Take that, gender pay gap! Atos to offshore hundreds of BBC roles

Hundreds of IT roles at the BBC are to be offshored to cheaper wage locations, under a £560m contract renewal coming into force with its incumbent outsourcing giant Atos. In a conference call with 300 staff - heard by The Register - Atos bosses said the new Aurora IT contract model will involve a "significant amount of …

[wolfetone]

Well BBC, if you're big enough and corporate enough to sack workers in the UK and outsource their jobs abroad, then you're big enough and corporate enough to survive without forcing the paying public (as well as those you've sacked) to pay the TV license fee.

[Hollerithevo]

I have always supposed the idea of the BBC, but...

A nationally-owned TV and radio service that isn't beholden to corporate billionaires and thus enslaved tot heir views, and which is commercial-free and whose purpose is to provide all sectors with impartial and trustworthy information and good, representative entertainment -- this would be great. I am happy to pay a licence fee for that.

But is that what we are getting? How can we get that from a company that becomes more and more corporately distasteful? My station of choice BBC radio 3, is so dumbed-down and so out-sourced that I barely listen to it any more.

It does seem time either to pull the BBC up by its socks or to cut it loose from public money.

[Velv]

Re: I have always supposed the idea of the BBC, but...

@Hollerithevo

"A nationally-owned TV and radio service that isn't beholden to corporate billionaires and thus enslaved tot heir views..."

In what way is the BBC not beholden to corporate billionaires? Just because they don't own shares doesn't mean it isn't doing their bidding...

[RealBigAl]

Re: I have always supposed the idea of the BBC, but...

"A nationally-owned TV and radio service that isn't beholden to corporate billionaires and thus enslaved tot heir views"

Correct, but it is by definition beholden to the state that owns it. Irrespective of how impartial it is or isn't.

Many people have no interest in watching BBC programming and do not hold with the positions taken by BBC news or current affairs yet still have to pay the license fee to legally watch other channels.

Paying Sky or Virgin is voluntary, there is have no legal choice with the BBC license tax. Pay or don't (legally) watch any television.

[strum]

Re: I have always supposed the idea of the BBC, but...

>Correct, but it is by definition beholden to the state that owns it.

The 'state' doesn't own the BBC.

[wolfetone]

Re: I have always supposed the idea of the BBC, but...

"The 'state' doesn't own the BBC."

But it choses the controllers and body that oversee the BBC. So if the state don't own it what right do they have to pick and choose who runs and controls the corporation?

I struggle to think of another instance where a company that isn't owned by someone or another company allows the other company to dictate who they have on their board.

Don't forget as well that the state have mandated through the law that it's illegal to watch live TV without payment of the license fee which is set by the Secretary of State for Culture.

[Colonist-in-IT]

Re: I have always supposed the idea of the BBC, but...

It is backwards in the U.S., but in a sense, the same.

All private companies are run by the Government (the "State"), as they are all subject to the heavy Federal and State regulations/laws which are established to protect the commonwealth (me). This is true, BUT the caveat in this truth....the private companies run the Government! Those big hitters with the cash are the ones that dictate (heavily influence) which regulation/laws are written. Hence, the only thing being 'protected' is the private company 'bottom-line'.

Thanks from across the pond for the different perspective.

(By the way, my wife works for ATOS here in Texas.)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I have always supposed the idea of the BBC, but...

Re: The 'state' doesn't own the BBC.

Irrelevant, the BBC are pwned by the State.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I have always supposed the idea of the BBC, but...

@Hollerithevo; The question is, how many of these free market changes have been forced on the BBC either directly via legislation, or indirectly via strong pressure from the government over many years?

I'm pretty damn sure that the backdoor privatisation of the BBC is proceeding as planned, with the typical modus operandi of run it down, outsource and/or hollow it out until there's so little left that the public gives the intended response of "may as well shut it down / privatise it".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I have always supposed the idea of the BBC, but...

Same modus operandi as the NHS :(

[Mage]

Outsourcing

The outsourcing of program production doesn't save money, it's political and hides salaries,

IT, Engineering and other outsourcing is killing the BBC's ability to support program production, distribution etc.

The idea that the BBC should be "merely" a platform, a marketing entity is the end point. Even Amazon, Netflix and Sky etc realise to compete, other than by showing sport and made for cinema and TV re-runs that they need to do production.

Moronic.

I have simpler solutions:

1) Don't buy in material that's over priced due to so called talent being overpaid.

2) Set a cap on salaries. Note that so called presenters and comedians and "celebrities" should be paid less than real actors. Totally crazy what the "top" men are paid. Almost none have any talent, just "famous".

The issue isn't so much underpaid high profile women presenters, but overpaid men, overpaid managers and underpaid support staff.

If the BBC think they can outsource IT and have proper IT support and save money, then they are delusional, or internal Management is rubbish (actually it is!).

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

Re: Outsourcing

Note that so called presenters and comedians and "celebrities" should be paid less than real actors. Totally crazy what the "top" men are paid. Almost none have any talent, just "famous".

Of those professions I would postulate "comedian" would be the most difficult , not a "real actor" .

[Alan Brown]

Re: Outsourcing

"The outsourcing of program production doesn't save money, it's political and hides salaries"

It also means what's produced is subject to private copyrights (instead of beeb ones) and can be charged extra for, later.

[Chris Neale]

Outsourced means outsourced

The Beeb will have been directed by it's governers to secure the best deal for their IT provision.

They signed a contract with ATOS. Atos has then decided to offshore the folks providing that support to make it cheaper and pass some saving on.

Not the BBC.

If the BBC had it's own IT department or put out a tender for "UK Only staffed IT Support".....then I'd expect your license fee to increase significantly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Outsourced means outsourced

The BBC does have its own IT department. That website isn't Atos. They insourced any tech they didn't want crushed by desperate Atos accountants.

The BBC knows what it's doing. It just doesn't care. It doesn't think it will lose anything, because it doesn't know what it's losing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Outsourced means outsourced

"They signed a contract with ATOS."

No, they signed a contract with Siemens, you donkey. And it's Atos, not ATOS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Outsourced means outsourced

"And it's Atos, not ATOS."

I think you've mistaken us for people who give atos.

[~chrisw]

Public Service versus Private Sector - guess who wins

Sadly, it's Atos specifying they can contract for services at a particular price point -- and Atos deciding they can reshuffle their long-serving UK workforce to make much of the required savings. As far as the BBC's concerned, from a business perspective, if that's the quoted price for a service fulfilling their requirements, they should not care about how that price is met.

Knowing the outcome, you can argue all day about the wording of the tender, but an organisation should not strictly have to worry about the morality of the tendering suppliers. I think this demonstrates that business ethics are far more important than some people still think and are overlooked at one's peril!

With context, it seems the Eurotender 'lowest cost' route has once again bitten everyone - the BBC seeks to make maximum savings (it would be pilloried if it came out that they had not gone with the cheapest quote) and Atos seeks to retain its contract even if it means losing the incumbent experts who've helped build and support the infrastructure for the past decade.

It's shameful commercialism from Atos and an impossible situation for the BBC. It has, however, insourced some of its previously outsourced operations, so it is doing something, albeit slowly. There's no way they could insource all of Atos (née Siemens, née BBC Technology) who currently look after BBC things.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Public Service versus Private Sector - guess who wins

"It has, however, insourced some of its previously outsourced operations"

About the only long-term useful purpose of outsourcing is to temporarily use it to get rid of mangelment structures which are tangling up the operation, but to insource once the job is complete.

Long-term outsourcing is a mug's game, especially when you're outsourcing your core business.

[NeilPost]

Perhaps, but also forced into these sort of measures by the constant assault on the BBC by goverments over the last 30 years, inc. nonsensical restructures and changes in governance.

[Blotto]

its about time other non it or manufacturing jobs where outsourced abroad.

Its totally possible for broadcasts to be made from anywhere so why not ship the other functions offshore and just keep the data and associated tech jobs here?

[SkippyBing]

That actually makes some sense, rather than breakfast show presenters having to get up at some ungodly hour for their shows they could just live and work a few time zones to the east.

By the same principle Graham Norton's show could be broadcast from somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic. Boat optional.

[Velv]

There are a large number of UK qualified accounts in India just ready to fill up the Accounts departments of big corporations.

Funny however that the Head of Accountancy/Finance/whatever never seems to recognise that all these roles are the same in either the UK or India (in the same way techies are) and they could save billions by offshoring their team...

[ritey]

wonder why these companies never outsource the finance department

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

Bloody Foriegners! staying over there, taking our jobs!

