Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Younger workers everywhere
- This topic has 306 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
bearishgurl.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 24, 2016 at 4:42 PM #794878February 24, 2016 at 4:43 PM #794879
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=yamashi][quote=bearishgurl]Oh, wow, you really DON’T get it. I have never applied for positions where Spanish was a “requirement.” But in my biz, if a SD job description doesn’t state it is a requirement, it is always “preferred.” And you’re damned straight that in my biz the most “senior positions” ARE occupied by the “oldest people in the building.” Usually people who are well past retirement age. And due to my experience level, the jobs I apply for typically answer to the “oldest people in the building.” That’s just how it is.[/quote]
Probably depends on the type of attorney firm you were applying for. If it is immigration law, it’s definitely a yes. One of my good friends is a partner at one the largest and oldest firms in SD and he does not speak a word of Spanish. Either way, you have to admit it’s not because of age discrimination. It is usually due to other qualifications, which is usually based on the bottom line.[/quote]Attorneys (esp “partners”) don’t have to speak Spanish on the job. That’s what they have paralegals at the office and interpreters in the courtroom for.
SD Firms which have mostly individuals for plaintiffs (usually small-med sized firms) prefer Spanish speaking candidates over those who don’t.
If I was willing to travel up as far as UTC, SR or Poway or even North County, there are several insurance defense and construction defect firms up there I could apply to where Spanish would not be necessary. But I detest pushing reams of paper to plaintiffs all day. I find this kind of (defense) work boring as h@ll. And, at this stage of my life, I’m not commuting 1 hr+ to and from work in traffic cuz I don’t have to :=0
February 24, 2016 at 4:47 PM #794880spdrun
ParticipantBearishgurl — actually, California is one of the US states that permits “reading the law.” If you have an employer that’s willing to vouch for you, you might be able to sit the bar exam after some time without attending law school.
February 24, 2016 at 4:58 PM #794881Participant[quote=yamashi] . . . I also question your last statement about your ability to pass the bar exam. I’m sure their are very good paralegals, but you can’t compare that to someone that has been practicing. I also hope that you didn’t tell that to people when you interviewed with them. It probably would be akin to a bookkeeper saying they could pass the CPA exam because they’ve been doing journal entries for 30 years.[/quote]H@ll, no. I would never say that in an interview and it wouldn’t help me, anyway cuz I would be applying for a paralegal job with no upward mobility to an attorney position. As it should be.
You can’t compare the work of a paralegal to a “bookkeeper making journal entries.” Paralegals actually do all the work attorneys do except depose witnesses, negotiate settlements and explain their terms to the party(s) and appear before the court. Often when an attorney goes into court to argue a motion, a paralegal wrote the motion and filed it and served it after the attorney looked it over and signed it. If a paralegal’s attorney trusts their research skills and the paralegal provided them with the cases they will be arguing with good notes and possible objections, they’re not going to spend hours (and $100(0)’s of their client’s money) “researching the paralegal’s research.” Ditto for trial prep, deposition prep and witness prep.
Umm, paralegals are frequently the invisible “grunt-worker attorneys” in the back room doing all the work and the “real (licensed) attorney” is in the front room taking all the credit for it.
As it should be :=)
February 24, 2016 at 5:01 PM #794882skerzz
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
Of course, you millenials really have no idea about how overt discrimination feels because you have never experienced it … yet. That day will come and it might be sooner than you think.[/quote]Are you now arguing that there are no millennials that have ever been turned down for a position/passed over for an older worker because they appeared too inexperienced/young or were too “risky” because of lack of mortgage and family obligations to keep them tied to the prospective job? Discrimination goes both ways.
For the paralegal positions you did not successfully interview for, were you asking for the same salary as the younger worker? Perhaps you were a more qualified candidate, but did not get the job because you were too expensive (boomers are generally more expensive and demand higher wages because of more personal financial obligations/expectations than their millennial competition)? Assume you (candidate “A”) meet all job requirements and will deliver 100% of needed results while costing $X. Candidate B will initially deliver 80% of the results while costing 70% of X. It would be a more prudent business decision to hire candidate B since the expected return of value on candidate B is 14% greater than that of candidate A. Further, candidate B has more “upside” and will produce close the 100% of the desired results after gaining experience while still costing significantly less than candidate A.
