« Europe's morality crisis | Main | The final crisis of capitalism? »

September 19, 2011


Cheesy Monkey

I'm an outsourced support worker in a small but growing investment bank. I get paid around £16 an hour and I'm discouraged to work beyond my shift hours as I am effectively paid overtime (due to my temporary contract being paid by the hour). I work an 8-hour day, five days a week. The analysts here, particularly the 'junior' ones, regularly work 12+ hour days, often 6 days a week. In yearly salary terms (excluding bonuses), they get paid more than me (probably more than twice as much). But if you translate that to a per-hour rate, I get paid far more than they do—and I get to have my evenings and weekends free.
However my job is in decline as the size of the teams I work for has shrunk quite markedly in the past 10 years. At larger banks, a lot of the work I do has been semi-successfully offshored. But analysts have also been passing us less work than before and are encouraged to do it themselves.
As a third-party (i.e., outsourced) worker, I get no yearly bonus. If I was directly employed by the bank, I would be unlikely to receive more than £1000—and that only if the bank has a 'successful' year. Could it be possible that many—perhaps most—banks are using bonuses for bankers to ensure that they work the increasingly long hours that allow for lower headcounts and the ability to phase out costly, non-wealth generating support services?
Of course, if the Government were to bring in French-style 35 hour weeks, ban bonuses and force banks to pay analysts a representative hourly rate, that would generate both jobs and goodwill. But that's a debate for another day…

Tom Addison

Speaking of choking, good article here on the difference between choking and panicking:


Found via this article, which talks about Arsenal's rubbish, chokey defence



I totally agree with you

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad