Quote: sootyj @ July 9 2009, 10:51 PM BSTI say public sector workers and BBC talent should call a general strike.
I bloody well don't. Maggie crushed those union bastards, more or less. Didn't do a good enough job of it, unfortunately.
BBC Talent wage cut Page 2
You plutocrat your time will come!
Middle-management is the most cancerous part of both our public and private sectors.
Correct.
Ta very much!
Quote: Lee Henman @ July 9 2009, 6:05 PM BSTIt wouldn't seem right to see the likes of Jonathan Ross shopping for cheap baked beans at Netto.
Yes it would. Particularly after his poor performance in Dad's Army.
And since when did Netto start operating in the UK? Sainsbury's was the poor man's supermarket when I lived in the UK, while Netto was the budget supermarket of Denmark. Does Aldi also now operate in the UK?
Back on topic - anyone on the receiving end of a pay-cut is likely to consider seeking a better deal elsewhere, unless they're trapped.
Quote: Kenneth @ July 10 2009, 4:15 AM BSTAnd since when did Netto start operating in the UK? Sainsbury's was the poor man's supermarket when I lived in the UK, while Netto was the budget supermarket of Denmark. Does Aldi also now operate in the UK?
Tesco was always the inferior supermarket, with Sainsbury's seen as more luxurious. That's still pretty much true but now there's Lidl and Aldi right at the bottom end of the market.
What about Tesco's finest Chicken Kievs? You don't get a ready meal much better than that!
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ July 10 2009, 8:34 AM BSTTesco was always the inferior supermarket, with Sainsbury's seen as more luxurious. That's still pretty much true but now there's Lidl and Aldi right at the bottom end of the market.
I think Tesco overtook Sainsbury's in the nineties, but it has gone back down market, with both now on a par, but still with more cachet than Asda or Morrisons. Waitrose remains the classiest option.
Quote: Lee Henman @ July 9 2009, 6:46 PM BSTFor f**k's sake, if you want to earn shitloads of cash and live above the herd, how about getting off your big fat arse and making it happen, instead of sat apoplectic with rage, reading the Daily Mail?
Or posting on the BCG?
Quote: Lee Henman @ July 9 2009, 6:46 PM BSTIt just makes me so annoyed, this culture of "they're getting more than we are". If people aren't wailing about single mothers sponging off society or MPs claiming for toothpaste or celebs being paid lots of dosh, it seems they're not happy.
For f**k's sake, if you want to earn shitloads of cash and live above the herd, how about getting off your big fat arse and making it happen, instead of sat apoplectic with rage, reading the Daily Mail?
And now calm.
Ommmmmm
Or why not get cross about city bankers with truly insane bonuses? Or the head of SKy earns twice as much as the head of the BBC and all he has to do is provide sports and US imports for chavs. Oh and shit on Terry Pratchett books.
This idea that if you work in the public sector you should get paid shit, is just plain stupid.
Quote: sootyj @ July 10 2009, 10:55 AM BSTThis idea that if you work in the public sector you should get paid shit, is just plain stupid.
I completely and utterly agree.
(Sootyj, I take it you work in the public sector too. 
)
Quote: Griff @ July 10 2009, 10:12 AM BSTHere's what the Writers Guild have to say on the matter:
I was hoping it was going to be their comment on supermarket rating.
Quote: Rob H @ July 10 2009, 11:07 AM BSTI completely and utterly agree.
(Sootyj, I take it you work in the public sector too.
I do and I'm the exception that proves the rule. I should be paid shit as I do very little.
I'm such a parasite come the revolution I'm puting myself up against the wall and shooting myself. But the amoount nurses, teachers, social workers etc get paid with regards to training and job stress is ridiculous and a major reason all of these posts are filling out with imigrant workers.
And frankly the BBC Directors have a truly awsome job and generally do it well.
Quote: Griff @ July 10 2009, 10:12 AM BSTHere's what the Writers Guild have to say on the matter:
The Guild's response:
6 July 2009
Dear Mr Samra
BBC Approach to Talent
Thank you for your e-mail of 1 July, but we really seem to be living in two different worlds. Despite its healthy licence fee the BBC is in financial trouble, which would cause even Mr Micawber sleepless nights, for the following reasons:
The BBC has vastly and rashly overspent on "star" names. We won't list Jonathan Ross's alleged £6 million a year nor all the rest. If you're re-examining those salaries now, we can only say it's a long- awaited wake-up call, considering no other broadcaster or TV company inside or outside the UK can or would pay anywhere near those sums for that talent.
