Would you want my job cut?

bendix

lostinrates wrote: »

Unless I'm wrong about you not working at same firm as DH there is at least one other who hasn't The only reason I think you don't work at that firm is a figue you gave for salaries of trainees.

Is there a list of City firms, leading or otherwise, who've made cuts? I've noticed as they have appeared on The Lawyer or RoF but not seen a list of all cuts to date.

Virtually all of them with three notable exceptions. The Lawyer used to keep a running tally but it got too unwieldy. Name a firm and they have all done it: CC, Linklaters, A&O, Simmons, all the US firms, White and Case, Norton Rose, Bakers, Lovells, DLA, Mayer Brown, Ashurst, SJ Berwin, CMS etc

bendix

ninky wrote: »

well exactly. you said S&M were doing the government a favour. as you point out, it wasn't really a favour, just a considered business move....

corporate social responsibility my a**e.

hippy pedant. ;-)

It can still be a favour, even if it benefits both sides.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

It can still be a favour, even if it benefits both sides.

oh yeah, sorry, forgot about the old boy's network definition of "favour". in my book it means doing something for which you don't expect anything in return.:A

lostinrates

bendix wrote: »

Virtually all of them with three notable exceptions. The Lawyer used to keep a running tally but it got too unwieldy. Name a firm and they have all done it: CC, Linklaters, A&O, Simmons, all the US firms, White and Case, Norton Rose, Bakers, Lovells, DLA, Mayer Brown, Ashurst, SJ Berwin, CMS etc

lir's comprehension therapy for next week, make a list of City firm cut backs to keep updated:o:D

Fo my own reference I'm trying to decide where the boundaries should be. I'm thinking of an amalgamation of The top UK 100 and the Global top 100 where its not duplicated and the firm has a uk office. After all, its a global problem

bendix

ninky wrote: »

oh yeah, sorry, forgot about the old boy's network definition of "favour". in my book it means doing something for which you don't expect anything in return.:A

No ninky. That's called stupidity. There's a difference.

Try to keep up.

bendix

Anyway, back to the OP.

In case it isn't already clear, I would most definitely cut his job. You're fired, pal.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

oh yeah, sorry, forgot about the old boy's network definition of "favour". in my book it means doing something for which you don't expect anything in return.:A

I scratch your back....you do nowt?

i8change

If, as Jeremy Clarkson pointed out, the French have no Health and Safety Executive and can run the country safely with all those nucleur reactors. I bet we could cope with a few fireworks. The efficiency savings without an overly expansive HSE could probably give us a better Health service, like the French.

ninky_2

Please please please can we not allow Jeremy Clarkson to set government policy. A man who claims to be against government and pro personal freedom yet opposes the right to roam and tried to stop a public footpath across land on one of his extra properties....

carolt

bendix wrote: »

No, we don't do work for the government. Frankly, there is not enough money in it. It's wellknown in legal circles that firms who do work for government do so at a massive loss - Slaughter and May might have billed £12m to the government on the deal yuo refer to but there would be absolutely no profit in it whatsoever.

The firm I worked for made the conscious decision not to do such work years ago, and it's the right one.

For the record, I have no idea how much a Sparkler Monitor like Sir H earns. Far too much for the merit of the job, I suppose. And for the record, I too believe I am vastly overpaid for my job. I freely admit it.

But - and here's the rub - my employers (the partners of this firm) obviously think differently otherwise they wouldnt pay me. I would be out of here quicker than Sir H can spot a dodgy Chinese Rocket. They are savvy business people who's income is directly related to the money in / money out ratio. Who am I to argue with them?

Now, who are Sir H's employers? Who pay his salary?

Chalk and cheese old pal. Chalk and the finest cheddar.

If there is 'absolutely no profit in it whatsoever', given they were paid millions for it, might I suggest they are desperately overpaying their staff?

The problem here appears to be that lawyers are routinely overpaid, and that they expect to be paid at that level when doing work for the public sector.

If they're working for the public sector, I see no reason why they should be paid more than Sir Humph - after all, he's an Oxford grad and I daresay could have got a job at the 'large international law firm' of his choice. But he chose not to - to earn less and work for the public good, putting that as his number 1 priority, not just getting a bigger salary.

I daresay there are indeed some jobsworths in the public sector - I'm not going to claim that everyone who works there is some perfect angel - but I have no particular reason to disbelieve the OP when he claims his job is in the public interest.