BBC political staff's letter to NUJ

Dear all,

We would like to raise our serious concerns about holding a 48-hour strike during the Conservative party conference including on the day of the prime minister's speech. It risks looking unduly partisan – particularly when none of the other party conferences have been targeted.

Impartiality is the watchword for the BBC's political coverage and we would not wish to give a misleading impression that this is no longer something we value highly.

This is no comment on the proposed retrospective changes to the pension scheme which have caused widespread anger in the BBC nor is there any disagreement with the principle of strike action.

However, we are clear that the choice of strike dates is counterproductive.

We understand there have been discussions about this issue at branch level but many of us were unable to attend because we were working at the other party conferences hence this letter to make our position clear.

Peter Allen, presenter, 5 Live

Huw Edwards, presenter, BBC News

Martha Kearney, presenter, World at One, Radio 4

Emily Maitlis, presenter, BBC News/Newsnight

Jim Naughtie, presenter, Today, Radio 4

Jeremy Paxman, presenter BBC Newsnight

Carolyn Quinn, presenter, Radio 4

Nick Robinson, political editor

Jon Sopel, presenter BBC News/The Politics Show

Political correspondents (alphabetical order):

Reeta Chakrabarti

Jo Coburn

Michael Crick (political editor, Newsnight)

Naomi Grimley (BBC World Service)

David Grossman (Newsnight)

Ross Hawkins

Laura Kuenssberg (chief political correspondent, BBC News Channel)

James Landale (deputy political editor)

John Pienaar (chief political correspondent, Five Live)

David Porter (BBC Scotland)

Tim Reid (BBC Scotland)

Joanna Shinn

Norman Smith (chief political correspondent, BBC Radio 4)

Carole Walker

Iain Watson

Ben Wright

Vicky Young

Political production:

Felicity Baker

Andrew Gilhooly

Johanna Howitt

Rhodri Jones (Newsnight)

Alison MacDonald

Lindsay McCoy

Thea Rogers

Will Walden (assistant editor, Political News)

Claire Williams

Sinead Wilson

Response from NUJ chapel rep Simon Vaughan

From: Simon Vaughan

Of course I will represent your views, and those of others at Millbank who have supported the strikes in spite of the timing. No one at Millbank has jumped for joy at the choice of dates, me included. I don't know who is and who is not on the "political staff" by your definition, but even I share your reservations.

However, your fellow signatories could have been more vocal sooner, rather than relying on this kind of last minute, back room letter. I can hear your views perfectly well by email as by personal conversation.

The problem at this stage of the process is:

1. (Obviously) this only seems to be a big issue at Millbank.

2. Some of the names listed below are not members at Millbank, so they should have been putting pressure on their own M/FoCs to make it a big issue elsewhere.

3. Not everyone listed below is actually a member of the NUJ. M/FoCs only represent members of the NUJ, and only NUJ members can mandate them to vote in a particular way.

4. The strike dates have been backed by members from the NUJ and other joint unions in all other chapels across the BBC.

5. As illustrious as some of the names are on the list below, Unions work democratically, by majority vote.

6. The dates have been backed and supported by every other chapel in the UK. As such their reps are now mandated to support industrial action (if it is still required) on Friday.

7. You are asking me, as a single rep from a single chapel to ask everyone from the other four joint unions and every BBC NUJ chapel (except Millbank) to call off the strike because a small number of people disagree with it. I mean, I will ... but you can see the odds are ever so slightly stacked against me.

8. I hope all of you have written a similar letter to the DG/Helen Boaden/Sue Inglish in the same terms, expressing your strong views, because they have more power to end this dispute than I do. If you have not, then shame on you. It would be more comfortable if we weren't being asked to do this, on these dates, but we are where we are. It would be more comfortable if the BBC had left our pensions alone. This is an important battle and we have a very limited window in which to protect the pensions of *everyone* in the BBC, not just those select few lucky enough to count themselves among what you call the "political staff".

The UK's healthy media will ensure that the Conservatives' message gets out to people. But David Cameron will not step in to sort out the BBC pension robbery to thank you for your trouble. This is not a quid pro quo. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you this.

I will take your letter and the motion from the last chapel meeting with me on Friday and present them both in no uncertain terms to the M/FoC council.

I can do no more than that. However, the tied vote from the previous chapel meeting still stands. Taking this into account, I will abstain from any vote calling for industrial action on 5/6 October.

I'm sure you will receive other responses to this letter. I remain of the opinion that anyone who finds themselves at work on a strike day is making themselves complicit with the BBC's robbery of everyone else's pension. I only wish the BBC valued your impartiality, loyalty and diligence as highly as you do.

I remain yours, in solidarity,

Simon

Response from Ian Pollock, chair of the NUJ's BBC London branch

Hi,

Thanks for that letter.

According to the records of the London BBC branch 11 of 32 those signatories do not appear to be members of the NUJ, though they may be registered as members elsewhere or be in the process of joining.

