Ok, another long break. Busy with work, kids, playing EQ2, not too much time for posting. A visit from my cousin prompted me to post since its been a long time. Lots has happened recently, but today going to post my thoughts on amusement over the whole Adam Lambert deal. Yeah, I'm a few months old. So sue me.
I've watched AI on and off over the last several years. Its kindof a guilty pleasure for me. I don't listen to radio all that much anymore, so seeing AI keeps me appraised of at least some current songs. Naturally, I always root for the rocker, but rarely have I voted and never bought any songs off the internet. I did buy Daughtry's and David Cooks' CDs, both were pretty decent, and I've thought about buying some others, Bo Bice, Elliot Yamine, but never got around to it.
But this season was different. I'd like to say I was surprised over my reaction Adam Lambert, but it wasn't really all that different from other times that I've gotten hooked on a singer. Just a few years ago, when my husband turned me on to Jean Jacques Goldman, I scoured the internet looking for videos of his songs, reading the lyrics (since I couldn't understand most of them - they're in French), buying older copies of his CDs, even finally tracking down a DVD of his (last?) concert. I would have loved to seen him in concert too, but that's very unlikely now, since I think he's retired from performing.
The only difference between now and when I was a teen/college student (and went gaga over bands like Cheap Trick, Journey, Styx, Bon Jovi, etc.) is that now I can scour the internet for videos and information. I certainly would have done that back then, if that was available. But all we had were teen magazines and MTV.
So its not really out of my character to have done the same thing when I saw Adam Lambert. Like many others, I was awestruck by his voice, his control, his pitch, and he wasn't bad to look at either. Yeah, I learned he was gay, but so what. Its not like when I was a teen and 'dreamed' of hooking up with the band. Even if Adam was straight, I wouldn't be out to date the guy. But I loved watching his performances over youtube and on AI. Here was a real showman, the likes of which I hadn't seen since Freddie Mercury of Queen. Granted, I haven't been to many concerts lately, but even thinking back to some I saw in college or early post-college, none of the lead singers had the charisma of or put on a performance like Adam Lambert.
So for the first time I actually bought copies of his songs from Itunes (only because I learned that those songs are never released on CDs, so this was the only way to get a copy) and voted a whole hell of a lot more than before. I wanted to keep him on the show, I wanted to see him perform more. I definitely plan to buy his CD. I'd love to see him in concert, but that's less likely given other time/money/family commitments (and my husband's not interested). Maybe someday. In the meantime, thank god for youtube.
And by the way, I also purchased songs by Kris and Allison, two other singers I thought were the best that AI has put on in years. I think Allison has real potential to become the best female rocker AI has ever had and may finally be a worthy successor to Anne Wilson.
It was then kindof annoying to see articles about "cougars obsess over Adam." I guess there are many other women out there like me, who haven't seen a great charismatic singer in a long time, but using the word "cougar" kindof insulted me. Maybe some women obsess as they did years ago and want to 'get backstage' to bed the singer, but come on, even assuming Adam was interested in women, are you really going to ignore your family for a 27 year old guy? What's wrong with just being a big fan? Why do I have get labled a "cougar" because I think Adam is the best singer/performer I've seen in ages? Why am I made to feel different than a friend of mine who's had a serious crush on Steve Perry of Aerosmith for decades? Just because Adam is nearly 20 years younger than me, doesn't mean I can't appreciate his voice, his charisma, and yeah, his sexuality. He may be gay, but he still exudes a great sexual attraction that can get anyone excited. No different from porn for men IMO.
So I'm brimming with anticipation to hear his new material and I check youtube periodically to see some of his concert performances. Someday perhaps I'll get to see him perform live. I think he's got the ability to stick around a good long time.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
One more Debt
I read an article in my local paper this weekend about how applications are up at state colleges, hypothicizing that people are cutting back on paying private school tuition. The article mentioned that state colleges generally run between $8,000 to $13,000 a year, compared to private colleges which were over $40,000.
