Samira Ahmed exposes bigger diversity problems at the BBC than a single gender pay dispute

The verdict is in.

Samira Ahmed has won her equal pay tribunal against the BBC.

The case has made global headlines. But if you look more closely at the issues and the verdict this was not just a tribunal about a one of case of gender pay discrimination. It brings into question a fundamental business practice of the BBC that may disproportionately disadvantage women, Black Asian and Ethnic Minorities (BAME) and people from disadvantaged groups in general. 

Let me explain why this case exposes a structural problem at the BBC and has far reaching consequences for diversity in the media. 

REACTION TO THE VERDICT

The employment tribunal agreed with Samira Ahmed that the audience feedback programme she presents, “Newswatch”, is similar enough to another programme, “Points of View“, that she should be paid the same as the white male presenter.

Samira Ahmed was paid £440 per programme while the presenter of “Points of View”, Jeremy Vine, was paid £3,000 per programme.

The unanimous judgement of the tribunal was “her work was like that done by Vine, and the BBC had failed to prove the pay gap wasn't because of sex discrimination.” 

Despite the judgement the BBC seems unrepentant, and effectively said that the tribunal had made a mistake issuing a statement saying the pay for Ahmed and Vine “was not determined by their gender”, adding “we weren't able to call people who made decisions as far back as 2008 (when Jeremy Vine’s salary was decided) and have long since left the BBC.” Inferring that if they had been able to call these witnesses the tribunal would have found in their favour.

I was also contacted by two BBC executives (personal friends) who thought the tribunal had come to the wrong conclusion.

At the same time, the tone of the vast majority of mainstream media and social media seemed to be sympathetic to Ahmed and critical of the BBC. And large parts of the BBC’s own workforce, women and BAMEs in particular, have come out in support of the tribunal’s decision.

So how have we reached the position that the BBC can effectively be found guilty of gender pay discrimination and seem unapologetic for underpaying a woman for a job?

Is the corporation rammed full of bigoted sexist pigs?

Having worked there for 24 years - the last eight as a senior executive - and being outside of the organisation for a further four years now, my answer is “no”. 

But in many ways the truth is even worse. 

HOW FINANCIAL PRESSURE MAKE "GOOD PEOPLE" DO "BAD THINGS"

The fact is the BBC is full of nice liberal people who are working in a culture and under a peculiar set of circumstances that causes them to make terrible decisions and discriminate against under-represented groups despite the best of intentions. 

And here is the scary part...I suspect almost every executive producer has made the same decisions that could lead to the same pay discrimination result - myself included.

Let me explain how and why.

The BBC is under financial pressure. Following the financial crisis of 2008 and austerity policies implemented by the Conservative-Libdem government thereafter, the BBC’s license fee was frozen between 2010 and 2017. Despite small increases since 2017 in real terms the BBC’s revenue has gone down dramatically. 

It is against this backdrop that executives are always looking to make their money go further.

One way to do that is to cut everyone’s salaries, especially of the highest earners. But that’s hard. 

So another way to make money go further is to take cheaper programmes made by one part of the corporation and play them in parts of the network that are normally more expensive.

This happened regularly when I was the head of current affairs programmes at BBC Scotland. Cheaper BBC Scotland programmes originally commissioned for a regional (Scottish) audience would be “recommissioned” and sometimes even “reversioned” to play on the (nationwide) BBC1 network. And it still happens now. Cheaper daytime programmes often migrate to primetime, or BBC4 programmes migrate to BBC1 or BBC2. 

When this happens executives overseeing the more expensive slots are happy as they have found a cheap alternative to help them stretch their budgets. And the regional / daytime / BBC4 production teams are happy as they now get a larger audience and more exposure.

Everyone is a winner. Or so it seems...

PAYING STAFF LESS TO DO THE SAME JOB

The management practice of moving programmes around might be good for business but if you take a step back there is usually one set of losers - the staff.

And specifically, the staff who make the cheaper programmes. Despite the fact they are now making programmes which are deemed worthy to fill more prestigious and costly slots, they rarely see an uplift in their salaries. They are getting paid less than their colleagues who were effectively doing the same type of programmes and filling the same slots as before. 

But it is so ingrained in the corporation’s culture that the BBC didn’t - and judging by their public statement clearly still don’t - see it as discrimination.

It is just how senior management makes money go further.

SAMIRA AHMED’S CASE

And so this brings us to the Samira Ahmed case, and importantly, how this ingrained practice becomes discriminatory.

The BBC took a historically cheap programme, Newswatch, made for a part of the BBC where programmes are relatively cheap, the News Channel, and moved it into the BBC1 schedule where programmes cost more. And the minute they moved it to BBC1 the comparison to Points of View soon became obvious, which is made by a part of the corporation with higher wages, the Entertainment department.

You could say it was a perfect storm, but if you look around the BBC you see these "perfect storms" all the time. 

At first I am sure the decision to move Newswatch seemed like a win-win. It eased the financial pressure off BBC1 budgets and for the team working on it all of a sudden they got terrestrial network exposure. Plus in the internal market that operates within the BBC some money might have even flowed from BBC1 to the News Channel easing the News Channels budgets (although I am only guessing at this last point). 

It is of course a win-win until someone points out the fact it is built on the unfair treatment of some workers being paid less for doing the same jobs as their colleagues were doing previously.

BUT IS IT SEXISM?

Now, some people might point out that this has nothing to do with gender, racism or discrimination. A white man could be working on the cheaper programme which replaces the more expensive programme.

That is very true.

But it is also a fact that cheaper programmes are disproportionately made by production teams out of London and parts of the BBC where there are more women and BAME people working.

Just one quick example, over 20% of BBC1’s daytime soap opera Doctors programmes are made by BAME directors, while only 1% of Eastenders programmes are directed by BAME directors. Doctors is substantially cheaper than Eastenders to produce. If the corporation ever did the same money-saving trick with Doctors and moved it to primetime it would disproportionately affect BAME staff.

Similarly, most people I have spoken to do not think it is a coincidence that an Asian women gets to present "Newswatch" while there has never been a non-white on-screen presenter of "Points of View" in its 58-year history. 

CAN THE BBC FIX THE PROBLEM?

So what does this all mean for the BBC?

First of all, this means that this is a structural problem rather than a simple one-off case of gender discrimination.

Second, it means that fixing the problem might have far larger consequences than the BBC has realised. It may require new and difficult conversations around other options for achieving value for money - such as cutting the most expensive salaries, which have historically been held by white men.

Third, if the BBC wants to continue its practice of moving programmes around the schedule, it means looking at everybody's salaries when these moves happen.

And last but not least, it means the BBC’s statement issued following the tribunal’s decision hit completely the wrong tone. Instead of of being defiant it should have said something like:

“We regret that we underpaid Samira Ahmed for several years and fully take on board all of the tribunals comments.

The tribunal has brought to light how BBC management decisions, while not intentionally discriminatory, may disproportionately affect certain members of staff. 

We will look at this case again with the utmost urgency to ensure that these problems are not repeated.

Samira Ahmed is one of our most valued journalists and presenters and we look forward to her working with us for years to come and continuing to produce wonderful content”.

The BBC has many problems. No organisation is perfect.

And as someone who worked there for years I want it to flourish.

The best way it can start doing that is by critically examining the situation it is in and looking at how it can rectify its shortcomings. Being defensive and denying the reality of discrimination, however unintentional, is not how this problem will be solved.