Obscene salaries

Peter Hitchens is nailing salaries in the UK in the light of the moaning feminists at the Beeb.

A quick check of UK salaries through Google, using industry sources, found, in GBP:

Supermarket cashier 15,988
Cafe manager 18,321
Primary school teacher 28,700
IT project manager 44,000 plus bonus
Accountant 47,900 plus bonus
Air traffic controller £46,461 to £51,781, plus shift pay of £5,543
Surgeon 88,000 roughly
CEO 91,617
Prime Minister 149,440

All salaries were for the average person with a fair amount of experience. From this, those with skilled jobs, e.g. accountant upwards but also with responsibility for life and limb, e.g. air traffic controller, plus a surgeon, should be in the upper range.

On this basis, for a highly skilled job, with life and death responsibility, a round figure of £100,000 p.a. for 2017 is not out of order.

And I’d go further and say that no one really justifies much more than that. Perhaps a UK domestic international business CEO in a highly delicate business should double that at most.

Peter Hitchens lists:

Claudia Winkelman 500,000
Chris Evans 2,000,000

Frankly, that is insane, simply insane. Plus it’s our money. There is no way they should be getting any more than an actor earning around 30, 000 given the skill level. Add another ten for fame.

8 comments for “Obscene salaries

  1. Mona
    July 23, 2017 at 9:17 am

    Its your own frikin fault, don’t buy a licence, Support corruption then buy a license.

  2. Mudplugger
    July 23, 2017 at 9:25 am

    Not my job to defend the BBC but these are not normal ‘jobs’ on a standard pay-scale, the pay is personally negotiated in each individual case. The fact that the BBC ends up paying so much is more a criticism of the BBC’s negotiating competence than anything about gender-balance etc.

    No-one yet seems to highlighted the true cost of these ‘stars’ because they’ve omitted the pension angle.
    These employees are all ‘on the books’ as BBC staff and, as such, will qualify for the BBC’s generous pension for life. For example, someone working there on £500,000 for 10 years would get an index-linked pension of over £60,000 a year for life, which would mean receiving more than £1.5m extra in 25 years of ‘retirement’ for doing nothing with their so-called ‘talent’.
    Nice work if you can get it – even nicer non-work.

  3. July 23, 2017 at 10:24 am

    Yes.

    • John in cheshire
      July 23, 2017 at 10:53 am

      I think the focus should be widened to include those working for C4 and those who are employed indirectly by both the far-left bbc and the far-left C4.
      The biggest scams have occurred since the bbc was required to buy in programmes from independent companies; all that happened is the usual suspects set up their own production companies, labelled them independent and milked the system for all it’s worth with, as far as I can see, no oversight of how the TV tax money was spent or whether these self styled independent companies are providing value for money.

  4. Hereward Unbowed.
    July 23, 2017 at 11:48 am

    A squaddie at 17years of age, gets £18k, circa £17 k p/a when he was being shot at in ‘Nation building’ regime change….fighting drugs lords, Taliban battling etc…………all for what?

    Someone remind me, what does the bloke Chris Evans get to do to ‘earn’ £2 mill p/a? Or that fuckwit ‘soshul conchie’ – ex footie player Lineker for that matter, who cares what he thinks – certainly no one out in the real world actually gives a toss…………..

  5. Errol
    July 23, 2017 at 2:14 pm

    What people get paid is largely irrelevant until I have to pay for it.

    If the CEO of unilever earns £20m that’s unilever’s problem, as I can change which of their products I want to buy.

    When I can’t choose not to buy the product – when it’s a monopoly – then well, we have the monopolies commission. The state is a monopoly and the people in that seem to think themselves worth a quarter, to half a million each, which they are blatantly not. They’ve no product, no customers, their income is guaranteed by force. They are omnipotent and unfettered by market forces. Such people are not worth more than double the national average and only then if the public actively wish it.

    The BBC similarly is conflicted as it doesn’t exist in a market except by choice. A market where you cannot consume the other providers product unless you first pay for their competitor. That’s the biggest bug bear here. If the BBC was subscription based and the people were paid the same, that’s fair enough – it would be by choice, but it isn’t.

    • Mudplugger
      July 23, 2017 at 3:27 pm

      To be fair, the BBC does exist in a market on supply side of the equation – it has to compete for ‘talent’ with the likes of ITV, Sky, Netflix, Amazon etc. How it decides to participate in that competition and, therefore, how it negotiates for ‘talent’ is the real question.
      On the ‘customer’ side, you are right – the BBC’s customers have no choice but to subscribe to its apparent profligacy or face the wrath of the law. But that’s a matter for Parliament, so tell your MP what you think and encourage him/her to think what you think, then act on it – that’s how the system works. If we don’t all tell them loudly, they’ll not do anything.
      Whingeing on a blog rarely achieves anything beyond self-satisfaction: to achieve change you’ve got to get your case to the change-makers.

  6. July 23, 2017 at 4:25 pm

    “Whingeing on a blog rarely achieves anything beyond self-satisfaction: to achieve change you’ve got to get your case to the change-makers.”

    Yes.

Comments are closed.