Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
not the op, but this is quite misleading
1. we're comparing bmwl with mc firms which pay sg qualified lawyers on the international scale in sg. you don't have to migrate to the uk and take the lpc before you are paid on the international scale. the problem with bmwl is that they claim to be an international firm, but they don't pay international rates in sg unlike the mc firms. so the proper timeline for comparison is the first 2 years in sg, which is how long it takes to complete the training programs for mc firms in sg
2. the bmwl trainee salary is lower than the mc trainee salary. comparing cc's salary (since they publish it on their website) and your claim of 8.5k for baker 1PQE:
baker's pay for initial 2 years: 2k x 12 + 8.5k x 12 = 126k (average of 5.25k per month)
cc's pay for initial 2 years: 6k x 12 + at least 7.5k x 12 = at least 162k (average of at least 6.75k per month)
even if you consider the initial 3 years, the difference only widens:
baker's pay for initial 3 years: 2k x 12 + 8.5k x 12 + 9.5k x 12 = 240k (average of 6.3k per month)
cc's pay for initial 3 years: 6k x 12 + at least 7.5k x 12 + 13k x 12 = at least 318k (average of at least 8.8k per month)
|
Will take your points 1 by 1.
1. "we're comparing bmwl with mc firms which pay sg qualified lawyers on the international scale in sg. you don't have to migrate to the uk and take the lpc before you are paid on the international scale." - Clearly you have no idea how the MCs hire SG qualified lawyers in Singapore. They subtract 2 PQE from your SG PQE when you are hired. In other words, there is no way that you, as a SG qualified lawyer, are getting into a MC firm before you hit 2 PQE, and after that you will be paid on the UK NQ scale. Going back to my earlier point, this means the proper comparison is between a 2 - 3 PQE on the SG scale and a NQ on the UK scale. The point you are making is basically the same as saying: a 3 PQE in a small firm pays more than a NQ in a B4, so the small firm pays more. ???
2. This is your calculation:
baker's pay for initial 2 years: 2k x 12 + 8.5k x 12 = 126k (average of 5.25k per month)
cc's pay for initial 2 years: 6k x 12 + at least 7.5k x 12 = at least 162k (average of at least 6.75k per month)
The first part of the baker calculation is 2k x 12.
First of all, baker's training pay is 2.5k.
Second, why x 12? The SG training period is 6 months. Is this because you are including Part B? Then the question becomes why aren't you including part B in the CC calculation as well and instead starting from when the TC begins? Clearly you like to reason backwards from the conclusion that you want.
We will be fair and calculate both firms for 2 years starting from when training begins then:
baker's pay for initial 2 years: 2.5k x 6 months (for training) + 8.5k x 12 (1st year) + 9.5k x 6 (last 6 months) + an average bonus of 2 months = 184.5k
cc's pay for initial 2 years: 6k x 12 + at least 7.5k x 12 (no bonus as a trainee) = at least 162k
You can see that the baker lawyer usually makes significantly more up to this point.
From that point on, the CC lawyer makes more (I have never disputed that).
Get better at twisting facts please?