nice people "earn lots of cash" shock

[alanmck]

http://tinyurl.com/n3rsb

[medlar]

I'd like to know what Lineker and Hanson get for MOTD. And what Sue Barker gets for A Question of Sport.

[bongolia]

all that information should be available to licence fee payers anyway, so we know where the money is going. i object to paying part of talentless c***s like Chris Moyles 630,000 salary

in fact i think (within companies) all salaries should be disclosed, because someone finds out eventually and only causes resentment. if you're keeping anything like that hidden, then you've got something to hide (i.e. you're paying some people too much and others too little)

[Warren]

all that information should be available to licence fee payers anyway, so we know where the money is going. i object to paying part of talentless c***s like Chris Moyles 630,000 salary

in fact i think (within companies) all salaries should be disclosed, because someone finds out eventually and only causes resentment. if you're keeping anything like that hidden, then you've got something to hide (i.e. you're paying some people too much and others too little)

Hmm. Remember paying the licence fee is optional. You are paying for a service, if you do not like [part] of the service you do not have to buy it. Your issue is that the BBC comes as single package & you can not pick & choose [and thus pay for] the parts you want. If I was Moyles I would be p***ed. Financial matters of this nature should remain confidential.

I am working on the assumption that your second paragraph is said in jest.

[bongolia]

no, am serious about that. i think everyone within a company realises that the CEO will be paid more than the cleaner, but everywhere i've worked at some point people have found out what other people earn and it causes bitterness (and eventually people leaving, although that's a cumulative process of being pissed off), when people find out that more recently hired people with less experience and talent are being paid more etc etc

lots of big companies have promotional grades, which have an associated salary (although i bet all the directors salaries are hidden!) so it's relatively open anyway

and your licence fee argument is bollocks, since you have to have one to have a TV at the moment...

[Warren]

no, am serious about that. i think everyone within a company realises that the CEO will be paid more than the cleaner, but everywhere i've worked at some point people have found out what other people earn and it causes bitterness (and eventually people leaving, although that's a cumulative process of being pissed off), when people find out that more recently hired people with less experience and talent are being paid more etc etc

lots of big companies have promotional grades, which have an associated salary (although i bet all the directors salaries are hidden!) so it's relatively open anyway

I see where you are coming from, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I could wax lyrical with the counter arguments about reward based structures, pure commercial vs utility company structures blah blah blah & we'd still be back where we started. Both sides are flawed. But I will readily accept the problems/flaws you point out if it means I retain my privacy. I go to work for a financial return; no more no less. For that return I do not believe I have to forsake any [financial] privacy.

and your licence fee argument is bollocks, since you have to have one to have a TV at the moment...

Agreed (not the bollocks bit ). The optional part is you do not have to buy & watch a TV! After 6 months living in a foreign country it is quite suprising how quickly you realise you ain't missing that much.

Anyway enough of this bollocks back to the music.

[Lady J]

I see where you are coming from, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I could wax lyrical with the counter arguments about reward based structures, pure commercial vs utility company structures blah blah blah & we'd still be back where we started. Both sides are flawed. But I will readily accept the problems/flaws you point out if it means I retain my privacy. I go to work for a financial return; no more no less. For that return I do not believe I have to forsake any [financial] privacy.

If I may briefly weigh in here. I feel quite strongly that wages should be transparent because the argument for privacy has traditionally been used to pay women less. Look at any statistics of salaries in this country and women are still paid substantially less than men. I'm not saying this happens in alll institutions or companies - far from it - but places who encourage a climate of secrecy usually have a dirty reason for it.
For the other matter, I'm surprised and pleased that Moyles isn't paid more (not that I think he deserves it!)