Ms. Ahmed’s victory is likely to embolden others with a complaint about the BBC, according to the Fawcett Society, a charity that campaigns for gender equality.
“All employers need to take note, and the BBC must learn the lessons from this case and settle the remaining cases as soon as possible,” said Sam Smethers, the society’s chief executive. “It also sends a clear message to every woman out there who has the courage to challenge discrimination. If you fight, you can win.”
The programs presented by Ms. Ahmed and Mr. Vine are each about 15 minutes long and involve airing and discussing viewers’ comments. Ms. Ahmed’s program focuses on news coverage; the program hosted by Mr. Vine deals with feedback on entertainment programs.
The BBC argued during the hearing that Mr. Vine’s program required different skills because he was expected to be a friend to the audience in a way that Ms. Ahmed’s job did not require, and so deserved to be paid more.
It said Mr. Vine needed to be cheeky and have a “glint in his eye.” The tribunal was not persuaded by this argument. “We had difficulty in understanding what the respondent meant by a ‘glint in the eye’ and how that translated into a ‘skill’ or ‘experience’ to do a job,” the judgment said. It also noted that the lighthearted tone was probably attributable to the script.
On Friday, the BBC struck an conciliatory tone. “For us, this case was never about one person, but the way different types of programs across the media industry attract different levels of pay,” it said.
“In the past, our pay framework was not transparent and fair enough,” the broadcaster added in a statement, “and we have made significant changes to address that.”
Article source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/business/bbc-samira-ahmed-decision.html?emc=rss&partner=rss
Speak Your Mind
You must be logged in to post a comment.