[slow motion]

According to Hunt, around 427 staff scheduled to make the move from London Television Centre to the BBC North facility in Salford Quays have been told that they can retain their London weighting payment of up to £4,080 for the rest of their BBC careers.

The approach could cost the corporation and, therefore, the licence fee payer around £40 million in addition to the £170m already being spent on renting the MediaCityUK premises from Peel Holdings.

Hunt: 'BBC bribing staff to relocate' - DS News

Can they do that?

[zz9]

Two things.

One: What do you expect them to do? The government made the BBC move to Salford, what should the BBC do if lots of staff want to leave? Hire new staff up North and retrain them? That would cost even more? Force staff to move? How?

I have a friend who works in the NHS and they did exactly the same thing when they moved an office. This is surprising?

Second: An MP is moaning about taxpayer money being spent on expenses?

[ftv]

Originally Posted by slow motion

Hunt: 'BBC bribing staff to relocate' - DS News

Can they do that?

What the BBC should be doing of course is not ''bribing'' people to move North but recruiting staff locally to replace those who don't want to move. What about the staff already working for the BBC in Manchester, are they going to be made redundant costing further millions ?Otherwise few jobs will be created locally, defeating one of the objects of the exercise.Though I suspect some staff will follow the example set by Nicky Campbell who says he will work in Salford Monday to Friday and go home to London at weekends !

[iain]

what's that? the BBC are offering staff a 'relocation package'?

where will this madness end?

Iain

[slow motion]

Originally Posted by zz9

I have a friend who works in the NHS and they did exactly the same thing when they moved an office. This is surprising?

They got the London weighting for the whole of their NHS career? really?

Originally Posted by zz9

This is surprising?

You tell me. But your view that this is unsurpiring ie commonplace, is contradicted by this from the same DS news report.

Commenting on the move, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development spokesman Charles Cotton said that it was not common practice for employers to keep supporting London allowances during relocations. "This sounds like having your cake and eating it," he remarked.

I emphasised the "not common practice" bit for you.

Interesting how you contradict the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development spokesman .

Who will I believe, him or you? hmm!

[zz9]

Originally Posted by ftv

What the BBC should be doing of course is not ''bribing'' people to move North but recruiting staff locally to replace those who don't want to move. What about the staff already working for the BBC in Manchester, are they going to be made redundant costing further millions ?Otherwise few jobs will be created locally, defeating one of the objects of the exercise.Though I suspect some staff will follow the example set by Nicky Campbell who says he will work in Salford Monday to Friday and go home to London at weekends !

So you want the BBC to pay all the London staff big redundancy packages for them to go work for the competition and then hire new local staff and spend a huge amount of time and money training them?

And what are you going to do in the meantime? If you have a department where half the entire staff leave on one day? A company I used to work for had this happen when a senior manager left to start his own competing business and poached half the department. It caused chaos, had a huge affect on the quality of work and output and cost the company a fortune in hotel bills in bringing staff from around the country to provide temp cover while they hired new staff.

If agreeing to keep someone on London weighting (and we only have this MPs word for this so far....) will keep the staff on it could very well end up saving the BBC money.

[zz9]

Originally Posted by slow motion

They got the London weighting for the whole of their NHS career? really?

They just called it something else.

[Thine Wonk]

Well the BBC are moving to save money, it would cost a lot of money to recruit and re-train a lot of new staff, and they are going to have to do that for the people who can't / wont move anyway.

It seems reasonable to me that people shouldn't lose out as a result of the company changing where the job is located. If it were the person themselves then fair enough, but it's now.

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by ftv

What the BBC should be doing of course is not ''bribing'' people to move North but recruiting staff locally to replace those who don't want to move.

They are likely to be doing that (quite possible with the technical/ancilliary/support jobs, and certainly for those jobs where the existing post-holders will not be moving), but what about the costs of training those staff who are replacing knowledgeable staff? Or the costs in recruiting those people and covering for the staffing shortfall in the meantime?

What about the staff already working for the BBC in Manchester, are they going to be made redundant costing further millions ?

Not that I have heard. Have you heard of any such redundancies (even if they were able to do so under existing employment laws, which I very much doubt)?

[PeterB]

Originally Posted by ftv

What about the staff already working for the BBC in Manchester, are they going to be made redundant costing further millions ?

What possible reason have you for thinking this?

Other than being annoying.

[muldran]

They'll get their weighting, but they will be redringed from future pay increases - for example, if they were to get a pay increase that takes them over the limit for the level they are at, they won't go above that ceiling.

So, it's an instant pay off, but long term, the staff involved won't gain anything, as they'll eventually hit a limit. Nothing out of the ordinary here, just a bit of fuel for the group that has to call out every bit of BBC expenditure.

[ftv]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

They are likely to be doing that (quite possible with the technical/ancilliary/support jobs, and certainly for those jobs where the existing post-holders will not be moving), but what about the costs of training those staff who are replacing knowledgeable staff? Or the costs in recruiting those people and covering for the staffing shortfall in the meantime?

