Crunch time for council workers’ golden pensions

SuzieSue

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

You say bring on the strikes, there is no public support - there may be no support from you or other people who receive no direct help from gov't/councils. And you say the unions would be destroyed. And the gov't would have the will of the people behind them, which people and how many of them?

Off the top of my head I don't know how many people in this country receive pensions, child benefit, Child Tax credits, working tax credits, child care help, unemployment benfits, disability living allowance, income support, housing benefit, care home payments, care for the elderly in the home, bereavement payments, etc etc.

.

Of course the strikes would have an impact and, as you have said, they will affect the poorest people the most - the very people the unions are supposed to work for.

I am not quite old enough to remember the strikes in the 70s but I have seen television footage of the piles of rotting rubbish. However, I think this time, there will be enough enterprising people who will set up businesses to remove the rubbish for those who want to pay for it to be taken away.

Old_Slaphead

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

You say bring on the strikes, there is no public support - there may be no support from you or other people who receive no direct help from gov't/councils. And you say the unions would be destroyed. And the gov't would have the will of the people behind them, which people and how many of them?

If the Tories are elected on a public sector cost reduction mandate, then however many people who voted for them.

Make no mistake, if the Labour party are (god forbid) re-elected, they will have to make the same "difficult choices" except, instead of calling it 'slashing expenditure' it will be passed off as 'marginal reductions in the rate increased investment'

Who runs this country - a democratically elected government or the public sector unions?

SuzieSue

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Who runs this country - a democratically elected government or the public sector unions?

At the moment it is the public sector unions - no matter what NuLabour say, they are not going to bite the hand that feeds them. The sooner political donations to all parties are limited by law the better.

carolt

lostinrates wrote: »

Carol, as you see DH has tried it, and still does. The fact of the matter is people make their choices. Some prioritise pleasure: some ideology; money...and various degress of all three. There is no question that money, and stability was the motivator in DH entering the legal profossion, and their is also little doubt that money was a deciding factor on the area of law, the pro bono time, the hugely varied and celebrated interests and dynamics of his colleagues is what made his firm his first choice firm. I could present the smae case for a number of magic circle solitor or the equivalent barristers. Just as I know teachers who have interests in things outside the classroom.

Not knocking your OH, lostinrates, and I appreciate that there are interesting lawyers; I come from 4 generations of lawyers, barristers and judges, so I think, as an 'insider', I feel reasonably qualified to pass judgement. I even married into lawyers; my father-in-law, stepmother and best man are all partners, too!

So my experience is based on slightly more than a few weeks' work experience.

Sadly, I think people like my dad and your OH are atypical - they do exist, but bendix is more typical.

After all, he is the kind of man who names himself after a model of washing machine...

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

Not knocking your OH, lostinrates, and I appreciate that there are interesting lawyers; I come from 4 generations of lawyers, barristers and judges, so I think, as an 'insider', I feel reasonably qualified to pass judgement. I even married into lawyers; my father-in-law, stepmother and best man are all partners, too!

So my experience is based on slightly more than a few weeks' work experience.

Sadly, I think people like my dad and your OH are atypical - they do exist, but bendix is more typical.

After all, he is the kind of man who names himself after a model of washing machine...

I know LOTS of interesting lawyers (solicitors, barristers and judges too!) though. TBH, most are a lot more interesting than our entertainment/music industry posse, and certainly than some of the academic bods. I think though, that the more successful people in any industry will be divided: some who are successful because they dedicate themselves entirely, some who are successful as part of a wider portfolio of interest and successes.

re the innercity school time, I think a number of the top firms do such pro bono stuff - not related to law but to chlenging areas of society/charity/education. DH's firm do do an awful lot though, perhaps a little more than average.

Slaughter and May -where you cite-are perhaps a bit particular, if I remember adaquately. IIRC they have none of their own international offices (although I think are joined with others) which in itself in these MC (and other City/International firms) could be a bit insular. (not theat they are alone in that) We only know one person at S and M, and only because everyone sort of knows him, a bit of a City legend.

