Typo, sorry, counsel
So how much do you think that counsel/solicitors charge per hour in the Hiuse of Lords?
Capitalists solution : Work for Free!
- Thread starter moon23
- Start date
So how much do you think that counsel/solicitors charge per hour in the Hiuse of Lords?
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
What? - there's a clear ambiguity between sections of the 96 Act - not my fault. Tony Bliar (or his successor) could have fixed any problems but that would have made it more difficult to keep the Unions in their (teeny-weeny minority) place.
House of Lords - what do you think the hourly rate for each level of legal representation is?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
No there isn't. You're getting confused again.
You think there is ambiguity between the 96 ERA and the MWA, not within the ERA.
Fact is there is no ambiguity, and 'Bliar' had nothing to 'clear up' on that particular case.
You don't know, or you don't understand, the basic law.
So apart from how the 98 Act extended the employers wiggle space under the 96 Act,what did it do for the "oppressed workers"
(e.g see Section 2 (b) -
"(b) the remuneration is, in whole or in part, at different rates applicable at different times or in different circumstances"
etc.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Assuming that a City Firm is instructed - employment partner anywhere between £600 and £1200 per hour plus assistants/trainees. The assistants would be on similar rates to the ones you quoted, depending on how many years PQE. Advocacy - counsel. Minimum of 10 years called to the Bar, probably silk. Anything up to £4000 per hour but more likely £1000-£1500.
Depends on so many factors, but in any event much more than you stated.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
you really dont understand the law. if you're only up to section 2, and cant get that right, i'd really give up on trying to go through the whole document if i were you.
the bit you quote, firstly has nothing to do with the point you were originally making and are now trying to wriggle out of, and, secondly, doesnt not extend 'wriggle room' in any way. It simply says the law applies to circumstances where....it says the law applies at all times
No - as you've pointed out, an assistant rate is correct - there could be a minor leavening of senior rates but any in-house team of any competence *snigger* would keep partner level involvement to a minimum.
NB - if you're actually paying £600/1200 per hour for a good quality Employment Laywer then perhaps you need better advice.
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/publications/guidance/scco/appendix_2.htm
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
The ERA 1996 Part II sets out employment rights in respect of deduction of wages by the employer.
A worker has the right not to suffer unauthorised deductions. However, a worker can authorise deductions by previously signifying consent in writing (ERA Part II s.13 (1)(b).
That written consent is an express term of the employment contract.
However, not all express terms of employment contracts are lawful. For example - it is unlawful to pay less than statutory minimum notice even if the employment contract states otherwise. The legislation over-rides the contract.
The legislation regarding the National Minimum Wage specifically states that the provisions of the Act cannot be contracted out of; a reminder:
The legislation over-rides any contractual opting out.
A worker has the right not to suffer unauthorised deductions. However, a worker can authorise deductions by previously signifying consent in writing (ERA Part II s.13 (1)(b).
That written consent is an express term of the employment contract.
However, not all express terms of employment contracts are lawful. For example - it is unlawful to pay less than statutory minimum notice even if the employment contract states otherwise. The legislation over-rides the contract.
The legislation regarding the National Minimum Wage specifically states that the provisions of the Act cannot be contracted out of; a reminder:
The legislation over-rides any contractual opting out.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
That link - like all your others to date - contradicts your assertions.
You're seriously suggesting that you'd put a 3 year PQE doing advocacy in the HoL?
I'm sure that (facing bankruptcy through paying staff excessive wages) , BA is hell bent on breaking the law when it tries to get staff to suck less from its tit.
I'm sure that they'll all carry their pitiful union placards all the way to BA burying its nose in total corporate death.
Much may that benefit them.
Zip.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Conversely, the union claims that this latest idiotic suggestion from BA's CEO can't be taken seriously will prove to be right - and he'll backtrack whilst claiming to have been misquoted or something.
You're not the BA CEO are you?
DownwardDog
Well-Known Member
This is part of the problem. Almost all of BA's European routes can be done much cheaper with budget carriers. They also have a sickness culture that would do the civil service proud and crippling pension liabilities.
This work for nothing toss is irrelevant in the context of BA's wider woes. They need to collapse their European network and concentrate on the lucrative long haul routes, somehow get out from under the pension problem and get a second hub outside the EU but in Europe. Maybe Oslo or Zurich.
They also quite obviously need new leadership. Walsh is an ex-pilot and too much of an airline man.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You sound like a great boss cobblers - your undestanding of labour law is the best practical example i've seen on here for some time of why workers need unions to protect them from exactly your sort of self-serving incomptence.
david dissadent
New Member
It is normally very bad for business for an airline to show any risk of failure. It can really harm the confidence people have in booking flights and of safety. Unless they have a begging bowl out too the government I am struggling to see the short term financial benefits of this action vs the possibility of looking like a very shakey investment to shareholders, banks and especialy customers. Seems an own goal to me.
The other coment Id make is that the big traditional airlines tend to have middle aged to old fleets. Alot of their aircraft are older fuel hogging models and with the weak pound and higher oil (up above $70) that will really sting against the Easyjets of this world with their very young fleets who make up for high capital costs with high usage to amortize costs and (these days) much lower running costs. Due to fleet age the Deltas and American airlines of this world are virtualy dead men walking when compaired with Southwestern et al. Id be suprised if it is not similar here in the EU.
The other coment Id make is that the big traditional airlines tend to have middle aged to old fleets. Alot of their aircraft are older fuel hogging models and with the weak pound and higher oil (up above $70) that will really sting against the Easyjets of this world with their very young fleets who make up for high capital costs with high usage to amortize costs and (these days) much lower running costs. Due to fleet age the Deltas and American airlines of this world are virtualy dead men walking when compaired with Southwestern et al. Id be suprised if it is not similar here in the EU.
absolutely disgusting.
so only thick cunts would suffer presumably?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Really? Airborne staff form about 10% max of total staff numbers, the rest cover a broad spectrum from ground crew, maintenance, baggage-handling, clerical and "customer service". Oh, and some over-remunerated management.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
How could "NuLabour" craft it when the legislation was passed in 1996, and New Labour didn't take power until 1997?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I'm no defender of the Labour government, but the election was on 1 May 1997, surely?
5th.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
5th.
no, 1st. Pehaps you're thinking of the one in 79 where she won.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Although it's fair to state that their pension liabilities wouldn't have been quite so crippling if they hadn't opted to take several "holidays" from their contributions in order to keep their institutional shareholders happy with fat dividends. They fucked themselves badly enough through doing so that their contributions had to be nigh-on doubled just to take up the slack on their current liabilities.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Conversely, it means he's so incompetent that any staff he sacked could buttfuck him at tribunal.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
DownwardDog
Well-Known Member
True, but precluding the invention of low cost, reliable time travel there's nothing they can do about that now other than try and off load the pension liabilities somehow. I used to fly with ex BA captains who'd retired in their 50s with 50-100k pensions and there must be thousands of them. The current pension scheme has about a 3bn quid deficit and, unfortunately, owns a lot of BA stock. So as the share price goes south the pensions black hole only gets bigger. BA are throwing about 2.5m per month into the schemes so sooner or later they just aren't going to be able to make the vig.
the button
out on the kocker
It comes to something when even Management Today think you're a cock ...
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/ne...alsh-ask-staff-work-free/?DCMP=EMC-Daily News
...http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/ne...alsh-ask-staff-work-free/?DCMP=EMC-Daily News
Its disgusting but it is the way everything is going these days. You only have to look at welfare reform where people will be working for £1 .60 odd for mulitnationals to see that
Similar threads