We've already outsourced pretty much all manufacturing, and when I say outsourced I'm saying it in a bigger-picture sort of way in that we dont bother anymore and buy stuff from people who work harder.

Same with many low paid jobs in this country. Apparrently after brexit there will be no one to pick fruit or make sandwiches.

This country has got to realise that you cant let foriegners do all the jobs - or you starve. Work is a resource , you could say, not something to be avoided or given away to other countries.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Prst. V.Jeltz

"This country has got to realise that you cant let foriegners do all the jobs - or you starve"

Tell that to corporate upper management who only give a shit about next years profit margins. No long term thinking or strategy, don't give a damn about their country. Back in the day the heads of large corporations actually did (occasionally) take the best interests of their country into account, but not any more with get-rich-quick style capitalism in charge. And I'm not some raging communist against capitalism, I just don't like the spiv type we've had since the 80s that only cares about profit and absolutely nothing else.

Oh, and isn't it funny how management never outsource their own jobs even though in many cases a trained chimp could do them?

[Mellipop]

Re: @Prst. V.Jeltz

Golgafrincham.

[Commswonk]

@ ritey

wonder why these companies never outsource the finance department

Or Personnel / HR for that matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

⚙

Let's hope Atos follow the BBC model and pay their developeresses significantly less that the developers.

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm renovating a house at the end of a cul-de-sac, when yesterday a car pulls up, takes a while to line itself up, then the guy starts adjusting his mirrors, and sits there watching me. "Yes I see you".

He proceeds to stake-out the property for over an hour, spying on me nailing roof battens. Who exactly is paying for this? There has to be a more efficient way.

Doubt it's the last I'll see of them before the build is complete.

[Dan 55]

... and he was from Atos or something?

[wolfetone]

"... and he was from Atos or something?"

It's been known that the gobshites that the BBC employ to check on addresses that don't pay TV licenses do stuff like what's been described. If there's no TV in the property, you don't need a TV license. They ask to come in and check, but without a warrant (which they won't get) they don't have to go in to your property. You can refuse them entry.

But when you do that, they decide to intimidate you by doing what the OP described. Imagine now you're a woman on your own or elderly and you see some jackass outside your house doing that?

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

"Imagine now you're a woman on your own or elderly and you see some jackass outside your house doing that?"

I could also imagine reporting someone behaving suspiciously and in possession of a chair leg.

[Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse]

Re: If there's no TV in the property...

Whilst I don't want to subvert the thread, I'd just like to point out that you can actually have many TVs in your house - and still not require a license. The licence is not for the "owning" of a TV, it is based on what you watch or consume through that TV.

You only need a licence if you watch TV programmes live at the time of their broadcast - and then for anything on iPlayer also. You do NOT need a license if you watch pre-recorded DVDs, play video games, stream TV or watch movies on-demand or catchup TV via C4, ITV, Amazon Prime and Netflix et al (unless it is being watched live at the time of broadcast).

The rest of your thread is correct. They have no right of entry (neither do the Police btw) and the chance of them being awarded a warrant to do so is miniscule and very easily challenged.

You should never EVER let these people into your property. EVER!!!

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

Re: If there's no TV in the property...

"can actually have many TVs in your hous..."

I thought the rule was "if you have any equipment capable of receiving live stuff" so you have to take your aireil down or something....

[Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse]

Re: If there's no TV in the property...

No, that's not the case (as far as I can see). If there is a rule to this effect then it's been buried so far down in the terms then it would be unenforceable.

This is a tactic that I have heard that Capita try to use though (i.e. than an aeriel == live tv use) but again, it would not stand up in court as firm evidence to support a prosecution.

[Cynic_999]

Re: If there's no TV in the property...

"

I thought the rule was "if you have any equipment capable of receiving live stuff" so you have to take your aireil down or something....

"

Nope. You only need to be covered by a TV licence if you *install or operate* any apparatus so that it received broadcast TV programs. ("Install" is used as a verb). It is also the case that the person who is breaking the law is the person who has operated the TV set, not the homeowner or "head of the household" (whatever that is).

So even if the TV inspector chappie catches you red-handed watching live TV, he will still need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was you who switched on the TV set and selected a broadcast program. No licence is required to view - only to operate the TV set.

[Steve B]

Re: If there's no TV in the property...