Not that I have heard. Have you heard of any such redundancies (even if they were able to do so under existing employment laws, which I very much doubt)?

If you leave of your own volition you don't get redundancy.It's quite clear some London staff are not going to move to Manchester.And if the Manchester staff go to Salford a certain proportion of jobs will be filled in any case and won't need people from London.So the amount of re-training is likely to be quite small (a studio cameraman moving from London to Manchester for instance doesn't need re-training, only familiarisation as the studio equipment will probably be slightly different).

[soulboy77]

I'm assuming with all the large costs incurred in moving to Salford that long term the BBC will be actually be saving licence payers money. Or am I wrong on this point?

[slow motion]

Originally Posted by soulboy77

I'm assuming with all the large costs incurred in moving to Salford that long term the BBC will be actually be saving licence payers money. Or am I wrong on this point?

that's the big question!

as with other initiatives like PFI's, I'm left wondering if savings will be made and when?

[mad_dude]

Here is a question what happens when BBC staff have to temporarily go abroad. do they still get London weighting bearing in mind that they have to maintain a property in London?

[Paul02]

Originally Posted by soulboy77

I'm assuming with all the large costs incurred in moving to Salford that long term the BBC will be actually be saving licence payers money. Or am I wrong on this point?

Wrong, at least in the mid-long term.

The reason for moving departments to just one other part of the country is to help make the BBC more reflective of the nation as a whole. Hmm.

(It's strange how, in the 1970s, the BBC managed to be much more reflective of the nation than it is now, without having to uproot whole departments and thousands of people.)

I suppose you could blame political correctness (or, perhaps, the more parochial nature of people who work in broadcasting these days).

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by ftv

If you leave of your own volition you don't get redundancy.It's quite clear some London staff are not going to move to Manchester.And if the Manchester staff go to Salford a certain proportion of jobs will be filled in any case and won't need people from London.So the amount of re-training is likely to be quite small (a studio cameraman moving from London to Manchester for instance doesn't need re-training, only familiarisation as the studio equipment will probably be slightly different).

So you are not aware of ANY staff being made redundant at Manchester then.

And you admit that some Manchester staff WILL be likely to be transferring to Salford.

And there is likely to be a number of staff not moving, with vacancies filled from local labour pools (with elements of training/re-training).


Glad that's sorted.

[ftv]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

So you are not aware of ANY staff being made redundant at Manchester then.

And you admit that Manchester staff WILL be likely to be transferring to Salford.

And there is likely to be a number of staff not moving, with vacancies filled from local labour pools (with elements of training/re-training).


Glad that's sorted.

You sound as if you might have a personal involvement in this mossy (it doesn't really matter whether I admit anything or not)

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by ftv

You sound as if you might have a personal involvement in this mossy (it doesn't really matter whether I admit anything or not)

I have no idea as to

a) why you would think that

b) why you would post that

c) why you would think that it has any relevance to the previous posts.


And no, I am not involved in any way, shape or form, directly or indirectly.

[zz9]

Originally Posted by ftv

If you leave of your own volition you don't get redundancy.It's quite clear some London staff are not going to move to Manchester.

If your employer closes the London office where you work and opens a new office in Manchester then it cannot force you to move. If you decide to leave they have to pay you redundancy.

The exception being that if you apply for a job in London now the BBC make it a condition of employment that you will move to Salford within the next couple of years. But they can't just add that into everyone's contract even if they've worked there ten years.

[ftv]

Originally Posted by mad_dude

Here is a question what happens when BBC staff have to temporarily go abroad. do they still get London weighting bearing in mind that they have to maintain a property in London?

Yes, the London weighting is for the additional costs of living in London. If you went abroad for a short period presumably your family would still be living in the property.If you went abroad for - say - two years I think that might be different. The number of BBC staff being asked to move to Salford is actually only a small percentage of the BBC workforce which numbers about 20,000.

[Tassium]

Lack of reflection of the whole country is a symptom of the ideology within the BBC at the highest level, they just don't want to reflect. Anyone.

It's all top down executive led, this is why there are so many "formats" and remakes. It's what executives do.


This whole move is a waste of effort since those in charge are not interested in reflecting anyone, regardless of where they live.

[Lawrencetero]

Originally Posted by slow motion

Hunt: 'BBC bribing staff to relocate' - DS News

Can they do that?

they could buy a street in salford for that kind of money!

no seriously, if this oils the machinery to move people up north then fair play, perhaps they should have negotiated and said you can keep half, but that is not in the bbc nature - as an organisation i mean, not in the bbc peoples nature.

[PeterB]

Originally Posted by Lawrencetero

they could buy a street in salford for that kind of money!

no seriously, if this oils the machinery to move people up north then fair play, perhaps they should have negotiated and said you can keep half, but that is not in the bbc nature - as an organisation i mean, not in the bbc peoples nature.

All these overpaid cameramen, producers, directors, admin people etc.

[ftv]

I see the ad currently running for Head of BBC Sports News says that by accepting the post it is implicit the person would move to Salford. Sport will move between April and December 2011.