Crunch time for council workers’ golden pensions

bendix

It's almost sad to see carolt making generalisations about the legal profession based on 'work experience' in a solicitors office. Good grief.

Why not let some perceptions gained from working in what sounds like some dodgy little provincial office shape views of one of the most challenge and rewarding careers around?

You really have no idea, do you?

Final point. Lawyers earn more than teachers for a simple reason. It's called marketforces. Only a few people have the drive and skills to become successful city lawyers; many more can become teachers, irrespective of how well qualified they are.

For the record, the quality of degree is virtually irrelevant in modern law firms. It helps of course, but we have several partners here who have relatively poor degrees from some crappy polytechnics. Similarly, waving a 2.1 or a first from Cambridge or Oxford - with us at least - is absolutely no guarantee of a job here.

Old_Slaphead

StevieJ wrote: »

Wrong, it is four

Wrong it's 3 !

It is according to FT anyway (paragraph 8)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/88cc5484-8157-11de-92e7-00144feabdc0.html

lostinrates

bendix wrote: »

For the record, the quality of degree is virtually irrelevant in modern law firms. It helps of course, but we have several partners here who have relatively poor degrees from some crappy polytechnics. Similarly, waving a 2.1 or a first from Cambridge or Oxford - with us at least - is absolutely no guarantee of a job here.

DH's firm wouls say the same, but in practice people tend to have good degrees from 'good' institutions.

bendix

lostinrates wrote: »

DH's firm wouls say the same, but in practice people tend to have good degrees from 'good' institutions.

I guess my point is this, lir. Given the dumbing down of education standards generally (cf recent A level and GCSE 'success' stories) less weight is placed on the degree now compared to 10 years ago. Any eyebrow-pierced, tattooed idiot whacked out on marijuana can leave most of these so-called 'universities' today the proud owner of a mickey mouse degree.

So now we are looking at a much broader range of attributes, not just a degree.

StevieJ

donaldtramp wrote: »

".
:rotfl::rotfl:

Trust me, I am more than happy with my income.;)

What is unbelievable is that I still don't think you get it:rolleyes:

I DON'T want a job in the public sector. I am sick of PAYING for it.
My point is, Britain is sick of paying through the nose for the public sector.

Got it???

It is you that doesn't get it, when sensible people apply for a job they look at all the terms and conditions, the pension was one of these t&c and may very well have persuaded a person to take a job. BTW these are not secret Politbüro jobs, they are open to all, what you and your cronies appear to be saying is that these t&c should be retrospectively amended to remove the pension entitlement:eek: I am pretty sure this would not be equitable and contrary to common and statutory law.
Having said that, this govt have gradually over the years abandoned long set legal rules e.g. right to silence, so I would not put it past them.

lostinrates

bendix wrote: »

I guess my point is this, lir. Given the dumbing down of education standards generally (cf recent A level and GCSE 'success' stories) less weight is placed on the degree now compared to 10 years ago. Any eyebrow-pierced, tattooed idiot whacked out on marijuana can leave most of these so-called 'universities' today the proud owner of a mickey mouse degree.

So now we are looking at a much broader range of attributes, not just a degree.

Capito.

So, ten years ago was good? Hmm, mybe I should be boasting about my old a levels? (DH did a baccalaureate in another EU country; MUCH, MUCH harder than UK equivalent IMO.)

Yes, I do know of a very successful partner at DH's firm who has ''a 2.1 from a former poly''. But he's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

Old_Slaphead

StevieJ wrote: »

It is you that doesn't get it, when sensible people apply for a job they look at all the terms and conditions, the pension was one of these t&c and may very well have persuaded a person to take a job. BTW these are not secret Politbüro jobs, they are open to all, what you and your cronies appear to be saying is that these t&c should be retrospectively amended to remove the pension entitlement:eek: I am pretty sure this would not be equitable and contrary to common and statutory law.
Having said that, this govt have gradually over the years abandoned long set legal rules e.g. right to silence, so I would not put it past them.

They were quite happy to change the rules to the detriment of private pensions.

Anyway, no-one's talking about changes to entitlements accrued - just those going forward

StevieJ

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Wrong it's 3 !

It is according to FT anyway (paragraph 8)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/88cc5484-8157-11de-92e7-00144feabdc0.html

Well they are incorrect (standards these days :rolleyes:)

Shell’s scheme may be one of the few open to new members, but in January it made changes for new joiners, including increasing the retirement age from 60 to 65.
From The Sunday Times

June 7, 2009


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/pensions/article6445429.ece

StevieJ

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

They were quite happy to change the rules to the detriment of private pensions.

Anyway, no-one's talking about changes to entitlements accrued - just those going forward

I agree a disgrace, how are people expected to plan for their retirement when the rules can be changed at will? RBS is a classic example, with the 2% uplift barrier a persons lifelong pension could be wiped out with a short spell of 70's 20%+ inflation :eek: I note the disgraced ex boss will not have this problem.

Pennywise

The_White_Horse wrote: »

The teacher should have been a lawyer. This is why the lawyer earns more - he is smart.

Note it refers to newly qualified lawyers in top City firms! You'll find that newly qualified lawyers in the sticks start out at closer to average salary which is below the pay of a newly qualified teacher.

It's no use comparing private sector salaries in the City - most teachers are working all over the UK, so they need to compare against the local employment market which in many areas is far less. In our area, for example, average incomes are well below national average, so our teachers, nurses, etc are far better paid than the average private sector worker in the same area.