That doesn't seem to apply in Weymouth. Looking through the "In the Courts" section each week shows at the bottom end of the scale for fines, unfortunate folk such as drug dealers, car thieves, Muggers, Burglars, Shoplifters, people with no car licence or insurance. Every week the top of the table is reserved for the heinous people with NO TV LICENCE, with their individual fines higher than the total of the unfortunates below them in the pecking order. And it is not just one or two, tis often columns of them! As far as one can read into it there appears to be no burden of proof required as hardly any of them even know they are in court and so do not attend!

[FrankAlphaXII]

Are you sure it was Crapita doing their TV licensing bullying?

I'm an American so I don't know if you guys even have them, but could it be a Code Enforcement officer from your council? Happens here in New Mexico a lot. Code Enforcement stakes out building sites and sometimes even goes to check licenses for regulated trades like Electrical, Plumbing and Irrigation, as well as HVAC. Code enforcement are usually real dicks about it too, they like their threats even more than regular cops because usually the only way to contest anything is with an Administrative Law Judge who will side with the Government nearly every time.

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a building inspector to check key stages of the project. This process is very transparent so it isn't that.

I probably should have added the bit about the escalating letters forewarning an imminent visit.

[IsJustabloke]

@FrankAlphaXII

Our building Inspectors don't skulk about, they simply walk up , identify themselves and have a look round / inspect. It's a very foolish builder that aggravates a building inspector.

[Steve Davies 3]

You know who to blame

when your house get burgled then....

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: You know who to blame

There's nothing in the house except bricks and lumber. It's a shell.

[Anonymous Coward]

Might not be for the TV licence...

Roof space is also used for other criminal activities.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubt it's the last I'll see of them before the build is complete.

If they do show up again get your camera and then go and take photos of the car and person, that generally has them moving.

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

You still havent explained who "them" is. If its building inspectors you sure have a different system to over here, where we like our buildings to get a little certifcate saying they were properly inspected at all stages of the build , not just thrown up and hope no one notices.

... cos it you did do that , they would notice , and throw it down again

[Your alien overlord - fear me]

Because having a pretty face on the telly is more cost effective than the infrastructure working.

[Dan 55]

Address the gender pay gap!

Fire everyone because unemployment benefit is the same for everyone.

[Otto is a bear.]

Hmmm

Let's save millions by offshoring to pay well off stars even more. I'm not sure that's a message I'd want to propagate, but that's a headline.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmmm

I don't know why, but I feel more and more a taste of pre French Revolution.... screw the Third State so the "nobles" can live better and better... cut the higher wages to ensure equal pay? Of course not! Better to fire some people.

The important thing will be to ensure gender equality when heads start to roll...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmmm

I propose equality by chopping the same amount of head off the men AND the woman! Vive la révolution d'élite en matière d'égalité!!!

P.s. televise the "pay reviews" (beheading), it's always drawn a big audience

[Anonymous Coward]

I say can I have an extra portion of bullshit to go with this codswallop?

There is no way on this earth that outsourcing with have any effect whatsoever on the gender pay gap at the BBC it'll just mean they have more technical hitches and bigger salaries for the boys.

I just had to dig my birth certificate and nope it does not say yesterday.

[Bob Vistakin]

Hmm, I wonder...

Will any of the dozens of managers "living" in 5 star hotels for literally years whilst "working" at Salford Quays, who still have homes darn sarf and are there due to "relocation" be affected? The annual hotel costs are in the millions for these hardworking "managers", who naturally have only the public purse in mind.

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither fish nor fowl

One of the many, many problems I have with the BBC. One day they are a British institution, 'auntie', Lord Reith, 'above' commercial considerations, impartial, the last bastion of imperial times in a capitalist world et al. The next day they are a greedy, money grabbing nasty shower of shite, who are only interested in commercial gain. They need to fucking make their mind up.

[Anonymous Coward]

"There was some uncertainty as to what would happen if they remain in the "availability pool" for too long."

I'm sorry to be the one to inform this poor person, but there is absolute certainty on the outcome of remaining in the "availability pool" for too long.

[GruntyMcPugh]

"availability pool"

Indeed,.... when I was an IBMer, we had an "availability pool", it was called 'The Bench', and lifespan on 'The Bench' was three months, and you were expected to relocate. I was on 'The Bench' twice during my time, and relocated once. Both times I had to change jobs because my role was offshored. I can't see ATOS not offshoring increasingly more people.

