Don’t be surprised if that UK opt-out is quietly made permanent after the election.
2 Likes
2 Likes
My question: aren’t they getting paid what they were previously to do nothing?
Yes, and? They wouldn’t be taking this legal action just for the hell of it. The women obviously believe they have a case.
2 Likes
Most of us are going to age out of our jobs and get replaced by younger talent. It’s inevitable with any white collar job
What makes these people so special?
“Age out of their jobs…” fucking hell mate, are you for real?! It’s not as if these women are in their 80s… the oldest is mid-50s. You’re making out as if they’re ancient and decrepit!
How would you feel if you were made redundant and your role was given to someone younger and prettier? I suspect not very happy! And you’d be perfectly entitled to feel that way.
Again, I don’t think they’d be going to a tribunal in the first place if they didn’t think they had a case. We shall see what transpires… personally I think the BBC will come out, as they usually do, with egg on their faces.
2 Likes
Umm. Most people except very senior level executives start to get squeezed out at 50. It happens in sales. It happens in creative.it certainly happens in media especially on air talent. It happens in cabin crew, it happens in fashion. It happens in music.
In advertising agencies once you hit 50, you’re replaced with younger people with newer fresher ideas
It’s going to happen. I’m in my early 40s. By 50 I know my company will be ready to squeeE me out of my current role for someone younger more relevant. It’s part of my industry. I’m already planning on it with a plan B because I know it will come
arguably, the people who were thrown into this limbo, were really good at their job (martine for one announcing Prince Philips death), compared to some of the presenters, that are still on air who are just much less talented at presenting
1 Like
They were very clearly trying to cater for the larger international audience (all the chief presenters are from the old World News Channel programs). Presumably they were given the roles since their flagship programs had been axed.
2 Likes
That doesn’t necessarily make it right… I take your point, definitely, but I’d politely suggest presenting the news is a bit different to the occupations you mentioned. The women here aren’t suing for aging out of being Hollywood leading ladies… this isn’t Sunset Boulevard.
Anyway, surely it’s better to have an older newsreader who is more experienced and knowledgeable, than some pretty young thing (male or female!) who has no clue what they’re doing? Because if not then someone should phone 7 Perth… bye bye Rick and Sue!
1 Like
But they weren’t were they? They’re still getting paid right?
Dare I say that was the decision. Probably on higher wages or higher severance packages than the domestic team.
Never implied that you were suggesting that. The World presenters had flagship timeslots and programs, while some of the domestic presenters mainly presented various evening, daytime and weekend shifts.
1 Like
Most high paying jobs come with a price tag. You’re pretty vulnerable when you’re at the top making the big bucks. These people were making 5-7x the normal British wage. When bbc is being forced to find hundreds in millions in cuts they are going to look at high salary presenters.
And I know it’s not kind or fair, but presenters of a certain age especially woman are faded out.
Young pretty newsreaders are very capable too. Who said they have no idea what they are doing? These ladies would have been young and pretty one day too - and very capable too.
Many professions suffer ageism.
You’re right, many professions do suffer ageism… but that doesn’t make it right, does it?
Yes, that’s generally how it’s been done, but again, that doesn’t necessarily make it right. In fact the BBC have been caught out doing this before, and had to backtrack.
Are they? Some definitely are, sure. But even a dog could see how an experienced newsreader, who spent years reporting in the field and is extremely knowledgeable, will do a better job than someone barely out of journalism school.
I just don’t think these ladies here would be taking the BBC to court in the first place, if they didn’t think they had a legitimate case. It’s all down to principle - the BBC made out there was a fair process in deciding who would present on this merged news channel, even though managers had already decided whom they wanted. The whole thing seems to have been a sham. Personally, I hope this shows the managers up as the arrogant twats they are.
I never said it was right. But anyone being paid huge amounts of money to be in front of a camera knows that it’s a limited career.
To then sue when the inevitiable happens…well… it’s a bit rich for me
1 Like
LOL. I see what you did there.
You’re right. And you make some excellent points. I just think this is more about the principle… the BBC held open auditions for presenters, having (allegedly) already chosen whom they wanted. Obviously this happens in many industries and workplaces… but it shouldn’t.
BBC has spent over $2m paying them for the last 12 months to do nothing. Tax payer money. They are in an incredibly privliged position already.
1 Like
Yeah, and that’s on the BBC, not them. If the BBC are foolish enough to lead staff to think they have a chance at a job, all the while knowing they don’t… they deserve everything they get.