I was just astounded that the costs are that much. I knew that law school tuitions were that high, but I didn't know that a regular undergraduate degree now costs so much. I'm surprised that even state schools are so expensive (when I went to UCLA back in the mid 80s, it was only about $3,000 a year).
Its no wonder that so many 20 and 30-somethings (or their parents) are reeling in debt. Certainly most 'entry-level' jobs out of college haven't tripled their salaries. I just can't fathom coming out of college already $30,000 in debt, let alone over $100,000 if you went to private school.
Its no wonder the US population has one of the highest (if not the highest) debts in the world, with everything one has to pay for these days. These days, people are required to pay for their own healthcare, retirement, college student loans and their kids college fund. No other generation (that had the option of retirement and college) has had to fund so much completely by themselves. Are we really moving forward as a civilization, or backwards to the early 20th Century? It would be so bad if the costs for these items didn't increase so much more exponentially than their salaries.
Part of the problem, however, is that college has become the new high school. Everyone who aspires to work in something above minimum wage, has to have a college degree. Its not like one will always use the college education at their job, but the employer feels that they have some "reassurance" that their employee is smart enough to train. This is not always the case, I know plenty of people that got a BA degree and are still pretty dumb, and others who never went to college, but are incredibly smart. Yet the "dumb" people with a degree are still favored over the "smart" ones without.
As a result, virtually everyone has to go to college, even to obtain jobs as bank tellers and retail managers. This gives the colleges a virtual carte blanche to charge whatever they want, knowing that they have ready customers who have no choice but to buy their product. Thus, we get people buying the virtually worthless BA degree in history, sociology, philosophy, who then have no idea what they want to do in life and/or get jobs in fields that have absolutely nothing to do with those degrees (a friend with a "geology" major became a bank teller and later an HR manager - yeah that's related). There's only so many teacher/professor jobs out there.
Course, this is why so many students with BA degrees end up in lawschool, a scam which is a whole 'nother rant.
I think there needs to be an evaluation as to why college tuition is so much, and what can be done to bring it back down to affordability. Either that, or parents need to sit down and talk realistically with their kids about what they want to do in life. If its not going into some sort of science or technology based program for a BS degree, maybe they should look into trade school or a 2-year program at a community college. They need to figure out how the kid is going to pay back that minimum $30,000 debt (which is about $400 a month at 7% interest over 30 years - bigger payment if its 10 years) if a BA degree only gets them a job for $25,000.
I think education is a good thing, the more educated a person is, the less likely they'll get sucked into things like ARMs. But while there used to be lots of jobs to suck up the BA degrees, many don't exist anymore, or really don't need a people with a 4-year college education. One can (and should be able to) get an education going 1-2 classes a semester/quarter at a small(er) cost while working. Sure it takes longer, but better than being in debt. Companies just need to realize that not every mail room clerk needs a 4-year degree.
I was just astounded that the costs are that much. I knew that law school tuitions were that high, but I didn't know that a regular undergraduate degree now costs so much. I'm surprised that even state schools are so expensive (when I went to UCLA back in the mid 80s, it was only about $3,000 a year).
Its no wonder that so many 20 and 30-somethings (or their parents) are reeling in debt. Certainly most 'entry-level' jobs out of college haven't tripled their salaries. I just can't fathom coming out of college already $30,000 in debt, let alone over $100,000 if you went to private school.
Its no wonder the US population has one of the highest (if not the highest) debts in the world, with everything one has to pay for these days. These days, people are required to pay for their own healthcare, retirement, college student loans and their kids college fund. No other generation (that had the option of retirement and college) has had to fund so much completely by themselves. Are we really moving forward as a civilization, or backwards to the early 20th Century? It would be so bad if the costs for these items didn't increase so much more exponentially than their salaries.