[Steve Davies 3]

The Beeb is just following precident

of a whole boat load of companies and even Government Departments.

This is news?

The whole UK IT Industry will soon be based in Bangalore/Chennai/Mumbai/etc.

Just a sad fact of life here in 2017.

[Alan Johnson]

Help with pay gap

The pay 'gap' is not that women are paid different amounts for the same job but that the average/median pay for all women is less than that for all men ignoring differences in role, experience and hours worked. It has little if any signifiance but is strongly discriminatory in effect if a target of no gap is applied precisely because it ignores the differences in roles, experience and hours worked.

Outsorcing may well help this 'gap' by getting rid of skilled experiences and generally male IT workers but the metric is meaningless from a discrimination point of view.

[poohbear]

So let me see if I've got this straight...

1. The pretty boys are earning way more than the PM, for mugging for the camera.

2. The pretty girls are earning way less and are upset.

3. Solution is to save a few quid by outsourcing the not-so-pretty people's jobs offshore, to pay the pretty girls the same as the pretty boys.

As opposed to, for example, cutting the pretty boys' salaries down to the same as the pretty girls?

Won't someone please thing of the not-so-pretty people who actually work longer hours than those pretty people? They also need to eat....

[RealBigAl]

re:So let me see if I've got this straight...

Not entirely. The pretty girls are on record as saying it's not about them, who are all well paid, it's about the average workers, backroom staff etc, where there are many more woman paid less than men doing equivalent jobs.

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

very well put , Poohbear

[bdam]

A message to those who lost their jobs from Gary Lineker

Cheerio

[Anonymous Coward]

What offshore staff?

Atos can't get the staff to cover the existing contracts that have been off-shored. Where do they expect to get the additional staff from to cover another large contract being off-shored? Current ratio is about 3 off-shore staff capable of doing the role of 1 decent on-shore staffer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What offshore staff?

"1 decent on-shore staffer". What percentage of on-shore staffers would you say are "decent"?

It isn't really a 3 to 1 ratio, it is almost 1 to 1 the problem is that the percentage of "decent" off-shore staff is a lot lower than the percentage of decent on-shore staff. Couple that with the fact that decent off-shore staff are in such high demand that they can get huge salary bump by moving to a different provider every year or two taking their institutional knowledge with them, and you get the real problem with off-shoring.

If only it was possible to fire all the less than decent on and off shore staffers, those who are left would probably get as much done not having to clean up the messes left by the incompetents!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What offshore staff?

What percentage of on-shore staffers would you say are "decent"?

75-80% of on-shore staffers are decent. 75-80% of off-shore staffers are not decent.

[DagD]

I wonder what the cost of living is there...

Starting to think us IT folk need to move to India in order to keep our jobs.

SMH...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I wonder what the cost of living is there...

"Starting to think us IT folk need to move to India in order to keep our jobs."

At one time I could have relocated to India for a higher standard of living. The problem comes if you ever want to come back.

[Dan 55]

Re: I wonder what the cost of living is there...

The British government have heard your plea and are currently working hard on driving the UK's economy down to third world levels.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I wonder what the cost of living is there...

What do we think will happen when all the roles are filled and number of employee's is less than roles available?

Wages go up.

Living standards go up.

The cost of outsourcing goes up but it's too late to bring it back and you end up paying the same as what you were paying for on-shore staff.

Welcome to the future. Outsourcing IT, the short term game that going to hit some companies very hard eventually.

[Commswonk]

Re: Not Wanted - Engineering Roles

I have said this before, "management" think that engineering is beneath them, so they treat them accordingly, yet any reasonable engineer can manage the management role.

Trouble is that a "reasonable" (or better) engineer may be unwilling to sell his (or her) soul for the priviledge of taking on a management role.

On your wider point of Was it only a few months ago that we were being told that the UK does not have enough IT educated people so have to source from the migrant population.

How many times have we been told that we do not educate enough people in STEM ?.

Here we have a British Institution doing exactly the opposite of what is required.

Other companies have done similar - offshored to the detriment of local employees, and then discover that they lack the expertise to even understand the projects that they have offshored. Costs increase, and they do not understand whether the costs are warranted.

