Would you want my job cut?

i8change

JC obviously does not set government policy and never will, but the French have a great Nucleur safety record with no HSE.
I also don't want the public walking across my property, not everyone knows how to behave nowadays.

bigheadxx

bendix wrote: »

Perhaps we need to create a new public sector department to protect us from sharp knives in people's kitchens. My suggestion is to have one Sir H-alike assigned to every UK household, providign training and round the clock vigilance on how to pick it up from the right side.

When the incidence of knife-related catastrophe's falls dramatically as a result, the head of the department can take time off from his duties, head to the computer in the house he or she is assigned to and post a similar note asking if we think it's a job worth keeping.

Sir Humphrey is very worried that this department does not already exist and is busy preparing emergency legislation to rectify this as a matter of urgency.

Sir_Humphrey

i8change wrote: »

JC obviously does not set government policy and never will, but the French have a great Nucleur safety record with no HSE.
I also don't want the public walking across my property, not everyone nows how to behave nowadays.

Do you seriously think that the French don't have nuclear inspectors? Do you seriously think that France doesn't have H&S laws, even if they are not organised into an actual agency. If you take Clarkson as anything other than a comedian, you must be really, really thick. Rude, but fair comment.

carolt

Nonsesne, the French are too busy eating garlic and shagging to bother about nuclear safety.

Pah.

ninky_2

i8change wrote: »

I also don't want the public walking across my property.

perhaps best not to buy one with a "permissive path" across it then.

bendix

carolt wrote: »

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 quote]


They get paid more than Sir H, because they do a different job. They are lawyers, for chrissake, and they are paid whatever the market rate enables them to be paid. Their servcies are obviously in more demand than Sir H's otherwise they wouldnt be able to command higher salaries. It's not rocket science.

You DO understand the principle of different pay for different skills, dont you? Or are you suggesting a Maoist same salary for everyone type ninky-esque utopia?

It's supply and demand. Why would a law firm - or any other business - deliberately lower their prices, JUST because it is for the public sector. If the public sector wants to hire its own inhouse lawyers, and they pay whatever salary they think fair, good for them. Then they wouldnt have to use law firms like mine. We wouldn't mind. No skin off our nose at all.

They choose not to. Instead, they make a business decision to hire outside lawyers. It's no good attacking the law firms for that - attack the public sector.

The logic of your argument is bizarre. They are external businesses, being hired by a public sector organisation and you are saying that they should cut their rates because of that. By extension, are you also suggesting that every other supplier to the public sector provides cheapies too? Should their stationary supplier charge seperate rates to public v private clients? Utter nonsense.

At the end of the day, rates are fixed by discussion. If we are too high, the public sector will say no thanks. No problem. If we dont get what we want, we too will walk away and the public sector will have to find another legal resuorce. Good for them.

What exactly is your argument?

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

They get paid more than Sir H, because they do a different job. They are lawyers, for chrissake, and they are paid whatever the market rate enables them to be paid. Their servcies are obviously in more demand than Sir H's otherwise they wouldnt be able to command higher salaries. It's not rocket science.

their services are not more "in demand", it's just their client base is wealthier and stands to make even more money from the use of their services.

it's not a question of "demand", it's a question of assigned "value". unfortunately the free market gives more value to some things than a sensible person might. nurse v advertising exec / street cleaner v corporate lawyer.

bluey890

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

This is what happens when people ignore the regulations that I work on.

If you wrote the regulations properly in the first place you wouldn't need to continually waste time updating them!
More Public Sector waste. :beer:

carolt

bendix wrote: »

carolt wrote: »

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 quote]


They get paid more than Sir H, because they do a different job. They are lawyers, for chrissake, and they are paid whatever the market rate enables them to be paid. Their servcies are obviously in more demand than Sir H's otherwise they wouldnt be able to command higher salaries. It's not rocket science.

You DO understand the principle of different pay for different skills, dont you? Or are you suggesting a Maoist same salary for everyone type ninky-esque utopia?

It's supply and demand. Why would a law firm - or any other business - deliberately lower their prices, JUST because it is for the public sector. If the public sector wants to hire its own inhouse lawyers, and they pay whatever salary they think fair, good for them. Then they wouldnt have to use law firms like mine. We wouldn't mind. No skin off our nose at all.

They choose not to. Instead, they make a business decision to hire outside lawyers. It's no good attacking the law firms for that - attack the public sector.

The logic of your argument is bizarre. They are external businesses, being hired by a public sector organisation and you are saying that they should cut their rates because of that. By extension, are you also suggesting that every other supplier to the public sector provides cheapies too? Should their stationary supplier charge seperate rates to public v private clients? Utter nonsense.

At the end of the day, rates are fixed by discussion. If we are too high, the public sector will say no thanks. No problem. If we dont get what we want, we too will walk away and the public sector will have to find another legal resuorce. Good for them.

What exactly is your argument?

You want the public sector to underpay its civil servants - but not its lawyers brought in from outside.

Paying one is 'waste' - paying the other several times as much is 'market forces'.

How convenient.

Sir_Humphrey

Of course Lawyers are going to earn more than me - that is real life, just as the qualified nuclear inspectors I work with earn a lot more than me.

I never said I had a problem with lawyers earning good money. It is funny how people claim to like capitalism and market forces and then complain that some people earn more than themselves. Perhaps they would not be happy until everyone in the UK was earning £5k a year - just imagine how little tax they would pay!