Kelvin MacKenzie claims in the Mail that some BBC staff get paid extra for failing to get promoted:

This is an absolute belter — so make sure you have taken your blood pressure tablets before reading on . . .

My mole at the BBC tells me there is much irritability over an independent report, commissioned by the Corporation’s Director-General Mark Thompson some months ago, into the working methods and productivity of staff in local radio.

The report, by veteran commercial radio executive John Myers, is yet to be published but I’m told it reveals an extraordinary arrangement with regard to BBC staff wages.

Apparently, any employee at one of the 40 local radio stations (which employ a total of 3,000 people) who has gone five years without promotion will receive a cheque for £4,600 — which is described as ‘disappointment’ money.


Read more here

Well here's the actual paragraph from the report:

Where there may be a valid argument that salary levels as such reflect the true skill and experience of some staff, it is the total cost of employment that is more worrying. In this regard, the cost of individual salaries can jump by as much as 25% and this covers pension rights, unpredictability allowances and for some, even a scheme called "growth in job‟ payments which can give a member of staff who hasn‟t been promoted an additional payment of £4,600 after six years‟ service.

Subtly different from Kelvin Mackenzie's take on the subject.

The whole report is not overlong and is worth a read. It can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/myersreport.html...

He's largely supportive of Local Radio and doesn't think that the proposed DFQ savings are feasible.

There's no mention of 3000 staff, the words "Disappointment Pay" or any suggestion that all staff are entitled to what sounds rather like what we used to call annual increments.

He does suggest a slimming down of management (when does that ever happen?) and points out what we all know - that centralisation of services often costs money and central overheads are disproportionately high.