ChatterBank6 mins ago
Tv Salary Shocker
24 Answers
Answers
Wimbledon - the men do more work, more people watch their games on TV and yet they get the same prize money as the women. Doesn't seems fair to me!
08:36 Fri 21st Jul 2017
I'm pretty certain the point the poster is making is that there's outcry when the men earn more than the women, but vice versa it all seems rather quiet.
But ummmm makes a good point, she is better than him (and by the way she's also drop dead gorgeous) so deserves more than him....but equally all the men who are earning more than their nearest equivalent women at the BBC are in my opinion better than them, and therefore deserve to be paid more.
Releasing the numbers was always a bad idea (in my view what an employee is paid by their employers (and no, just because we pay the licence fee we are not their employers) is between them and nothing to do with us, but as they were, the pay gap was always always going to be an issue for wimmin and their right-on sisters with scant regard for the talent differences between the men and the women(and make no mistake, these people have a talent, even if people nasally whine that 'Graham Norton's not worth anything like that' otherwise they would not be commanding their money).
Male footballers earn more money than their female counterparts because so many more people want to watch men play football than women play football - have you seen the pathetic attendances at the women's world cup?
But ummmm makes a good point, she is better than him (and by the way she's also drop dead gorgeous) so deserves more than him....but equally all the men who are earning more than their nearest equivalent women at the BBC are in my opinion better than them, and therefore deserve to be paid more.
Releasing the numbers was always a bad idea (in my view what an employee is paid by their employers (and no, just because we pay the licence fee we are not their employers) is between them and nothing to do with us, but as they were, the pay gap was always always going to be an issue for wimmin and their right-on sisters with scant regard for the talent differences between the men and the women(and make no mistake, these people have a talent, even if people nasally whine that 'Graham Norton's not worth anything like that' otherwise they would not be commanding their money).
Male footballers earn more money than their female counterparts because so many more people want to watch men play football than women play football - have you seen the pathetic attendances at the women's world cup?
All of these salary revelations are staggering. I don't care whether they're men or women, when they earn more than the prime minister for just reading the news or whatever. Yes, I know there's more to it than just turning up and reading from an autocue. If I were to try it, there wouldn't be many viewers. But still, crazy money.
Well.....she is "drop dead " gorgeous and yes, ummmm may think that she is worth more than Charlie, but are ether of those a basis for salary negotiations? I think not.
Comparing salaries is always a difficult and emotive topic, the poorly paid can think of reasons why they should have a pay rise and the well pain can justify their high salary and why the poorly paid are...well...poorly paid.
Then the emotional aspect comes in..doctors, nurses, policeman, fireman...they save lives, they should be paid more than the bank clerk, the shop assistants......so and so forth.
Someone has to make a decision and in the public sector it is mainly the Unions and in the private sector, mainly the employers.
If i was an employer, my attitude would be to pay the employee the salary that i could get him/her for.....if £25,000 a year would do the deal, then why offer £30,000?
If Gary Lineker would increase my sales or viewing figures and would accept £350,000 and no company rival would match that figure, then that would be his salary. Clearly it took a bigger hit to get Naga than it did to get Charlie......maybe unfair.......but life often is.
It is wrong to expose anybody's salary on the world wide media in my opinion.
Comparing salaries is always a difficult and emotive topic, the poorly paid can think of reasons why they should have a pay rise and the well pain can justify their high salary and why the poorly paid are...well...poorly paid.
Then the emotional aspect comes in..doctors, nurses, policeman, fireman...they save lives, they should be paid more than the bank clerk, the shop assistants......so and so forth.
Someone has to make a decision and in the public sector it is mainly the Unions and in the private sector, mainly the employers.
If i was an employer, my attitude would be to pay the employee the salary that i could get him/her for.....if £25,000 a year would do the deal, then why offer £30,000?
If Gary Lineker would increase my sales or viewing figures and would accept £350,000 and no company rival would match that figure, then that would be his salary. Clearly it took a bigger hit to get Naga than it did to get Charlie......maybe unfair.......but life often is.
It is wrong to expose anybody's salary on the world wide media in my opinion.
True about the top-earning sports stars. Also, American sitcom actors. The main stars (male and female) of Big Bang Theory recently got a million dollars per episode, while two of the other women had 'only' $200,000. I think it might be more fair now as the high earners agreed to a pay cut so the others could have more. Still, they weren't exactly starving.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.