Number of BBC bosses on salaries over 150,000 pounds rises despite promise to cut

[webfact]

Number of BBC bosses on salaries over 150,000 pounds rises despite promise to cut

REUTERS

 

A British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) logo is seen on a building in White City, London October 17, 2007. REUTERS/Stephen Hird/Files

 

LONDON (Reuters) - The number of senior managers at the BBC earning more than 150,000 pounds ($192,555) a year has risen despite a promise by the publicly-funded broadcaster to cut the figure by a fifth, Britain's spending watchdog said on Wednesday.

 

The National Audit Office said there were 98 members of staff earning such salaries in March 2016 compared to January 2012 when there were just 89, even though the BBC had committed itself to a 20 percent reduction.

 

It also said the BBC had failed to reduce the number of senior managers to 1 percent of the workforce by 2015, with the figure at 1.6 percent in December 2016.

 

Last year the government said the BBC, funded by a licence fee imposed on all TV-watching homes, would be subject to external regulation for the first time in its history amid criticism it had become bloated, inefficient and wasteful of public money.

 

Overall, the BBC, which employs an average of 18,920 full-time staff, had reduced the cost of its payroll by 6 percent in real terms from 2010-11 to 2015-16 to 862 million pounds, the NAO said. Its report said the BBC had also made 3,400 staff redundant over this period at a cost of 190 million pounds.

 

In response to the NAO report, the BBC said it would finish a review of senior manager grades in the coming months and expected the number in its leadership group to make up less than 1 percent of the workforce.

 

"We will continue to manage the paybill carefully and only award salary levels that are appropriate whilst ensuring we can still attract the right senior talent in a highly competitive marketplace," it said in a statement.

($1 = 0.7790 pounds)

 

(Reporting by Michael Holden; editing by Guy Faulconbridge)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-04-26

[Ganador]

What happened to Jonathan Head.... their Bangkok anchor?

[darksidedog]

The number of people on above 150,000 (98 out of 18920), is about 0.5%, which is well within the 1% target. Every business needs to keep its costs under control. The BBC understand that to get good people you need to pay. It's the old peanuts and monkeys thing. I would be interested to know how they compare with organisations like CNN, NBC, FOX and AlJazeera. 150K is good money, but not mega bucks. They have cut staffing levels already, so I believe that their staying within their overall budget is what is most important, along with their commitment to bring us reasonably fair and mostly unbiased reporting. (Some bias is inherent, given your origin.) Maybe some senior members are unnecessary. I just hope the quality of reporting doesn't suffer as a result.

[Prbkk]

£150,000 still goes a long way in most places outside London...but one would have to wonder how the younger, lower-paid workers survive. The prospect of saving a deposit while renting but always being caught out by property value increases....little wonder they still live at home and defer marriage until 30 or older.

[Grouse]

The numbers don't sound unreasonable

[JHolmesJr]

if you cut their salaries they will just go to someone who will pay…thats capitalism for ya.

[RichardColeman]

TV licence should be scrapped. Pay for what you watch. Better some adverts on the BBC and free. Whole thing is ludicrous. Imagine having a fridge licence. You cannot own a fridge without a BBC fridge licence and even when you had a BBC fridge licence you did not have to use a BBC fridge !

[Fulwell53]

1 hour ago, RichardColeman said:

TV licence should be scrapped. Pay for what you watch. Better some adverts on the BBC and free. Whole thing is ludicrous. Imagine having a fridge licence. You cannot own a fridge without a BBC fridge licence and even when you had a BBC fridge licence you did not have to use a BBC fridge !

There is quite a lot to be said for luddite philosophy

[humqdpf]

4 hours ago, Fulwell53 said:

There is quite a lot to be said for luddite philosophy

although not much that makes any sense . . .

[robblok]

17 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

if you cut their salaries they will just go to someone who will pay…thats capitalism for ya.

So, these are public funds.. let them leave. There will be others willing to work for less. In a normal company I have no problems but public companies are different they are funded by taxes and unless they can prove they are a lot better as others and worth the money let them leave.

 

Same is happening in the Netherlands.. there are limits to salaries in public companies and goverment employees.

[dick dasterdly]

"The National Audit Office said there were 98 members of staff earning such salaries in March 2016 compared to January 2012 when there were just 89, even though the BBC had committed itself to a 20 percent reduction."

 

"Overall, the BBC, which employs an average of 18,920 full-time staff, had reduced the cost of its payroll by 6 percent in real terms from 2010-11 to 2015-16 to 862 million pounds, the NAO said. Its report said the BBC had also made 3,400 staff redundant over this period at a cost of 190 million pounds."

 

In other words, the BBC decided to reduce its staff costs at the bottom of the scale - rather than at the top?