This message deserves to be shouted ever louder until someone actually takes notice. Why would anyone in possession of a modicum of common sense want to pursue a career that can be exported to the lowest bidder on a whim? And why would anyone choose to be loyal to an employer that will effectively deprive them of their livelihood without a second thought?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not Wanted - Engineering Roles

You want to know something really ironic?

The BBC outsourced some of this stuff originally because the engineers were producing a good service at a rate so far below the market equivalent (they checked) that it was well worth spinning off the expertise as a commercial venture.

This is the last serving of the Golden Goose pate they made from those engineers.

[PM from Hell]

Re: Not Wanted - Engineering Roles

I'm irritated by the scorn poured on media degrees by ill informed commentators. I am extremely proud of my son who completed a media degree and has now worked on location production in over 50 mainstream films in the UK (as of yesterday he has 49 credits on IMDB). Like 90% of people in the film industry he took years to get established after his degree. Working initially for nothing, making music videos for new bands or filming indy films for new producers, then working purely for expenses before finally breaking in to paid work. His degree was 3 years of intensive practical work giving him the skills he would require operating and maintaining recording equipment, filming and producing in studio and externally, and in his case, hosting a weekly overnight radio programme. This new generation of film makers is generating billions of pounds each year for the UK economy and will produce the next generation of producers and directors who may lead a resurgence of British produced films in the future.

[Anonymous Coward]

Customers know where the jobs are going

Customers of outsourcers know where the jobs are going geographically and often drive the work to the lowest cost locations as part of negotiations. It's typically fundamental to the contract to drive down price, and the customers want to gain security / service assurance associated with the offshore locations, which can include security audits, additional security tooling, visits to the offshore locations etc.

If customers wanted the jobs to be in the UK they would stipulate this in the contracts and then the outsourcers would have to be contractually compliant.

To suggests the customers are outsourcing to providers with no knowledge of what's happening to the staff's roles is disingenuous, however it is convenient for them to pass the blame on to the outsourcer when the publicity is bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

if we won't have foreigners

to do the cheap work in the UK, we will outsource their cheap work. Hurrah for brexit (has anyone mentioned brexit yet?!)

[Anonymous Coward]

Its nice to see BBC trying to return to classic quality programming!

I bet it's been awhile since many of you have seen "Please stand by, we are experiencing technical difficulties" on television!

[Dan 55]

Re: Its nice to see BBC trying to return to classic quality programming!

Why do you think they pay Huw Edwards so much? (link)

[JMiles]

In the end, the tax payer is paying for the profits of some commercial entity and the jobs of people elsewhere in the world.

I must be in the minority who believe that taking tax payers money to give it to a commercial operator who was only chosen because they could offer the lowest price by sending jobs abroad is wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I must be in the minority who believe that taking tax payers money to give it to a commercial operator who was only chosen because they could offer the lowest price by sending jobs abroad is wrong."

But a majority of the people who actually understand the issue.

As someone above points out, the thing worse than "foreigners coming here and taking our jobs" (Not commenting on whether this is valid or not) is foreigners coming here and taking our money to spend on jobs abroad, so that the money isn't being circulated in this country any more.

There was that case recently of the woman who applied for Swiss citizenship and was turned down, inter alia, because she shopped at Aldi and not in the village shops where she lived. Whatever it tells you about Swiss narrow mindedness, it also tells you that they understand economics rather well.

[Commswonk]

foreigners coming here and taking our money to spend on jobs abroad, so that the money isn't being circulated in this country any more.

This is an entirely valid point; furthermore we regularly hear someone from gov.uk crowing about the number of people in work and yet this never seems to be accompanied by a corresponding increase in the tax revenue available to support the NHS, Police, and so on.

I am of the view that the increasing number of people reportedly in work conceals an uncomfortable fact; I suspect that many of the jobs they do are at a level of remuneration that entitles the individuals to in - work benefits that more than wipe out what little income tax that they pay; I suspect that many of the jobs are subsidised by taxpayers to the point that they drain resources from the Exchequer, not add to them.

IIRC at one point the government stipulated that "Indian" restaurants wishing to import skilled chefs had to pay a minimum salary somewhere i.r.o. £20,000, which is well above what someone on "living wage" currently earns. It may actually have been more than that figure. Whether it actually came to pass I don't know.

Overall our current employment practices (inc overseas outsourcing) and what people are paid are completely unsustainable.