Part of the problem, however, is that college has become the new high school. Everyone who aspires to work in something above minimum wage, has to have a college degree. Its not like one will always use the college education at their job, but the employer feels that they have some "reassurance" that their employee is smart enough to train. This is not always the case, I know plenty of people that got a BA degree and are still pretty dumb, and others who never went to college, but are incredibly smart. Yet the "dumb" people with a degree are still favored over the "smart" ones without.
As a result, virtually everyone has to go to college, even to obtain jobs as bank tellers and retail managers. This gives the colleges a virtual carte blanche to charge whatever they want, knowing that they have ready customers who have no choice but to buy their product. Thus, we get people buying the virtually worthless BA degree in history, sociology, philosophy, who then have no idea what they want to do in life and/or get jobs in fields that have absolutely nothing to do with those degrees (a friend with a "geology" major became a bank teller and later an HR manager - yeah that's related). There's only so many teacher/professor jobs out there.
Course, this is why so many students with BA degrees end up in lawschool, a scam which is a whole 'nother rant.
I think there needs to be an evaluation as to why college tuition is so much, and what can be done to bring it back down to affordability. Either that, or parents need to sit down and talk realistically with their kids about what they want to do in life. If its not going into some sort of science or technology based program for a BS degree, maybe they should look into trade school or a 2-year program at a community college. They need to figure out how the kid is going to pay back that minimum $30,000 debt (which is about $400 a month at 7% interest over 30 years - bigger payment if its 10 years) if a BA degree only gets them a job for $25,000.
I think education is a good thing, the more educated a person is, the less likely they'll get sucked into things like ARMs. But while there used to be lots of jobs to suck up the BA degrees, many don't exist anymore, or really don't need a people with a 4-year college education. One can (and should be able to) get an education going 1-2 classes a semester/quarter at a small(er) cost while working. Sure it takes longer, but better than being in debt. Companies just need to realize that not every mail room clerk needs a 4-year degree.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
180 Degrees
I had to laugh, and wonder sometimes how/why I was ever a Republican (well, other than the fact that my parents were). I read this legal blog (Above the Law - which is mostly about "Biglaw" firms in NYC, but it has some relevance to Philly so it keeps me informed) and they have this guest writer who has been writing about being unemployed.This person quoted her father:
"Having lived through all Grandma and Grandpa's Depression stories, I know that this has nothing do with anyone's worth. I agree with mentioning your situation to everybody and most emphatically with not hanging your head in shame. That was one of the multiple things I learned from Grandma and Grandpa, who had a hell of a lot of experience with unemployment, and taught me that what one earns, or does not, in a capitalist society is ABSOLUTELY NO MEASURE of one's intrinsic worth intellectually, spiritually, or in any other way."
I loved the quote. It just struck me as so true when I read almost everyday in my local paperabout people who are earning millions of dollars in salaries for jobs that I think most people can do, but these people got the job, not because they are good (and many times, they aren't that great, just look at allthe failed CEO's of business that routinely get golden parachutes at one company, only to simply move on and becomea CEO of another company), but IMO, solely because of WHO THEY KNOW. I've become convinced that the CEOs of many businesses,the deans of many schools, the so-called "business/political consultants/lobbyists", higher-ups in professional sports,media personalities and others get their jobs because of connections. They really aren't any smarter than most other people, but they knew someone, or knew someone who knew someone, or was in the 'right' greek (or other 'secret') organization. and for that, these people earn millions of dollars while the rest of us, who work just as hard, and many who work harder, scrape by on five figure salaries.
I read somewhere that in the 1970s, the top 1% of our nation's taxpayers earned 9% of our nation's wealth. Now its 22%. and that top 1% has grown as well, just like the bottom 99%. Its just amazing to me how much some people get paid for their work, but "its ok" because "everybody does it." Like a tv news caster here in philly earns $800,000 a year. for what? I'm sure they do some investigation, but probablynot that much more than what I do in my work as an attorney. Seriously who needs that much money? Its people that kept earning these huge sums that helpedblow up housing values so high that people had to lie to get mortgages (and the bankers earning their six figure salaries let them). Sometimes I feel like I've gone a complete 180 from my college days. Hell, socialism isn't that bad of word to me anymore.