[dick dasterdly]

19 hours ago, darksidedog said:

The number of people on above 150,000 (98 out of 18920), is about 0.5%, which is well within the 1% target. Every business needs to keep its costs under control. The BBC understand that to get good people you need to pay. It's the old peanuts and monkeys thing. I would be interested to know how they compare with organisations like CNN, NBC, FOX and AlJazeera. 150K is good money, but not mega bucks. They have cut staffing levels already, so I believe that their staying within their overall budget is what is most important, along with their commitment to bring us reasonably fair and mostly unbiased reporting. (Some bias is inherent, given your origin.) Maybe some senior members are unnecessary. I just hope the quality of reporting doesn't suffer as a result.

"The BBC understand that to get good people you need to pay. It's the old peanuts and monkeys thing."

 

It always annoys me how the argument is always 'we need to pay top rates to attract the best staff' (when it comes to those at the top) - whereas its 'workers are pricing themselves out of a job' for the lower paid...

 

A major factor behind how we've ended up with such appalling customer service.  Companies decided to pay as little as possible to those at the lower end, and the end result wascompanies paying peanuts, and ending up with 'monkeys' who have no interest in their work or providing a good service.

Edited April 27, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[pkspeaker]

good people?  good at bullshitting that is..

[Grouse]

53 minutes ago, robblok said:

So, these are public funds.. let them leave. There will be others willing to work for less. In a normal company I have no problems but public companies are different they are funded by taxes and unless they can prove they are a lot better as others and worth the money let them leave.

 

Same is happening in the Netherlands.. there are limits to salaries in public companies and goverment employees.

The BBC are a lot better and worth the money. 

 

I'd rather pay for good people at the BBC than waste huge sums on NHS management which is far from world class.

 

The Beeb works just fine; leave it alone

[Grouse]

8 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

good people?  good at bullshitting that is..

You must be joking!

 

What other TV company has such high production values, makes terrific drama and has a world class news network? Sky? I don't think so .....

 

Its one of the very few things that British people can still be proud of. Truely world class!

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Grouse said:

You must be joking!

 

What other TV company has such high production values, makes terrific drama and has a world class news network? Sky? I don't think so .....

 

Its one of the very few things that British people can still be proud of. Truely world class!

I agree - to a certain extent.

 

Nonetheless, it appears that the BBC decided to cut lower paid staff to reduce its salary expenditure - whilst increasing the number of 'top' staff, despite its promise to reduce the number.

 

Forgive me if I don't agree that increasing the number of staff at the very top, and and (likely) their salaries improves the BBC.

[dick dasterdly]

13 minutes ago, Grouse said:

The BBC are a lot better and worth the money. 

 

I'd rather pay for good people at the BBC than waste huge sums on NHS management which is far from world class.

 

The Beeb works just fine; leave it alone

NHS 'management' (or more accurately, bureaucracy) is an entirely different subject.

[Grouse]

56 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I agree - to a certain extent.

 

Nonetheless, it appears that the BBC decided to cut lower paid staff to reduce its salary expenditure - whilst increasing the number of 'top' staff, despite its promise to reduce the number.

 

Forgive me if I don't agree that increasing the number of staff at the very top, and and (likely) their salaries improves the BBC.

I have a number of friends st the BBC. You won't be surprised that increased automation is resulting in reduced staff.

 

Highly paid staff accounting for 0.5% is not unreasonable.

[dick dasterdly]

14 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I have a number of friends st the BBC. You won't be surprised that increased automation is resulting in reduced staff.

 

Highly paid staff accounting for 0.5% is not unreasonable.

Is the OP incorrect in saying that the BBC promised to reduce the number of employees paid over 150,000 p.a. by 20% - whereas the number has risen?

 

Or incorrect in saying that the BBC has reduced its salary bill by cutting the salary bill for lower-paid staff?

[elgordo38]

23 hours ago, webfact said:

LONDON (Reuters) - The number of senior managers at the BBC earning more than 150,000 pounds ($192,555) a year has risen despite a promise by the publicly-funded broadcaster to cut the figure by a fifth, Britain's spending watchdog said on Wednesday.

 

Seems their answer promise was an alternate truth. Its the same a comment made in the past by a famous lady now deceased and holds true today "Only the little people pay taxes" These guys have a gold not plated but solid trough. Their snouts will not be withdrawn anytime soon. 

[Jonmarleesco]

23 hours ago, webfact said:

"We will continue to manage the paybill carefully and only award salary levels that are appropriate whilst ensuring we can still attract the right senior talent in a highly competitive marketplace," it said in a statement.