February 24, 2016 at 5:01 PM #794883Participant[quote=spdrun]Bearishgurl — actually, California is one of the US states that permits “reading the law.” If you have an employer that’s willing to vouch for you, you might be able to sit the bar exam after some time without attending law school.[/quote]That’s fine and dandy but no one will hire me as a “newbie attorney” at my age so your suggestion is moot. But thanks for it anyway 🙂
February 24, 2016 at 5:07 PM #794884ParticipantYou could practice on your own if you pass the bar, and you’d be debt-free. Especially if people already know your name, so to speak.
Why would you want to work for some piece of filth if you’re licensed to practice on your own?
February 24, 2016 at 5:18 PM #794885Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
You can’t compare the work of a paralegal to a “bookkeeper making journal entries.” Paralegals actually do all the work attorneys do except depose witnesses, negotiate settlements and explain their terms to the party(s) and appear before the court. Often when an attorney goes into court to argue a motion, a paralegal wrote the motion and filed it and served it after the attorney looked it over and signed it. If a paralegal’s attorney trusts their research skills and the paralegal provided them with the cases they will be arguing with good notes and possible objections, they’re not going to spend hours (and $100(0)’s of their client’s money) “researching the paralegal’s research.” Ditto for trial prep, deposition prep and witness prep.
Umm, paralegals are frequently the invisible “grunt-worker attorneys” in the back room doing all the work and the “real (licensed) attorney” is in the front room taking all the credit for it.
As it should be :=)[/quote]
Bookkeeper to paralegal seems like a fair comparison. A bookkeeper can generally do everything a CPA does except sign a tax return as preparer (unless they obtain additional certifications/education requirements), provide attest services (issue an audit opinion on financial statements), and represent a Client in front of the IRS. That leaves a lot of accounting/bookkeeping type tasks that can be performed. Accountants without a CPA designation often do most of the “grunt” work while the CPA takes the credit/assumes risk for work performed and is out bringing in more work for the “grunts” to perform.
February 24, 2016 at 5:31 PM #794886Participant[quote=skerzz] . . .
For the paralegal positions you did not successfully interview for, were you asking for the same salary as the younger worker? Perhaps you were a more qualified candidate, but did not get the job because you were too expensive (boomers are generally more expensive and demand higher wages because of more personal financial obligations/expectations than their millennial competition)? [/quote]skerzz, I’m sure you are aware that job seekers can’t command more money than the range an employer stated they are paying just because they have more “obligations” than the next candidate. A prospective employer doesn’t CARE what a candidate’s financial obligations are. If boomers are making a higher salary than millenials in the same office, it means they have more experience doing the work. How would you like to work at a firm for 30 years and then see a young “green” new hire come in who is making more than you for a position you actually interviewed for!My salary reqs were always in the range the firm advertised. For a small firm, however, the cost of my health insurance would likely be double or triple that of younger workers for the same policy (which is out of anyone’s control). I guess if I go back out on the interview circuit, I’m going to just ask for the amount of the insurance premium they’re paying for a 35 or 40 year old to be placed in an HSA account every month and use it to help pay my (exorbitant and rising) premium. That’s really the only way I feel I can “stay competitive” in the job-seeking market. I really like working for smaller plaintiff firms or firms who represent small to medium-sized businesses. Since the ACA was enacted, the difference between my monthly premium and a 35 yo’s premium is likely $600 to $800 month and rising rapidly because I am now mixed in with everyone in my age group who has health problems (the majority). That $600-$800 is a barrier to getting hired.
The reason I am having this discussion “out loud” here :=0 is because I am strongly considering trying to get a job in 2016 just for the health insurance. Law firms usually offer PPOs from major carriers and an employee can qualify for coverage working just 32-35 hrs week. I want to leave Covered CA and stay off of it and I still have a few years left until Medicare kicks in.
February 24, 2016 at 5:34 PM #794887Participant[quote=skerzz][quote=bearishgurl]
You can’t compare the work of a paralegal to a “bookkeeper making journal entries.” Paralegals actually do all the work attorneys do except depose witnesses, negotiate settlements and explain their terms to the party(s) and appear before the court. Often when an attorney goes into court to argue a motion, a paralegal wrote the motion and filed it and served it after the attorney looked it over and signed it. If a paralegal’s attorney trusts their research skills and the paralegal provided them with the cases they will be arguing with good notes and possible objections, they’re not going to spend hours (and $100(0)’s of their client’s money) “researching the paralegal’s research.” Ditto for trial prep, deposition prep and witness prep.