"Having lived through all Grandma and Grandpa's Depression stories, I know that this has nothing do with anyone's worth. I agree with mentioning your situation to everybody and most emphatically with not hanging your head in shame. That was one of the multiple things I learned from Grandma and Grandpa, who had a hell of a lot of experience with unemployment, and taught me that what one earns, or does not, in a capitalist society is ABSOLUTELY NO MEASURE of one's intrinsic worth intellectually, spiritually, or in any other way."
I loved the quote. It just struck me as so true when I read almost everyday in my local paperabout people who are earning millions of dollars in salaries for jobs that I think most people can do, but these people got the job, not because they are good (and many times, they aren't that great, just look at allthe failed CEO's of business that routinely get golden parachutes at one company, only to simply move on and becomea CEO of another company), but IMO, solely because of WHO THEY KNOW. I've become convinced that the CEOs of many businesses,the deans of many schools, the so-called "business/political consultants/lobbyists", higher-ups in professional sports,media personalities and others get their jobs because of connections. They really aren't any smarter than most other people, but they knew someone, or knew someone who knew someone, or was in the 'right' greek (or other 'secret') organization. and for that, these people earn millions of dollars while the rest of us, who work just as hard, and many who work harder, scrape by on five figure salaries.
I read somewhere that in the 1970s, the top 1% of our nation's taxpayers earned 9% of our nation's wealth. Now its 22%. and that top 1% has grown as well, just like the bottom 99%. Its just amazing to me how much some people get paid for their work, but "its ok" because "everybody does it." Like a tv news caster here in philly earns $800,000 a year. for what? I'm sure they do some investigation, but probablynot that much more than what I do in my work as an attorney. Seriously who needs that much money? Its people that kept earning these huge sums that helpedblow up housing values so high that people had to lie to get mortgages (and the bankers earning their six figure salaries let them). Sometimes I feel like I've gone a complete 180 from my college days. Hell, socialism isn't that bad of word to me anymore.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Karma, Baby, Karma
Long time, no post, been busy with work, kids, etc. But last night, I got some fun news.
I used to work for a satellite office of a relatively large law firm. At that time, I really wanted to work in the suburbs, thinking I'd have a shorter commute, less stress/work hours and more time with family. Certainly I was interested in getting ahead in my profession, and I had the impression the firm understood my desires and would work with me for both our benefits.
The job started out well, my boss seemed pretty decent, interesting cases and I made my billable hours without problems. After six months, I got a good review and indications that this would be my job for the future. I had heard rumors that my boss could be difficult to work for, but he seemed ok to me. I was also aware that the current managing partner of the satellite office was going to retire within the next couple of years and my boss was the leading candidate to take over the position. He knew it and did have a tendancy to throw his weight around because of it.
Then, over Christmas, I went on vacation and during that time found out I was pregnant. When I returned to work, I was still having a very difficult time with "all-day sickness" (I ultimately lost 25 pounds with the pregnancy, and only gained back about 10 of those pounds before birth). Also, given my age and weight, I was placed in the 'high risk' category. Due to these circumstances, and the anticipated effect it might have on my work hours, I told my boss early.
Almost overnight, my work environment changed. Suddenly my boss was on my back about every little thing. While I didn't have set work hours, he would be annoyed if I got to work 5 minutes later than when he felt I should be there. He was annoyed everytime I went to a doctor's appointment (which were more frequent because I was high risk). He started cutting my billing hours, then yelling at me for not billing enough. During this time, work did slow down overall, plus none of the other partners wanted to give me work when I was going out on maternity leave soon. On several occasions, my boss yelled at me about something or another, enough that it brought me to tears. My doctor could tell that my work environment was not good and wanted me to go out on maternity leave early, but I didn't have the 'symptoms' to justify a medical leave, so going out early would be without a paycheck.
