BRITONS have always been precious about other people knowing what they earn. Back in the late 70s, I was running communications for a major shipyard and we almost had a walk-out when the results of wage negotiations were published in the yard newspaper. Many of the men – who kept their earnings secret even from their wives – felt betrayed by what they saw as a breach of confidence.
Now, when we're facing ID cards, CCTV cameras on every corner, government snooping on phone calls and e-mails, and Twitter-ites telling the world the ups and down of their latest bout of constipation, privacy isn't quite the issue it once was.
We
certainly know how much every MP earns and, to our collective horror, what they claim in expenses. It's hardly surprising that they would want to deflect some of the attention away from themselves and that the House of Commons public accounts committee is now calling for the salaries of BBC presenters to be laid bare.
Their case has some merit. The BBC is, after all, another publicly-funded government department. The allegation is that while commercial channels have cut pay because of dwindling advertising, the BBC has been squandering public money by increasing its rates and paying ridiculous sums to the likes of Jonathan Ross, Graham Norton and Terry Wogan.
On the other hand, presenters are not legislating for the rest of us, pursuing alleged benefit cheats and setting tax rates. They are simply employed individuals and, since many of them have legally-binding confidentiality agreements, the BBC is so far refusing to divulge the information.
Where would it end? It may be interesting to see what high-profile entertainers pocket but you can't penalise one particular group of employees. If we're going to peek into BBC pay packets, surely the sound engineer, the production secretary and the second grip would be subject to the same scrutiny?
In order to get a handle on the comparison, presumably, we would also have to know what the commercial competition is paying its staff, even though they are not paid from the public purse.
As we now realise, any meaningful demonstration of someone's income also has to take into account their expenses, perks and pensions which can easily outweigh the salary.
Suddenly, the principle that everyone's earnings should be their own business is crumbling. In fact, it's making me question why we ever placed any importance on salary confidentiality in the first place.
The banks, the tax man and credit companies already know what we earn and equal pay legislation has broadened the right to know even more so does it really matter if everyone's wages are a matter of public record?
Some employers wouldn't like it. There would be no hiding place for those paying below the going rate and being mean, paying one sex more than the other, or displaying unreasonable and unwarranted favouritism.
It would also expose certain economies with the truth. For example, official sources may claim classroom teachers are paid up to £40,000 a year but whenever I've used such figures I get a raft of teachers writing in to say they don't know any colleagues earning that much.
So let's see for ourselves. It would be a massive amount of information but the web can handle it. Every company and institution – publicly funded or not – has the data for every employee at its finger-tips and within moments could transfer the lot online.
I've tried to think of any – honourable – reason someone might want to keep their earnings private . . . to no avail. And frankly, if there was such a reason, I'm sure an MP would have come up with it by now.
Stage is setTo those who think Susan Boyle, or anyone who is vulnerable, unstable, or in any way mentally fragile, should be barred from talent contests and showbiz on the grounds that they can't cope with public attention and rejection, I can only say . . . Amy Winehouse, Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, Stephen Fry, Marilyn Monroe, Tony Hancock and Spike Milligan.
Just as recent reports have claimed top-class athletes are prone to obsessive compulsive disorder, the world of showbiz is renowned for flakiness, instability and the prima donna complex. It may not be a prerequisite for the job but it's more than likely that there is some correlation between inborn disposition and the quest for stardom.
I buy the argument that such individuals need more looking after, especially by the recording companies, moguls and industries who make so much out of them. But banning them and their genuine talents from opportunities available to others is sheer discrimination.
If everyone of a less than robust psyche was ruled out of entertainment, the A list could fit on a postage stamp and we might as well all go back to Saturday nights of family singalongs around the piano and a game of cribbage before bed.