[Halfmad]

New tooling?

Some new top level management with "sir" and "Dame" as titles picking up a pay cheque?

[MMR]

Oh well. Only a matter of time before the PM is outsourced to Capita/Serco/G4S.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

News at Ten

And now on BBC1, live from Mumbai, the News at Ten.

[Anonymous South African Coward]

In the end people will not go into IT as there will be no job security, leading to a critical worker shortage, which may be exacerbated should hostilities between the countries involved, break out.

Now *that* will be an interesting scenario.

[crediblywitless]

Believing the opposite of what James Purnell says and doing the opposite of what he wants strike me as generally good rules of thumb.

[-martin-]

Do these companies just add Million or billion onto the end of the numbers? How can things possibly cost this much!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a plus side

With this raft of new jobs going to India, perhaps some of those that ring me on a daily basis to tell me that my computer has a virus will be able to find gainful and "honest" employment.

Honest in inverted commas as little in value when coming from the BBC. Is that the truth or did you hear it on the BBC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: There is a plus side

@AC

With this raft of new jobs going to India, perhaps some of those that ring me on a daily basis to tell me that my computer has a virus will be able to find gainful and "honest" employment.

Well, gainful at the very least, depending upon the job, have access to a smörgåsbord of identity and bank account details to plunder. Posting as AC as I've reported incident at place I work...

[CPU]

LOL- the fools

As someone working for another national company that did this, I can say that service has plummeted and costs has risen indirectly. What I mean is that the powers-that-be thought the outsource was all encompassing (cap on costs), but guess what, it's not. And boy are the outsourcers taking in the extra money in the form of "not in the contract" response.

Congratulations Beeb Management, you've just lit the fuse on your own demise, but you don't care, because you're going to award yourselves big fat bonus for being "clever".

[sp1nyn0rman]

Beeb Offshoring?

Easier way to address the gender pay gap - reduce the pay of thos earning over £150K to the salaries the Women earn. no problem, women have parity and no pay rise, those richer than Croesus have to work for once in their lives if they want to earn £2M+

[NeilPost]

TUPE Breach ??

So I guess these people are being effectively being made unfairly redundant under their TUPE protection from BBC --> Siemens --> ATOS. I don;t think off-shoring jobs to Poland because they are cheap covers an Organisational Change. As both the UK and Poland are in the EU - The European Union Business Transfers Directive legislation this derives from will cover both ends.

"If an employee is made redundant for an 'economic, organisational or technical' reason involving changes to the workforce, they may be entitled to a redundancy payment. After a transfer, a new employer has to close down part of a company because it's not performing."

https://www.gov.uk/transfers-takeovers/redundancy

[Steve B]

Isn't this illegal?

I thought tendering was supposed to be blind. from the dialogue it is as though this Atos lot KNOW they have to bid lower to beat the others, which implies they know the figures.

As to the solution, can't say I really know any BBC faces, so the fees should be lowered and if the faces don't like it there are now several hundred alternative places for them to seek employment.

The major problem with the equalisation of sexes was that it was done wrong - same as minority equality. People should get a job because they are the best for the role, not because they are the right shape or colour. The reward for the role should be the same whoever gets it. Simple! You now have the best staff for the company, but then the type and shape numbers would not necessarily add up.

As for ourtsourcing to India, one only has to look at BT and their support. I had a simple issue to deal with, but it took something like 12 phone calls to their support line to find someone who understood Queens English AND knew the BT product AND knew what to do. It was a simple request about their Alarm Call service *55*, but one conversation - after 15 minutes went "Have BT installed a special Alarm extension in your house?" My shocked response on the lines of enquiring if she was taking the Michael resulted in the line being dropped and back to square one. btw they were never able to resolve the issue because the problem lay with different BT departments/companies and there was no interaction.

I know the last series of Doctor Who was complete crap but maybe this outsourcing lark included script typing via the IT. that would explain why it never made sense and was non-sequiter from previous series.

[Panda1]

BBC pay equality.

Reduce to overpaid mens salary to the same as the ladies....simples.

[Brian Allan 1]

I think the gender issue is being blown out of proportion. Companies simply look at the bottom line and decide where they can optimize expense vs. revenue, i.e.: the highest profit for shareholders. And the lowest (manpower) expense is definitely not going to be found in the UK!