Would you want my job cut?

bendix

ninky wrote: »

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.

I can't argue with that - I can never argue too vehemently with ninky because she brings her own lovely perspective to these debates.

What I can categorically say is that clients - even wealthy clients - wouldnt pay our very high fees if they didnt think it brought significantly more value to their business than the cost. It stands to reason.

I dont mean to be rude, but a street cleaner - to use your example - is useful and brings value to a certain level, but frankly the skills needed to clean the streets are in plentiful supply and the benefit, while momentarily good, is soon lost and has to be redone.

A good corporate lawyer, on the other hand, can create millions of pounds of values for clients and those clients are not always rich companies and their shareholders (usually people like us via our pension plans, by the way).

My firm, for example, is currently working on a very large litigation which could bring $100s of millions of dollars of revenue to the people of Bhopal in India as a result of proceedings against Union Carbide. Those funds will likely be invested in roads, social services, schools, hospitals etc.

Evil corporate lawyers all the time? yeah, right.

bendix

bluey890 wrote: »

Lawyers bill for their time on the toilet.

More silly mythology.

The smart firms are moving away from billing by the hour. Instead, they are introducing new charging mechanisms based on success fees and performance.

But why let facts get in the way of glib cliches, huh?

Sir_Humphrey

bendix wrote: »

But why let facts get in the way of glib cliches, huh?

Well, quite - I often think that when people here talk about my occupation.

bendix

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Well, quite - I often think that when people here talk about my occupation.

hahahaha . . damn, that got me. Hoisted on my own petard.

I'll get my coat .

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

carolt wrote: »

And my employer is obviously happy with my contribution to the firm, otherwise they wouldnt pay my salary.

and maybe sir h's employer is happy with his contribution too?

bluey890

ninky wrote: »

and maybe sir h's employer is happy with his contribution too?

The taxpayer?

bendix

bluey890 wrote: »

The taxpayer?

As Sir H's employer and paymaster - and, in fact, also the employer and paymaster of HIS line manager, I think we need to get tougher on Sir H.

I demand to see a daily timesheet of his activities posted every day on MSE. I want regular work reports, and I think we should all contribute to his end of year performance appraisal.

Just how many sparklers DID he save from causing infernos this year, for example, and was it better than last year. And if not, why not?

Sir H, I expect the first report on Monday.

Oh . . and as your boss, yuo should call me Sir, NOT the other way round.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

My firm, for example, is currently working on a very large litigation which could bring $100s of millions of dollars of revenue to the people of Bhopal in India as a result of proceedings against Union Carbide. Those funds will likely be invested in roads, social services, schools, hospitals etc.

Evil corporate lawyers all the time? yeah, right.

a rat to catch a rat? i can see some purpose in that.

i'm also one for seperating motivation from results. even if they are only doing it for "brownie points" if it gets some compensation for those poor people i'm all for it.

bendix

i8change wrote: »

Overly expansive HSE spreads an all pervading culture of victimhood. Walk around a Government Agency like the one I work in and you will see lots of people sitting in "Special Chairs" at £600-800 each. Even a fool knows they can't all have bad backs and many will be slouching on the setee when they get home.
They wear their HSE equipment like a badge of honour, it validates the excessive sick leave they need.
Quite a few have devices that blow steam on them all day, they could n't function in a normal atmosphere presumably. Until they get home where the equipment would be at their expense!
Many seats are left vacant for months on end, you wonder why sections are not merged under one manager, then you realise that there are theoretically a lot more staff than you see. One day they may all come in!

OUCH. You say things that even I couldnt get away with.

;-)

bendix

ninky wrote: »

a rat to catch a rat? i can see some purpose in that.

i'm also one for seperating motivation from results. even if they are only doing it for "brownie points" if it gets some compensation for those poor people i'm all for it.

Sure, so long as our lawyers get supremely rich in the process, why not?

Lovely jubbly.