Tags

, , ,

It hasn’t been a great week for the challenge. Fitness wise I haven’t run since Sunday because of the knee, and the (possibly psychosomatic) pain in the back where, until the doctor suggested I should have pain, I didn’t have. Damnit! And I am too easily succumbing to the evening ice cream. What part of “Don’t buy any more!” don’t you understand!

On a better note, I have launched myself into the services I provide, soberingly realising that the social benefits of being an Institute Director, a driving Observer and a Speakers Club President in addition to my own ‘stuff’ mean – additional workload! Well, I never.

For those who know me, rest assured that I deliberately chose those service roles because they involved no physical effort whatsoever (even if my brain sometimes gets fried).

 

Ooh, look what they get!

It’s all kicked off at the BBC, hasn’t it? For those out of the loop, they have voluntarily (!) revealed large pay gaps between male and female presenter/celebs/newscasters, resulting in much debate on other programmes presented by those not earning as much (sic).

Shortly, it will be a legal requirement that businesses with over 250 staff will be forced to publish their pay structures/details, and one suggestion to counter the BBC-initiated but now extended issue of gender/race-related pay gaps ‘in the whole world’ is that ALL business should publish their pay details.

When I was young, my father said, “What I earn and what I pay in tax is my own business”. (He wasn’t a fan of Cliff Richard so he wasn’t talking about bachelorhood.*)

Outside of some public services, where pay IS publicised – like the police service where rates of pay are published, if not individual income – this would mean that everyone would be legally entitled to know what you were being paid. Everyone.

I wonder how that would benefit people? I know that the motive is positive, but like many good-natured ideas, has it been thought through? Imagine schoolyard bullies being able to pick on kids whose parents earn less than theirs. The phone calls to HMRC or Crimestoppers because Fred’s mum is deriving a Range Rover on a private plate and she only earns £21,000 a year so she ‘couldn’t possibly afford it’. The thrifty being asked for charitable donations by chuggers. And so on.

There is an economical tenet to which I subscribe, conditionally. It is that you get paid what you’re worth in terms of service provision. Which is why people who do jobs that ‘anyone can do’ get paid less than jobs which required years of training and effort. After that, the next leveller of pay is the number of people who want to do the job or who could do it – if only 5 people could do a particular job, then the rate of pay would probably be higher than if everyone wanted it – and the lowest bidder would win. That might explain public sector pay. (Hey, I am no economist and this argument may hold no water!)

All of which brings me around to the BBC issue. Notwithstanding the gender/race gap, which is an issue, is it just possible that the service provided by the best-paid talent is paid for at a rate that was agreed by the two parties involved, and was the result of a negotiation from which either side could have withdrawn, thus lowering the proverbial bar for the next applicant? In other words, “I want YOU,” resulted in the response, “Okay, this is what I want” and off they went.

Nothing. Wrong. With. That.

Perhaps the race/gender gap is a reflection of all of the aforementioned factors – plus an unwillingness of some to ask for more. “Life will give to you what you ask of it,” as Tony Robbins espoused.

And for some of those so offended by this issue, I have a question. Do you watch the drivel that is driving this pay up so high?

    I know my place.

*Look it up

Advertisements