I also heard from a couple other people that my boss treated them quite poorly over various things. A friend of mine, who got a job at this office on my recommendation, ended up leaving because my boss treated her so badly. I'm sure her leaving didn't sit well with my boss and he probably took some of his annoyance out on me, but I certainly don't blame my friend.
My boss made my life so miserable during this time that I pretty much decided before I did go out on maternity leave that I would either seek to transfer to another office within the firm, or find a new job. As it turned out, my maternity leave got extended into a medical leave due to a torn rotator cuff that required surgery, and when I didn't return after the FMLA leave expired (due to the medical leave), my firm decided they didn't want me back. I'm fairly certain it was my boss' decision, or that he pushed it through the managing partner.
Coincidently, the other two associates at this office did not have families, and thus worked late hours. I'm pretty certain that I was let go because I did have a family, with other obligations that required my time, and couldn't work late hours. One of the associates I kept in contact with said that after I left (along with another associate that quit) she routinely worked until 8-9 pm almost every night and rarely took more than 15 minutes for lunch. In my opinion, the office decided it was better to have 2 associates working 15 hour days, rather than 4 associates working 7-8 hour days. I also know that the other associate that left, did so in part because she hated working for my boss (she had a few cases with him before my maternity leave, but more when I went out on maternity leave).
I suppose it worked out pretty well for me in the long run. I got a decent severance package and unemployment sustained me until I found a new job. I got more time home with my new baby. My new job doesn't pay quite as much, but its close, and the work environment is significantly better. Fortunately, I got my new job before the economy went to hell and I'm plenty busy.
So, the good news? Well, turns out that my ex-boss, Mr. "In the lead for managing partner" didn't get the job. Hah!! Just found out last night when a friend and also former associate ran into a secretary at the office who told her that another partner, a much nicer partner, got the job. Rumor has it that my ex-boss was voted down because the management committee for the entire firm felt that my ex-boss cost too many other people jobs and people didn't like working for him. Gee, wonder where they got that idea from?
All I can say is Karma, baby, Karma.
I used to work for a satellite office of a relatively large law firm. At that time, I really wanted to work in the suburbs, thinking I'd have a shorter commute, less stress/work hours and more time with family. Certainly I was interested in getting ahead in my profession, and I had the impression the firm understood my desires and would work with me for both our benefits.
The job started out well, my boss seemed pretty decent, interesting cases and I made my billable hours without problems. After six months, I got a good review and indications that this would be my job for the future. I had heard rumors that my boss could be difficult to work for, but he seemed ok to me. I was also aware that the current managing partner of the satellite office was going to retire within the next couple of years and my boss was the leading candidate to take over the position. He knew it and did have a tendancy to throw his weight around because of it.
Then, over Christmas, I went on vacation and during that time found out I was pregnant. When I returned to work, I was still having a very difficult time with "all-day sickness" (I ultimately lost 25 pounds with the pregnancy, and only gained back about 10 of those pounds before birth). Also, given my age and weight, I was placed in the 'high risk' category. Due to these circumstances, and the anticipated effect it might have on my work hours, I told my boss early.
Almost overnight, my work environment changed. Suddenly my boss was on my back about every little thing. While I didn't have set work hours, he would be annoyed if I got to work 5 minutes later than when he felt I should be there. He was annoyed everytime I went to a doctor's appointment (which were more frequent because I was high risk). He started cutting my billing hours, then yelling at me for not billing enough. During this time, work did slow down overall, plus none of the other partners wanted to give me work when I was going out on maternity leave soon. On several occasions, my boss yelled at me about something or another, enough that it brought me to tears. My doctor could tell that my work environment was not good and wanted me to go out on maternity leave early, but I didn't have the 'symptoms' to justify a medical leave, so going out early would be without a paycheck.
I also heard from a couple other people that my boss treated them quite poorly over various things. A friend of mine, who got a job at this office on my recommendation, ended up leaving because my boss treated her so badly. I'm sure her leaving didn't sit well with my boss and he probably took some of his annoyance out on me, but I certainly don't blame my friend.