That highly competitive marketplace doesn't rely on a shackled fee-payer to fund its fiscal recklessness; one funded, moreover, by those who often don't even utilise the television functionality, simply the monitor. The system has long been archaic, stoutly defended by its beneficiaries - obviously - roundly lashed by everyone else. And moreover, 

 

It's long past time the BBC was made to stand on its own two feet - or judging by the figures, some 600, courtesy of burgeoning management.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Jonmarleesco

[Jonmarleesco]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

I have a number of friends st the BBC. You won't be surprised that increased automation is resulting in reduced staff.

 

Highly paid staff accounting for 0.5% is not unreasonable.

Not something I would shout about. And the figure quoted for the senior management is 1.6%, not 0.5.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Jonmarleesco

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

Is the OP incorrect in saying that the BBC promised to reduce the number of employees paid over 150,000 p.a. by 20% - whereas the number has risen?

 

Or incorrect in saying that the BBC has reduced its salary bill by cutting the salary bill for lower-paid staff?

They have reduced staff by 17% and reduced payroll by 6%. Average pay must have increased but we have insufficient data.

 

Big money is drifting away from Cinema and towards high production value TV drama and series. There is currently severe competition for technical production crew and script writers etc. Be careful what you wish for. Some recent series cost 30M USD an episode. 

 

No no time for deckchair rearrangement!

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

Is the OP incorrect in saying that the BBC promised to reduce the number of employees paid over 150,000 p.a. by 20% - whereas the number has risen?

 

Or incorrect in saying that the BBC has reduced its salary bill by cutting the salary bill for lower-paid staff?

 

Just now, Grouse said:

They have reduced staff by 17% and reduced payroll by 6%. Average pay must have increased but we have insufficient data.

 

Big money is drifting away from Cinema and towards high production value TV drama and series. There is currently severe competition for technical production crew and script writers etc. Be careful what you wish for. Some recent series cost 30M USD an episode. 

 

No no time for deckchair rearrangement!

Which brings me back to my original questions.

 

As far as I can make out you agree that the BBC has reduced it staff and payroll by getting rid of lower paid staff/keeping the remaining lower paid salaries low/whilst increasing the number of those being paid over 150,000?

 

I'd also be interested to know how much the salaries (within the over 150k bracket) have increased.

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

The BBC are a lot better and worth the money. 

 

I'd rather pay for good people at the BBC than waste huge sums on NHS management which is far from world class.

 

The Beeb works just fine; leave it alone

 

The BBC is funded by license payment. 

 

A lot of people would argue against your view that the BBC is worth the money or value for money.

 

NHS management is appalling. And has been for 30 years to my knowledge. 

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

You must be joking!

 

What other TV company has such high production values, makes terrific drama and has a world class news network? Sky? I don't think so .....

 

Its one of the very few things that British people can still be proud of. Truely world class!

 

Dream on!

 

The bastion of unbiased news and integrity that used to be the BBC was lost many years ago.

 

World class - a little example today. They were doing a story of Alitalia and its likely winding-up on the Business news. They commented that Etihad had previously purchased 49% of the shares, mentioning it was Abu Dhabi based. And showed a picture of the ruler of Dubai rather than any of the Abu Dhabi royal family. Still Emirates, Etihad, all the same right? Sloppy. 

 

 

[elgordo38]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

Which brings me back to my original questions.

 

As far as I can make out you agree that the BBC has reduced it staff and payroll by getting rid of lower paid staff/keeping the remaining lower paid salaries low/whilst increasing the number of those being paid over 150,000?

 

I'd also be interested to know how much the salaries (within the over 150k bracket) have increased.

Do you really truly want to know. Pass the barf bucket. 

[anotheruser]

On 4/26/2017 at 4:26 PM, Prbkk said:

£150,000 still goes a long way in most places outside London...but one would have to wonder how the younger, lower-paid workers survive. The prospect of saving a deposit while renting but always being caught out by property value increases....little wonder they still live at home and defer marriage until 30 or older.

Well the Brits I meet here are on gap years or 6 week holidays. The ones that aren't  sell meth out of their mother's house in Surrey. I agree housing prices are pretty bad back in the UK but where do the Brits get so much time to come over here and bitch about it?

 

You guys seem to spend a lot of your money outside of your country. This is why medical benefits and pensions are froze. the British are the number one economic refugees in  the world today.

 

 

Edited April 27, 2017 by anotheruser

[just.a.thought]

Forced license fee should be banned.....

[elgordo38]

11 hours ago, anotheruser said:

but where do the Brits get so much time to come over here and bitch about it?

 

Its called a bank with cheap easy money that you deposited there over the years and get almost no interest on. Like The Age Of Aquaris this is the age of cheap money. Bankers just cannot push loans out the door fast enough. Its almost like they have quota's to fill.