the BBC ...
    .(where DG got paid roughly twice that Lord Hall gets)

    One thing that BBC Trust did pre Patten - was to have the 20% to 80% discount introduced
    - and all the existing Exec board voluntarily gave up a months salary. as do the Trust to this day ...

    Looking back 25++ odd years (to 15+ years when I left BBC to go into an subsidiary )
    when I was making redundancy selection decisions and seeking to continue running an efficient operation
    - PILON (or Gardening leave) was a very very useful tool in my management of the team I was responsible for ...
    as also was finding jobs outside the BBC for those we were getting rid of .... that may save a month or two of PILON....
    and mean that I had a not totally annoyed /p*ssed off members of staff for the whole of the redundancy period....

    Was I aware that I was spending the LF -
    YES but that applied to ALL that I and my colleagues then did..... not just in redundancy......
    that was the CULTURE ....


    (And in the private sector I have found redundancy costs have a lot more "extras"
    I and all the cadre which left with me each benifitted from over £25 k of help on a say £100k -150k payout
    and a great love of gardening leave- sometimes longer than 3 months notice)

    None of this excuses some of the few strange situatsion which have occurred.....

    or that the current BBC Staff have a raw deal...
    . particularly on pensions for those joining (for about the past 8 years and it has got worse) .. including SMs.

    But I think points out some of the facts which PAC seems very unwilling to hear!
    like the Role that the Trust has by the Charter!!!

    Lord Hall has got things gripped - but the Executive did get the numbers down quicker and greater than target
    - and saved more money .... (but they could have save about another £1m)

    but there are questions that need answering - let focus on them
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There's a fundamental problem with the Mark Byford pay-off. The BBC Trust insists it was never told about it, Mark Thompson says it was informed throughout. Someone, somewhere, is being ''economical with the truth'' as they used to say.Perhaps we need ACAS to solve it but the BBC cannot continue on this basis with public money without being able to say exactly who authorised these pay-outs.
  • Dan's DadDan's Dad Posts: 9,880
    Forum Member
    If I was employed by the BBC I'd be even angrier - you can bet your life the average 'worker' doesn't get the same care or attention from HR when they hand in their notice.
    I was an 'average worker' when I took redundancy 20 years ago under agreed terms;

    the 'care and attention' I received from both management and Personnel was second to none .....
    I think that things are different now - but when the BBC started large scale redundancies .....
    what you are seeing now, in my view, is very much the product of Birtism and casualisation; not for the first time, take note of what 'technologist' has to say.

    The are no 'average workers' like me any more - they have all been sent to the freelance pool or contractors, some walked away, some plod on.

    I was horrified last night, when catchining up on iPlayer the first of a new 'comedy' show, to see on the credts both vision mixer and VT editor who were contemporaries of mine;

    I'm 65 next month, I doubt they are much behind, where on earth is the new 'technical' talent? That is the next major problem all broadcasters will face as a result of Birt;

    will Hodge be grandstanding about that, too, when the financial costs come home to roost?
  • human naturehuman nature Posts: 13,175
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I realise the BBC cut down the number of senior staff quicker than anyone expected, but I think it came at too great a price - financially, and in damage to the BBC's reputation.

    If you take the case of Roly Keating, it's obvious he was unlikely to take the BBC to a tribunal. It appears he was horrified to learn that he was given a more handsome payout than he was entitled to. In their haste to get people out the door, did the BBC's HR team not even talk to these members of staff first to see if they would be happy to accept the 'correct' payment?

    By assuming the worst possible scenario in every case, the BBC has thrown away millions (?) of pounds unnecessarily. Some of that is my money and I'm not happy.
  • Dan's DadDan's Dad Posts: 9,880
    Forum Member
    Some of that is my money and I'm not happy.
    I am bemused by this argument

    if you pay for a service from, say, Vodaphone and they 'misbehave' by not meeting presumed taxation obligations
    are they playing fast and loose with your money?

    In both cases, have you not handed over that money on trust and both outfits have, allegedly, broken that trust.

    What is it that makes the BBC so different?
  • human naturehuman nature Posts: 13,175
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dan's Dad wrote: »
    I am bemused by this argument

    if you pay for a service from, say, Vodaphone and they 'misbehave' by not meeting presumed taxation obligations
    are they playing fast and loose with your money?

    In both cases, have you not handed over that money on trust and both outfits have, allegedly, broken that trust.

    What is it that makes the BBC so different?
    I would indeed be unhappy with any company that played fast and loose with my money and broke my trust. The BBC is no different, which is why I'm not happy with them at the moment.

    If someone like me, who has always supported and defended the BBC, is angry with them, then something has gone horribly wrong.
  • zz9zz9 Posts: 10,767
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I've stayed away from this thread until now because, quite frankly, I'm so angry with the BBC. As a lifelong supporter, I feel they've let me down as a licence payer. I've read all the points people have been making and I realise there are arguments for and against what's happened, but I don't find the defences particularly compelling.

    I expect the BBC to spend my money wisely and when it's used to make programmes I think they largely succeed. But what we've learnt in the last week shows they can sometimes be totally irresponsible when it comes to looking after their senior staff.

    As Margaret Hodge said, the contracts dished out to the top people are clearly crap to start with, but when you add on all the unnecessary extras it becomes indefensible. If I was employed by the BBC I'd be even angrier - you can bet your life the average 'worker' doesn't get the same care or attention from HR when they hand in their notice.

    I feel like I've been slapped in the face by the very people I've always stood up for. I'm still a supporter of the BBC - their programmes are good and I think the world is a better place for having the BBC in it - by my god they're going to have to work hard now to restore my faith and confidence. Fortunately it looks like the new DG is a safe pair of hands and may the very person to do that.

    This is simply untrue. Employment law, and your right to compensation if you have been made redundant, forced out, sacked without following the full process etc is exactly the same for everyone. The BBC has to follow the law like everyone else and an employment tribunal or a court would make the same decision and award for a BBC employee as any other employee in the country.

    I as a lowly retail worker was forced out of my job after the company was taken over and I went to the industrial tribunal. The employer settled and gave me a nice payout just before the case was heard.

    You could say the BBC had too many managers, and I couldn't argue since I have no inside knowledge of how they work, but once the BBC decides to get rid of a manager they have to pay compensation just like any other company. The only time you can fire someone "instantly" and not have to pay compensation is Gross Misconduct such as assaulting another employee, theft etc. and even then you have to follow procedure and have a disciplinary meeting, give them their say, allow a witness, allow an appeal etc.

    The number of people, especially Daily Mail commentators, complaining the the BBC "should live in the real world" are the same people complaining when the BBC has to make a payoff like every other "real world" company.
  • Dan's DadDan's Dad Posts: 9,880
    Forum Member
    If someone like me, who has always supported and defended the BBC, is angry with them, then something has gone horribly wrong.
    Then imagine how it feels for someone who warned, a quarter of a century ago, that Birt intended taking the organisation down the wrong track!

    Tony Hall belongs, to an extent, to the values of 'my' era - he was approachable then, he seems to have a grasp now.
  • Dan's DadDan's Dad Posts: 9,880
    Forum Member
    zz9 wrote: »
    .... The only time you can fire someone "instantly" and not have to pay compensation is Gross Misconduct such as assaulting another employee, ....
    In this case you have to add

    moral turpitude
    and
    being found in breach of the TV Licencing regulations. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.