 |
| From L-R: Matt Dawson, Sue Barker and Phil Tufnell (Image: Radio Times) |
If there's anything we've learnt over the past six months is to not take our so-called 'healthy job status' for granted. As the lockdown has resulted in companies not receiving enough income to survive and the government's furlough scheme falling short in helping struggling businesses, unemployment rate has increased to 4.1 percent from 3.9 percent in July. Meanwhile, 2.7 million are claiming benefits (August 2020), a 120 percent increase from March. Soon, we'll find out the greater picture of how the pandemic has impacted people's economics once new figures are released in October and November.
But I'm not going to dwell on people losing their jobs which was deemed, sadly, inevitable. I'm going deeper into those who have lost their perfectly safe jobs; those who have done nothing wrong apart from the fact that their bosses decide a change of personnel is needed, and today. I wouldn't like to think this is a common occurrence, but there have been high profile cases of this - and they've puzzled me as much it has as others who enjoy the presence of those who lost their positions.
In this instance, I'm talking about the dismissal of Sue Barker, Matt Dawson and Phil Tufnell on BBC's A Question of Sport, and Matt Le Tissier, Phil Thompson and Charlie Nicholas on Sky Sports' Soccer Saturday.
On A Question of Sport, Sue Barker presented the show for 24 years, while Dawson - a former rugby union player - first appeared as a team captain 16 years ago, while Tufnell - a former cricketer - replaced Ally McCoist as rival team captain 12 years ago. Former Liverpool and England defender Phil Thompson was on Sky Sports' books for 22 years, Le Tissier was regularly a pundit on Soccer Saturday since he retired from football in 2003 and Nicholas - who played for Scotland, Arsenal and Celtic during his playing career - had been on the show for as long as I can remember.
The reason for their departures aren't truly known, but the bosses have made clear they wish to take the shows to a 'different direction'. It is easy to fall into the arguments that the shows 'lacked diversity' or that they need to allow 'younger talents' to take on the hot-seats, but I don't want to think that either is true. The last thing bosses want to be accused of is tokenism, right? But you can't help but even considering those ideas because actually, none of the six people who lost their jobs have done anything wrong, and the decision to remove them concerns me.
Restructuring or changing a business model is common practice and particularly if new and progressive ideas or initiatives are proposed and agreed, then a restructure or change is required to support them. And often, they are welcomed changes, even if that meant job losses. If things aren't going to plan, then you have to go to the drawing board and find ways to steer away from crises. But when things are going well, and people get along and delivering good results, there isn't a need to take drastic action to wreck the status quo. And this applies to any sector, not limited to the entertainment industry.
Can you imagine if bosses of BBC's Have I Got News For You decided to boot out Ian Hislop or Paul Merton? Or ITV's The Chase with Bradley Walsh? Or if Channel 4's The Last Leg got rid of Adam Hills, Josh Widdicombe or Alex Brooker? I'd join the outrage of others who believe they were set aside without justification. These shows - including A Question of Sport and Soccer Saturday - have a selection of personalities who get along well together and provide value to their audiences. When you change that with little notice, questions are bound to be asked. And it can cause a headache for these bosses should those who feel they were unfairly dismissed take matters to the courts.
I'm not saying or suggesting that these people are indispensable and that their jobs are safe by default. When you work, you are judged by performance and how you bond with a team. The moment where either is questioned by those who provide you with a salary, a discussion is needed as to whether your position is obtainable. Also, we know the moment if, say Bradley Walsh or Ian Hislop for example, did something undeniably awful, and that impacted their work, they should go. But if you're good at your job and get along with those around you, and aren't doing anything wrong or unjust, surely it is up to that person whether they stay or go?
Bosses need to do more to justify the reasons for the significant changes they make, and provide hard facts to support their decisions rather than vague excuses. Again, this is regardless of the sector. It's easy for me to give examples from the entertainment industry because these incidents are widely reported. This is a trend that's happening across all industries and it needs to stop.
 |
| L-R: Matt Le Tissier, Paul Merson, Phil Thompson, Charlie Nicholas (Image: The Drum) |
Comments
Post a Comment