BBC scapegoats junior staff
BECTU is accusing the BBC of targeting junior staff members, following the sacking of a radio producer member.
BBC Broadcasting House. (Picture: Tony Scott)
BECTU has been supporting a number of union members during the BBC's investigations into editorial failings and believes that the BBC is not prepared to discipline senior editors and channel controllers, preferring instead to "shoot a few Indians and leave the Chiefs alone".
BECTU Assistant General Secretary Luke Crawley said: "The executive producers and channel controllers of the programmes where these errors have occurred really should be in the firing line.
"Senior editorial staff are very well paid to take editorial responsibility and were either aware of these widespread practices and are therefore culpable, or did not know about them when they should have done and are incompetent.
"It is unjust and disproportionate to scapegoat and sack a single producer whilst others walk free."
BECTU believes that the drastic job cuts of the last three years, with nearly four thousand people (20% of the staff) either redundant or outsourced, have placed unacceptable pressures on the production staff left behind.
When this is coupled with the demands of channel controllers and commissioning editors for high ratings and interactivity with the audience, the predictable result is the temptation to cut corners.
BECTU members do not condone deceit in programme making, but find it unacceptably harsh that the BBC wants to draw a line under it all after sacking a single producer.
Meanwhile the union's BBC Audio and Music Production Branch has issued an open letter to Director General Mark Thompson criticising management's handling of programme deception.
An open letter to Mark Thompson
Dear Mark,
We as staff of Audio and Music are appalled at the way in which the BBC has handled the issues of "deception" in programming - in particular, the lack of equality and fairness in the treatment of staff at different levels and in different areas of the organisation. Certain junior staff, and certain networks, have clearly been scapegoated for coming forward and being open when asked. This flies in the face of clear assurances from you to the contrary, e.g. Point EIGHT in your ringmain address of 18 July:
"We are not going to have a witch-hunt. I am grateful that so many of you have helped us, and are continuing to help us with this trawl. Openness and honesty are critical in addressing the problem. Nonetheless, we need to understand why it has taken so long for some of these editorial failures to come to light, given that we started asking questions about phone-related problems back in March. In some cases, the relevant editorial leaders may be asked to stand back from their duties, while these further inquiries take place."
In one Audio and Music network, a producer has been sacked, while the 'relevant editorial leader' - who was himself fully aware of and complicit in the "deception" - was not even asked to 'stand back from' his duties. On the contrary, he was fully involved in the process against the producer in question, and gave assurances that those under investigation would not 'get into trouble'. The editorial leader's resignation now appears to have been accepted. This contrasts markedly with the treatment of the producer, who has been 'summarily dismissed' - the severest penalty possible, usually reserved for such crimes as fraud, theft for personal gain, and assault. It is a penalty that does not allow the subject the chance of resigning. This begs the question, "Did the BBC accept the resignation of somebody who was involved in a disciplinary process that was likely to result in summary dismissal"? If so, why?
It must also be stated that no BBC staff members gained personally from these editorial lapses, neither did the BBC profit.
The singling out of particular networks and particular junior staff in itself presents a deceptive picture to the public. The editorial failures - which we all condemn - were the result of a BBC-wide culture, created at the top and disseminated downwards. A culture in which fewer and fewer staff are expected to do more and more work, and junior staff are pressured by senior managers to compete and get results at all costs, regardless of the corners that have to be cut. Do you really expect us to believe that these bad practices continued, sometimes for years, without the knowledge of senior management? Our members and colleagues believe that the time window of Jan 2005 to May 2007 was arbitrary and has masked the fact that similar things were happening before that time. To apply the severest penalty to a member of staff because they committed offences within a certain time-window, but to allow others who did the same to go unpunished because they were committing the offence before the period in question is unfair.
Retrospectively punishing people for editorial failures in such a climate is itself appallingly bad practice. Doing it inconsistently is even worse. Focussing punishment disproportionately on junior staff is worse still. Applying the disproportionate punishment of 'summary dismissal' is totally unjustifiable.
We are also disgusted to have found out about most of this via Sky News and the Daily Mail - while, we understand, the internal newspaper Ariel has been banned from reporting it directly. So much for 'openness'!
We call for the reinstatement of staff who have been summarily dismissed within Audio and Music. There is no public demand for such punishment. It is enough that editorial failures be recognised and condemned, and warnings given, with the clear message 'never again'. You are asking us to 'move on' and draw a line under this process. We will be able to do this when we see that the process is fair, equal and proportionate. Unless you act swiftly to achieve this, you will have lost our trust. We look forward to your positive response.
The BBC Audio & Music Production Branch, BECTU