My boss made my life so miserable during this time that I pretty much decided before I did go out on maternity leave that I would either seek to transfer to another office within the firm, or find a new job. As it turned out, my maternity leave got extended into a medical leave due to a torn rotator cuff that required surgery, and when I didn't return after the FMLA leave expired (due to the medical leave), my firm decided they didn't want me back. I'm fairly certain it was my boss' decision, or that he pushed it through the managing partner.
Coincidently, the other two associates at this office did not have families, and thus worked late hours. I'm pretty certain that I was let go because I did have a family, with other obligations that required my time, and couldn't work late hours. One of the associates I kept in contact with said that after I left (along with another associate that quit) she routinely worked until 8-9 pm almost every night and rarely took more than 15 minutes for lunch. In my opinion, the office decided it was better to have 2 associates working 15 hour days, rather than 4 associates working 7-8 hour days. I also know that the other associate that left, did so in part because she hated working for my boss (she had a few cases with him before my maternity leave, but more when I went out on maternity leave).
I suppose it worked out pretty well for me in the long run. I got a decent severance package and unemployment sustained me until I found a new job. I got more time home with my new baby. My new job doesn't pay quite as much, but its close, and the work environment is significantly better. Fortunately, I got my new job before the economy went to hell and I'm plenty busy.
So, the good news? Well, turns out that my ex-boss, Mr. "In the lead for managing partner" didn't get the job. Hah!! Just found out last night when a friend and also former associate ran into a secretary at the office who told her that another partner, a much nicer partner, got the job. Rumor has it that my ex-boss was voted down because the management committee for the entire firm felt that my ex-boss cost too many other people jobs and people didn't like working for him. Gee, wonder where they got that idea from?
All I can say is Karma, baby, Karma.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Seriously
Why are we still allowing Chinese products into our country? They poison our children's toys, they poison our pets' food and now they poisoned their milk (at least it was only their own, but I feel terrible about their babies). Clearly this country is emerging in the shadow of capitalist america by valuing the almight dollar (or yuan) above all else. So much for communism, eh? This is a country that faked the Olympic opening ceremonies, having one child lip-sync to another child because the singer wasn't 'cute enough.'
Unfortnately, chinese products are so cheap, they are practically the only ones you can find in certain markets, like toys. Of course, that's because of our own country's rampant corporate greed that found it was better to hire the chinese company that pays its workers 5 cents an hour with no benefits than american workers that require unreasonable things like health insurance and sick days. Then the american corporation can give its CEOs and boardmembers millions and shareholders thousands, while sure they pass along perhaps a dollar or two savings on the product to the public. Frankly, I would rather pay a little more for something made elsewhere. Definitely going to look for that in the upcoming holidays.
Unfortnately, chinese products are so cheap, they are practically the only ones you can find in certain markets, like toys. Of course, that's because of our own country's rampant corporate greed that found it was better to hire the chinese company that pays its workers 5 cents an hour with no benefits than american workers that require unreasonable things like health insurance and sick days. Then the american corporation can give its CEOs and boardmembers millions and shareholders thousands, while sure they pass along perhaps a dollar or two savings on the product to the public. Frankly, I would rather pay a little more for something made elsewhere. Definitely going to look for that in the upcoming holidays.
Monday, September 15, 2008
So far so good
So I've been at this new job nearly four months now, and so far, so good. My boss is easy to work for, he gives me plenty to do, but doesn't nag me. He doesn't cut my billing hours (or at least he hasn't complained to me that he's had to). He hasn't said word one about whether I'm dressed appropriately (or complained that I wasn't), or that I have to leave to pick up my kids from school, or even the couple of days I had to work from home because of sick kids.