The remaining 21 are members of this branch.

The London BBC branch has more than 1,000 members on its own and I was recently informed that the NUJ's membership at the BBC nationally has increased by more than 1,000 as a result of recruitment during our current dispute.

Taken alongside the recent 9-1 vote for strikes it is clear where the concerns of the vast majority of NUJ members lie; with their pensions and not with any temporary inconvenience to their day-to-day broadcasting.

In addition, the points you raised have received almost no support at recent union meetings at TV Centre, White City and BH.

Your letter therefore conveys a tiny minority concern.

Up till now I had received about a dozen or so emails, or had personal conversations, along similar lines to this letter, including from some of your signatories. I thought they were sincere in their views.

Now I see that the issue has been drawn to the attention of the Daily Mail. Who did that? And why? What were they hoping to achieve?

Frankly, I do not take kindly to non-members trying to unpick democratically taken decisions of the NUJ with the aid of loathsome enemies in Fleet Street.

There is a simple fact that you appear to be overlooking: the other political conferences would have been targeted too but fell outside our scope because of the long-winded niceties of calling strikes.

Not one NUJ member anywhere, to my knowledge, has suggested we target the Tories "because we don't like them". They simply happen to be the first in line of any number of high profile broadcasting events.

Instead of worrying about what other people may think, I suggest you adopt the rather more robust attitude to politicians of Sir Robin Day who (if I remember correctly) told the then defence minister John Knott, during the Falklands war, that he was a "here today, gone tomorrow" politician – live on BBC TV.

If you have any better tactical suggestions for conducting the strikes then all NUJ representatives will be glad to hear them.

But I have to tell you that taking Shaun the Sheep cartoons off air will not cut the mustard.

Ian

Source:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/30/bbc-political-staff-nuj

BBC strike during Conservative Conference threatens impartiality, says Mark Thompson

Mr Thompson’s remarks echoed an open letter from many of the corporation’s top political journalists, including Jeremy Paxman, James Naughtie and Nick Robinson, to the National Union of Journalists, in which they raised “serious concerns” about the timing of the 48-hour walkout.

Next week’s strike, over cuts to the BBC pension scheme, is planned to take place on Tuesday October 5 and Wednesday October 6. If it goes ahead, it risks blacking out the BBC’s coverage of David Cameron’s first speech to the Tory conference as Prime Minister, which is scheduled for 2.30pm on Wednesday.

Another 48-hour strike is planned for October 19 and 20, with the latter being the date on which the chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, will announce the results of the Government’s spending review.

“I’m also disturbed about the dates that have been chosen for these strikes,” said Mr Thompson at a staff pensions forum. “Is this the right moment to strike? We’re still at the start of a process and are still working through the detail with the unions. It’s not that talks have broken down or there’s an unbridgeable gap.”

The journalists’ letter, which was also signed by Huw Edwards, Martha Kearney and Laura Kuenssberg, said that the timing of next week’s strike “risks looking unduly partisan – particularly when none of the other party conferences have been targeted. Impartiality is the watchword for the BBC’s political coverage and we would not wish to give a misleading impression that this is no longer something we value highly.”

In another move designed to try and head off the strikes, Mr Thompson also confirmed yesterday that he and other members of the BBC’s executive board will give up the large payments that they receive in lieu of pension contributions.

For Mr Thompson alone, this will mean sacrificing £163,000 (out of a total remuneration last year of £838,000). The total waived by the executive board will be £646,000.

“It is very important that there is one set of schemes and choice within the BBC,” said Mr Thompson. “So for some directors this means very substantial reductions in the amount of remuneration they get.”

Today will see another frantic round of meetings, with union leaders seeing BBC management this morning. Each union’s leaders will then consulting with their branch representatives at lunchtime, before a meeting of all the unions involved - Bectu, the NUJ, Equity and Unite - in the afternoon.

A decision on whether the strikes will go ahead is expected at around 4pm today.

Jeremy Dear, the general secretary of the NUJ, said yesterday: “The selection of specific dates was not a political act. The dates were chosen by elected reps because they are major broadcast events and for no other reason. Tomorrow elected reps will meet again in London to agree next steps. The issue of strike dates will be openly debated at this meeting and a democratic agreement reached.”

However union sources yesterday indicated that they were not expecting a significant new offer from the BBC over the issue of pensions reform, meaning that the strikes will likely go ahead next week as planned.

NUJ representatives also reacted angrily to the senior journalists’ letter criticising the dates that had been chosen. “I hope all of you have written a similar letter to the director-general in the same terms,” said NUJ representative Simon Vaughan in his reply. “If you have not, then shame on you.”

The NUJ’s BBC London branch chairman, Ian Pollock, said: “If you have any better tactical suggestions for conducting the strikes then all NUJ representatives will be glad to hear them. But I have to tell you that taking Shaun the Sheep cartoons off air will not cut the mustard.”

By:-
Neil Midgley

Source:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8035260/BBC-strike-during-Cons...