And that's just the basic salaries of stars, not to mention executives. Let's look at the way the BBC has handled expenses. We don't have to reiterate the BBC's top executives spending extravagantly on flowers and champagne to reward already highly paid stars (by the way, the BBC had stopped biscuits in meetings with writers as a cost-cutting exercise about a year ago.) Let's also examine the outlandish bills for luxury hotels, dinners, taxis, etc., for executives and stars; all of which is claimed back from viewers' licence-fee money. Writers have been party to none of this – which reminds us, the BBC stopped parties for writers many years ago.
But writers do receive, thanks to the WGGB, attendance fees. The £90.50 for up to three days is to cover fares/ food/ time away from writing when attending the rehearsals or filming of our work; a vital part of our jobs. No writer has ever grown rich on that.
Another reason the BBC is currently in such financial straits is that, for the last few years, it seems to have been in the property business instead of making programmes.
There was no need to build Salford; or eight-storey Egton House in the heart of London's West End (which still stands empty aside from the BBC Persian Radio Service and a meeting room) or any of the other new buildings. All this was predicated on selling TVC, etc.; in other words, gambling on a rising property market, which has since dropped through the floor. All this construction work is being paid for with money which should have been ring-fenced for production, which is the core function of the BBC.
It's also worth mentioning that the BBC has also probably lost millions in future revenue, not to mention world-wide prestige, on the exporting and sales of those never-to-be-made series.
Now let's look at what a TV writer earns. For an episode of "Doctors" (who make over 200 episodes a year and is one of the BBC's largest commissioners) a writer can earn £3,142.01. That might be enviable to some, but not when you consider it can represent six months or more work for the writer.
The BBC now has countless layers of management who, in the past, never existed or were needed (there's another saving for you) and suddenly writers are answerable to every single one. In addition, many production personnel are no longer staff, and are on short-term contracts without the experience or continuity that staffers often ensured. All of this needlessly bumps up the cost of productions; slows down every process ridiculously and, far from adding value, results in poorer television.
On a purely time and motion study level, up until a few years ago experienced writers could expect to write five television episodes a year at a healthier pace, leaving time to develop other work. But getting a single episode into the studio can now take six months. And all this is after the countless hoops, storylines and treatments that the writer has already gone through just to secure the episode; often working for a pittance, if they're lucky; free if they're not.
It's hard to cut the fee of someone who works for nothing.
Radio writers, who create hundreds of hours of drama every year, are paid even less than TV writers – it doesn't amount to a living wage unless you can write half a dozen plays annually. And radio writers now have to contend with the "bespoke abridgment". This is a mixture of two different kinds of fee structure which enables drama to be produced even more cheaply, and writers to be paid even less – in some cases, less than half the fee they would have received otherwise. This has been implemented on the Woman's Hour Drama slot, but it has been indicated that it may be extended to other forms of drama.
And, like television writers, radio writers do vast amounts of work for nothing. We develop and research ideas for original dramas to put in to the regular commissioning rounds – a process which necessitates days, weeks or even months of unpaid work – knowing that only 50% of ideas get commissioned, so there's an even chance that we will never be paid. Writers are therefore effectively subsidising the BBC already – and not just through paying the licence fee.
So we hope you note, when trying to cut the fat from the BBC, that writers are already Jack Sprat. Please don't look to us for your savings. We've already given.
Yours truly,
Gail Renard - Chair, Television Committee
Katharine Way - Chair, Radio Committee
Brilliant letter. Shocks me as well to find out the allowance for attending set/rehearsals is less than £100! You wouldn't be a popular writer for long if you didn't bother physically attending, certainly when you're there to offer support/advice/re-writing on an original show of yours. Just have to accept that writers are considered the lowest of the low.
Also, I know this definition of "talent" originally comes from the States, but it's a bit rich to identify a lot of the morons on TV as "talent". TV presenters having the ability to read and talk at the same time (in advanced cases whilst walking and looking good in a frock) is not in itself a talent. You could train your average tramp to do it. In fact, tramps fronting shows like 'Watchdog' and 'The One Show' would be vastly more entertaining.
Come on BBC, sack Norton, Ross, Moyles et al... bring on the homeless!