And now, for the second time in this four month period, I'm getting a trip to NYC to wine and dine clients. The firm is paying for me to take whatever train I want, will pay for the taxi fare, and pay for a pretty expensive meal. If I wanted, they'd even pay for me to spend the night in a decent hotel. I opted not, so I could come home to family, but it was nice to know it was an option. My last law firm that was supposedly "more elite" or "more prestigious" never did this. The closest was a "quick bite" in a hotel restaurant when a client was in town for a settlement conference. My last lawfirm also refused to pay for my California bar license or for more than one bar association membership. My current firm says they'll pay for both the license and any extra bar associations I want to join.
Now my salary isn't quite as high, but its not too far off. I know my current firm would love me to bill as much as my last firm required, but they accept that I probably won't. Given that my boss isn't slashing my hours faster than a Ginsu knife, I've actually come close to 'ideal' hours twice and made it once in the last three months. For September, I'll probably come close again. If this keeps up, the only month I'll probably not bill well is December, when the French family comes to visit.
So far, I'm really liking it here. The work is interesting, the people nice, the work environment great. I hope it keeps up.
And now, for the second time in this four month period, I'm getting a trip to NYC to wine and dine clients. The firm is paying for me to take whatever train I want, will pay for the taxi fare, and pay for a pretty expensive meal. If I wanted, they'd even pay for me to spend the night in a decent hotel. I opted not, so I could come home to family, but it was nice to know it was an option. My last law firm that was supposedly "more elite" or "more prestigious" never did this. The closest was a "quick bite" in a hotel restaurant when a client was in town for a settlement conference. My last lawfirm also refused to pay for my California bar license or for more than one bar association membership. My current firm says they'll pay for both the license and any extra bar associations I want to join.
Now my salary isn't quite as high, but its not too far off. I know my current firm would love me to bill as much as my last firm required, but they accept that I probably won't. Given that my boss isn't slashing my hours faster than a Ginsu knife, I've actually come close to 'ideal' hours twice and made it once in the last three months. For September, I'll probably come close again. If this keeps up, the only month I'll probably not bill well is December, when the French family comes to visit.
So far, I'm really liking it here. The work is interesting, the people nice, the work environment great. I hope it keeps up.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Shoot Me Now
I can't believe I am going to defend insurance companies. I know I have to do it for a living, but I don't really like it. Usually, I try and convince myself that even though the insurance company is paying my bill and calls the shots, I'm really representing the poor sap insured (whose rates have already increased the moment the lawsuit is served).
Anyway, recently I've worked on cases where the Plaintiff has sued our client, who admittedly was probably negligent, but the plaintiff doesn't sue the party that really caused the wrong. The reason? Because our client has insurance and the really wrong party doesn't. Yup, the Plaintiff presumes that the insurance company will likely pony up at least some money to settle the lawsuit, which is probably right, whereas the really wrong party probably doesn't have two sous to rub together (which may or may not be true). Its annoying because not only does it offend my sense of justice (yeah, I do have one), but it makes more work for me because I then have to prepare a joinder complaint to join the really wrong party into the lawsuit, and serve the complaint (and I have plenty of other work to do, I don't need the extra billables, thank you).
Its not like it costs the Plaintiffs that much extra to add on another defendant, and the plaintiffs in these cases, can well afford the sums. Some plaintiffs (or their counsel) are just too lazy.
Anyway, recently I've worked on cases where the Plaintiff has sued our client, who admittedly was probably negligent, but the plaintiff doesn't sue the party that really caused the wrong. The reason? Because our client has insurance and the really wrong party doesn't. Yup, the Plaintiff presumes that the insurance company will likely pony up at least some money to settle the lawsuit, which is probably right, whereas the really wrong party probably doesn't have two sous to rub together (which may or may not be true). Its annoying because not only does it offend my sense of justice (yeah, I do have one), but it makes more work for me because I then have to prepare a joinder complaint to join the really wrong party into the lawsuit, and serve the complaint (and I have plenty of other work to do, I don't need the extra billables, thank you).
Its not like it costs the Plaintiffs that much extra to add on another defendant, and the plaintiffs in these cases, can well afford the sums. Some plaintiffs (or their counsel) are just too lazy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)