Umm, paralegals are frequently the invisible “grunt-worker attorneys” in the back room doing all the work and the “real (licensed) attorney” is in the front room taking all the credit for it.
As it should be :=)[/quote]
Bookkeeper to paralegal seems like a fair comparison. A bookkeeper can generally do everything a CPA does except sign a tax return as preparer (unless they obtain additional certifications/education requirements), provide attest services (issue an audit opinion on financial statements), and represent a Client in front of the IRS. That leaves a lot of accounting/bookkeeping type tasks that can be performed. Accountants without a CPA designation often do most of the “grunt” work while the CPA takes the credit/assumes risk for work performed and is out bringing in more work for the “grunts” to perform.[/quote]If that’s the case, skerzz, I hope your bookkeepers are paid well. We used an “enrolled agent” to do our taxes for many years and she was very competent. We had no need for a CPA.
February 24, 2016 at 5:42 PM #794888ParticipantIRS wanted to push requirements for tax preparers, they were rightfully slapped down. You need an ID # that costs $50 and an SSN, no other requirements.
You don’t need to be a CPA to prepare Federal income tax returns. Some states might impose their own filth, of course, but there’s no Federal requirement anymore.
February 24, 2016 at 5:45 PM #794889Participant[quote=spdrun] … Why would you want to work for some piece of filth if you’re licensed to practice on your own?[/quote]Two reasons. Malpractice insurance premiums in CA are exorbitant and I would often need to “work around the clock” when I had deadlines (often) if I didn’t pay a “paralegal” to support me (plus all their payroll taxes and benefits) OR hire an independent contractor paralegal by the job (also expensive).
February 24, 2016 at 7:35 PM #794890
CoronitaParticipantLol. I just saw this… It’s pretty funny actually…
http://sfglobe.com/2015/01/01/idM/
To: All Employees
From: Human Resources
RE: Layoffs
As a result of the reduction of money for department areas, we are forced to cut down on our number of personnel. Under this plan, older employees will be asked to go on early retirement, thus permitting the retention of the younger people who represent our future. Therefore, a program to phase out older personnel by the end of the current fiscal year, via retirement, will be placed into effect immediately.
This program will be known as SLAP (Sever Late-Aged Personnel). Employees who are SLAPPED will be given the opportunity to look for jobs outside the company. SLAPPED employees can request a review of their employment records before actual retirement takes place.
This phase of the program is called SCREW (Survey of Capabilities of Retired Early Workers). All employees who have been SLAPPED or SCREWED may file an appeal with the upper management.
This is called SHAFT (Study by Higher Authority Following Termination). Under the terms of the new policy, an employee may be SLAPPED once, SCREWED twice, but may be SHAFTED as many times as the company deems appropriate. If an employee follows the above procedures, he/she will be entitled to get HERPES (Half Earnings for Retired Personnel’s Early Severance) or CLAP (Combined Lump sum Assistance Payment).
After getting HERPES or CLAP employees will no longer be SLAPPED or SCREWED by the company.
Management wishes to assure the younger employees who remain on board that the company will continue its policy of training employees through our Special High Intensity Training (ST). This company takes pride in the amount of ST our employees receive. We have given our employees more ST than any company in this area. If any employee feels they do not receive enough ST on the job, see your immediate supervisor. YOUR SUPERVISOR IS SPECIALLY TRAINED TO MAKE SURE YOU RECEIVE ALL THE S**T YOU CAN STAND.
February 24, 2016 at 9:05 PM #794894millennial
Participant[quote=spdrun]IRS wanted to push requirements for tax preparers, they were rightfully slapped down. You need an ID # that costs $50 and an SSN, no other requirements.
You don’t need to be a CPA to prepare Federal income tax returns. Some states might impose their own filth, of course, but there’s no Federal requirement anymore.[/quote]
I believe he also said that a CPA can also represent a client in court. They can also sign off on audits and move up in a company by becoming a partner. Which is similar to an attorney.February 24, 2016 at 9:24 PM #794895Participant[quote=spdrun]IRS wanted to push requirements for tax preparers, they were rightfully slapped down. You need an ID # that costs $50 and an SSN, no other requirements.
You don’t need to be a CPA to prepare Federal income tax returns. Some states might impose their own filth, of course, but there’s no Federal requirement anymore.[/quote]
You sure about that? I am pretty sure to obtain a PTIN you’ll need to complete certain education requirements, unless you are exempt (ex. Hold a CPA license). There’s More to it than just paying $50 and singing tax returns
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.