Please note: the union ballot was of UK nationals who are members of BECTU, NUJ and AMICUS.

Question: Isn't Mark Thompson's refusal to negotiate (as opposed to consult) the main immediate hurdle? May this not be breaching labour law, which obliges employers to strive to minimise the scale of redundancies. It is surely unreasonable for Mark to regard the 3,780 job reductions as a fixed number at this stage.

BBC's Reply: We are not refusing to talk to the unions. Consultation started last September and we have had a number of meetings with the unions - including with Mark Thompson. It's the unions who have said that the 'procedure is exhausted'. Our union agreements use the terminology 'to consult' as does the law. Irrespective of which word you use, the BBC believes that the answer is to continue talking. We want to achieve as much as possible by voluntary means (the unions are preventing us from trawling for volunteers at the moment) and we have a shared interest in working with the unions to ensure that the BBC is stronger, more efficient and more audience relevant at the end of all the changes. Strike action does not remove the need for further consultation or the need for the BBC to implement changes which reflect new technology, audience expectations or the need to find re-investment which funds our programme and service aspirations.

Question: Won't the redundancies diminish the quality of BBC output by putting extra pressures on remaining staff? Won't this in turn put the licence fee settlement in danger?

BBC's Reply: The end result of the changes we propose will be much more money into programmes - not less. This doesn't support the argument that our proposals will damage quality - quite the opposite. We share a vested interest with the unions to make sure that the changes are manageable and sustainable. We want the BBC to continue to be a great place to work. We believe that new technology and new working practices can remove duplication and pressure on individuals - we want to make the BBC simpler and more efficient at all levels. These are all things we want to discuss with the unions - there's a tremendous amount of detail that needs to be discussed but they've walked away from the table. Also remember, that Mark Thompson wants to make these changes to fund an improved service to audiences - we too have no wish to see quality, creativity or standards suffer.

Question: It surely can't be true that the corporation has been 'bloated' in recent years. Each year over the past decade, there have been efficiency savings and our output has expanded, isn't it nonsense to suggest there has been unbridled spending?

BBC's Reply: We want to make the changes to divert more money into programmes and services. The BBC has a history of change - we can't stand still. We have a responsibility to licence fee payers to put the greatest money possible into output.

Question: Many of the staff who take redundancy will end up working for the BBC again as contractors or suppliers. Therefore isn't the BBC wasting the money spent to make them redundant.

BBC's Reply: Given that we've said the purpose of our proposals is to put a great deal more money into programmes, the BBC has no intention of needlessly making people redundant - we believe the job reductions are sustainable, given new technology and working practices. However, we will continue to use contractors and freelancers as required - like any other media organisation.

Question: If 19% of the corporation is to be forced out, then the executive committee and senior managers shouldn't be exempt yet where are the reductions there?

BBC's Reply: The Board roles of Director of Policy and Legal and Director of Strategy and Distribution have been combined and the post of Secretary has been closed. The job cuts also include a number of senior managers (including those reporting to Divisional Directors) whose posts close. The changes go right across the organisation and affect all levels.



If you have another question about the union dispute, please email change@bbc.co.uk