BBC journalists oppose offshoring of programming to IndiaAgenciesPosted
News: Reuters is going in the lap of Thomson Press. Zee Group is going to acquire UNI. And recently offshoring of Journalists from south Asia working in the Hindi, Tamil, Urdu, Tamil, Bengali and Sinhala sections of the BBC World Service in London. They have launched a campaign to protest against offshoring of programming to the Indian sub-continent.
A series of meetings have been held between the affected journalists and the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), which is supporting a union campaign against what is described as a "money-saving adventure" of the BBC management.
The offshoring involves new contracts for the London-based journalists who have been told to accept redundancy or relocate to their countries of origin in south Asia, and accept downgraded pay conditions.
Defending the move, the BBC said it had plans to have around 50 per cent of overall language service staff located closer to their audiences.
Mike Gardner, Head of Media Relations at the BBC World Service, said: "The proposed redeployments of staff to India, Pakistan and Nepal recognise the new media realities in those countries."
He added: "It aims to serve our audiences in the region better; equip those services with the qualities that will be successful in these fiercely competitive media landscapes; and use resources more efficiently."
Gardner said, it was BBC World Service's policy that its language services work closer to the audiences they serve for some time.
However, Indian and other south Asian BBC journalists said that the redeployment would "dismantle a broadcasting service that is the envy of the world". They added that it would affect their working and the lives of their families.
Jeremy Dear, general secretary of the NUJ, said after a meeting with BBC's south Asian journalists "We are committed to opposing these offshoring plans which are ill-founded and put at threat not just jobs but editorial quality, integrity and the future of the world service".
Dear said the plans which would have a fundamental impact on staff and their families were conceived without proper consultation and were in breach of agreements, which should worry staff across all BBC services.
"It is unacceptable that staff should be faced with the kind of choices - offshore or go - the BBC are seeking to impose... We're not against new staff, not against being closer to listeners across the sub-continent. We are against jobs being cut, offshored and outsourced to meet artificial budget restrictions.
News: Reuters is going in the lap of Thomson Press. Zee Group is going to acquire UNI. And recently offshoring of Journalists from south Asia working in the Hindi, Tamil, Urdu, Tamil, Bengali and Sinhala sections of the BBC World Service in London. They have launched a campaign to protest against offshoring of programming to the Indian sub-continent.
A series of meetings have been held between the affected journalists and the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), which is supporting a union campaign against what is described as a "money-saving adventure" of the BBC management.
The offshoring involves new contracts for the London-based journalists who have been told to accept redundancy or relocate to their countries of origin in south Asia, and accept downgraded pay conditions.
Defending the move, the BBC said it had plans to have around 50 per cent of overall language service staff located closer to their audiences.
Mike Gardner, Head of Media Relations at the BBC World Service, said: "The proposed redeployments of staff to India, Pakistan and Nepal recognise the new media realities in those countries."
He added: "It aims to serve our audiences in the region better; equip those services with the qualities that will be successful in these fiercely competitive media landscapes; and use resources more efficiently."
Gardner said, it was BBC World Service's policy that its language services work closer to the audiences they serve for some time.
However, Indian and other south Asian BBC journalists said that the redeployment would "dismantle a broadcasting service that is the envy of the world". They added that it would affect their working and the lives of their families.
Jeremy Dear, general secretary of the NUJ, said after a meeting with BBC's south Asian journalists "We are committed to opposing these offshoring plans which are ill-founded and put at threat not just jobs but editorial quality, integrity and the future of the world service".
Dear said the plans which would have a fundamental impact on staff and their families were conceived without proper consultation and were in breach of agreements, which should worry staff across all BBC services.
"It is unacceptable that staff should be faced with the kind of choices - offshore or go - the BBC are seeking to impose... We're not against new staff, not against being closer to listeners across the sub-continent. We are against jobs being cut, offshored and outsourced to meet artificial budget restrictions.
Gardner noted that there was a rapidly changing media environment and highly competitive market both for radio and on-line in all parts of the world.
"This presents the BBC with new challenges, but also opportunities. It means the BBC can work closer with our local FM partner stations that deliver around one-third of our 183 million listeners a week and allows us to respond more rapidly to changing local media market conditions." According to Arjum Wajid of the BBC Urdu Service, the offshoring process started three years ago when Hindi programming was progressively shifted from Bush House, London, to New Delhi. This included the Hindi online service.
In 2007 end, staff of the Hindi Service was reportedly told that 80 per cent of the programming would be moved to India, while the Urdu Service staff learnt that 50 per cent programming would move to Islamabad.
"This presents the BBC with new challenges, but also opportunities. It means the BBC can work closer with our local FM partner stations that deliver around one-third of our 183 million listeners a week and allows us to respond more rapidly to changing local media market conditions." According to Arjum Wajid of the BBC Urdu Service, the offshoring process started three years ago when Hindi programming was progressively shifted from Bush House, London, to New Delhi. This included the Hindi online service.
In 2007 end, staff of the Hindi Service was reportedly told that 80 per cent of the programming would be moved to India, while the Urdu Service staff learnt that 50 per cent programming would move to Islamabad.
BBC accused of off-shoring deception BECTU has accused the BBC of misleading Parliament over details of its plan to move finance jobs to India. The union has publicised a major discrepancy between information given to staff about the deal, and submissions made by top Corporation executives to the Public Accounts Committee.
“Parliament appears to have been mislead over whether the XANSA bid was the lowest” At a hearing on November 29th in the House of Commons the BBC claimed that a bid by Xansa, the company which was awarded a contract involving hundreds of jobs going to India, was the cheapest that had been received.
This contradicted a meeting only a day earlier, where the BBC had told BECTU officials that Xansa's bid was not the cheapest.
MPs also heard that all bidders for the BBC's finance contract, currently in the hands of Media Accounting Services (Medas), had included an element of offshore work in their proposals.
However, at the meeting with union representatives, the BBC said that the bid from Medas itself did not include any element of off-shoring, although some jobs would have been moved from London to Swansea if the company had won renewal of its contract.
BECTU Official Luke Crawley said: "The BBC is contradicting itself in its stories about the cost of off-shoring jobs. If what it says to the staff and BECTU is true then the BBC is spending more public money to send jobs overseas than it would cost to keep those jobs in the UK. This also raises a question about why the public purse should fund the resulting unemployment of this exercise.
"Parliament appears to have been mislead over whether the XANSA bid was the lowest bid for the outsourced work", he continued. "BECTU is calling on the BBC to own up and tell the truth, either it has lied to Parliament or it has lied to the staff and Unions about the contract."
The BBC's responded by saying that the winning bid from Xansa included a number of one-off costs that made "one of the other bidders marginally cheaper than the Xansa bid". BECTU has taken this as confirmation that, over the life of the 10-year contract, another bidder, thought to be Medas, would have been cheaper than Xansa
"We're not against additional resources and staff - we are against seeking to get work on the cheap," he said.
“Parliament appears to have been mislead over whether the XANSA bid was the lowest” At a hearing on November 29th in the House of Commons the BBC claimed that a bid by Xansa, the company which was awarded a contract involving hundreds of jobs going to India, was the cheapest that had been received.
This contradicted a meeting only a day earlier, where the BBC had told BECTU officials that Xansa's bid was not the cheapest.
MPs also heard that all bidders for the BBC's finance contract, currently in the hands of Media Accounting Services (Medas), had included an element of offshore work in their proposals.
However, at the meeting with union representatives, the BBC said that the bid from Medas itself did not include any element of off-shoring, although some jobs would have been moved from London to Swansea if the company had won renewal of its contract.
BECTU Official Luke Crawley said: "The BBC is contradicting itself in its stories about the cost of off-shoring jobs. If what it says to the staff and BECTU is true then the BBC is spending more public money to send jobs overseas than it would cost to keep those jobs in the UK. This also raises a question about why the public purse should fund the resulting unemployment of this exercise.
"Parliament appears to have been mislead over whether the XANSA bid was the lowest bid for the outsourced work", he continued. "BECTU is calling on the BBC to own up and tell the truth, either it has lied to Parliament or it has lied to the staff and Unions about the contract."
The BBC's responded by saying that the winning bid from Xansa included a number of one-off costs that made "one of the other bidders marginally cheaper than the Xansa bid". BECTU has taken this as confirmation that, over the life of the 10-year contract, another bidder, thought to be Medas, would have been cheaper than Xansa
"We're not against additional resources and staff - we are against seeking to get work on the cheap," he said.