OH yes, and the huge City salries generally are inclusive of overtime too, (as regards the poster who has worked 96 hour weeks recently). Its the purchasing of yur soul for 24 hours a day 365 days a year that is partly justiying the pay. ANd yes, people do call at 2 am, and four am, and yes, DH gets up and deals with it.

carolt

I do agree, lostinrates - I never claimed all lawyers were dull, but I do stand by the bit about the job being intrinsically dull - that's why interesting people like your OH feel the need to have a rich and varied life outside it, despite (because of?) the hours.

If it was as fulfilling as some claim, there'd be no need.

Certainly agree about the long hours - one of many things that put me off becoming a lawyer myself - but certainly goes towards making the average lawyer's hourly rate more reasonable - they do work more hours on average. I personally found the "the purchasing of yur soul for 24 hours a day 365 days a year", as you put it, the most terrifying part. I'm too much of a free spirit - I'd hate to have a job that required that level of commitment. Re my comments about sense of humour - I was referring to the fact that I felt my urges to giggle when supposed to be serious, as huge sums of cash were involved, would not go down well with either my bosses or my clients.

Whereas teachers can giggle as much they want. Or chortle, titter, etc etc, in the company of their students. Much more fun all round, that way.

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

I do agree, lostinrates - I never claimed all lawyers were dull, but I do stand by the bit about the job being intrinsically dull - that's why interesting people like your OH feel the need to have a rich and varied life outside it, despite (because of?) the hours.
I concede this. Some people get great work (DH finds much of his job enjoyable, if demanding) but these people are fewer and farther apart, so yes Problem is of course, when you work long hours, saving money on the outside hours fun is harder.
If it was as fulfilling as some claim, there'd be no need.

Certainly agree about the long hours - one of many things that put me off becoming a lawyer myself - but certainly goes towards making the average lawyer's hourly rate more reasonable - they do work more hours on average. I personally found the "the purchasing of yur soul for 24 hours a day 365 days a year", as you put it, the most terrifying part. I'm too much of a free spirit - I'd hate to have a job that required that level of commitment. Re my comments about sense of humour - I was referring to the fact that I felt my urges to giggle when supposed to be serious, as huge sums of cash wwere involved, would not go down well with either my bosses or my customers.
I think you'd be surprised at the amount of laughter. Maybe less so in UK than Ialy though. The commitment absolutely is not for everyone (like parenthood or pet ownership!) but, again, it sets a price. Some people find switching of harder, it suits them well!
Whereas teachers can giggle as much they want. Or chortle, titter, etc etc, in the company of their students. Much more fun all round, that way.

Its not all dull! You'd have to be mad if it were, IMO. DH enjoys working on things that make the news, he enjoys feeling ''useful'' (although I know many would disagree), on big things. He's lucky he gets a fair bit of international travel (its creeping up again, there were six months where he was pretty much in London, IIRC) But, yeah, its not all fun and games, less so than working in a more child centric role, you're probably right. Clients/bosses are less likely to be distracted with the promise of reduced homework! Some firms are worse though, e.g., no one minds that DH will not arrive at work tomorrow until 9:40am or so. They get their blood at other times, , so while its harder to fit arund lifestyle, little things like that are a big thing for us - it gives us an extra night together each week. But anyway, the point is that DH, and people like him, IMO, earn the wage, and absolutely, we/he has made ''life comprimises'' for this. But it makes them not universally dull, nor univrsally anything. Their are less competants, and slackers, still.

the bit I was responding to re dull etc was this

You don't need any great "drive and skills" to be a big City lawyer; you just need a lack of sense of humour, to be driven entirely by money, and a liking for office politics and late nights in the office.

Dull, dull, dull.

Have you ever tried teaching a class of teenagers, I wonder?

That requires real, real-life skills.

)

but e all make generalisations at times, but I have to refute these ones! Pride etc

carolt

I do understand; I'm sure your DH is lovely - or else just got lucky with you!

r5cwgtt

we have a war that is costting us billions... Common market millions but lets tackle the wee folk in the council ???

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

I do understand; I'm sure your DH is lovely - or else just got lucky with you!

Thank you. It was me who got lucky though, he is scarily wonderful! :cool: