For CdM: Bullshit jobs

[Berkut]

Unfortunately, given the imperfections of the human race, we do need these kinds of oversight / rules enforcing jobs.  Saying that they don't produce anything is true in one sense, but seems to miss the bigger picture - without them you'd be producing even less.

Exactly right.

[Malthus]

I think there is a perception out there that lawyering is a matter of mastering the right arcane mumbo-jumbo, which can (and maybe should) be either simplified, handed over to a computer to do, or outsourced to India. 

Fact is, there is a certain amount of jargon and mumbo-jumbo in the lawyering world as there is in any profession - but at base, good lawyering requires a deep knowledge of the client's affairs, a deep knowledge of the local circumstances (both regulatory and practical), and the ability, through experience, to foresee the types of problems that can arise - and prevent them. I'm talking about corporate and regulatory lawyering, not litigation, of course - litigation is all about solving problems that haven't been prevented.

To counter Berkut, a lawyer isn't really like a security guard at Wal-mart - a lawyer is more like the architect one hires to build the Wal-mart. Does an architect "make anything"? S/he plans out what others will make, taking into account the local building codes, the physical layout of the mall, and the customer's needs. Similarly, a corporate lawyer plans out how a buisness is to operate, down to such minor details as whether the baby sleepware sold in the store mas to be seperately tested in that specific jurisdiction or whether the testing in (say) California would suffice. Plan badly, and very bad things happen. This is not something you want to farm out to some dude in India ...

But the lawyers do not plan out how the business is to operate - that is the job of the people who manage the business.

Absolutely. And architects do not plan the business concepts behind shopping malls - that is the job of the people who operate the business.

*However*, one cannot successfully plan out a shopping mall without an architect, because they translate the strategic decisions made by the business planners into workable reality, taking into account stuff like building codes and the nuts-and-bolts of how one physically puts stuff together, brick by brick.

Similarly, it is totally the job of business planners to plan out their business - for example, the business of selling sleepware for children. They determine the market, the styles, the competition, the advertising campaigns, the strategic alliances, the dealings with distributors and manufacturers, everything.

However, they simply cannot do it without lawyers. Lawyers translate the business models dreamed up by the business types into actual, nuts-and-bolts reality. Have an advertising canmpaign? You had better know, for example, what laws there are in Quebec concerning posting advertisements, if you plan to sell in Quebec. Have to buy sleepware from a manufacturer? How do you plan to import it? Dies it meet local codes? What happens if the stuff is crap and injures someone? Better have answers to those questions.   

Deciding if the baby sleepware needs to be separately tested is NOT "planning how the business will operate" it is figuring out how to apply the law to a particular products testing, and absent said law and the potential litigation that goes laong with such laws, the lawyer is not needed. Again, they are not producing anything, they are simply making sure that the business avoids costs.

Now this is simply not true. I'm speaking from experience here - knowing this sort of detail IS "planning how the business will operate". To take this very specific example, if the stuff need not be seperately tested, the US and Canadian operations can directly share the same stream of manufacture, which is absolutely vital to how the business operates (again, in a nuts-and-bolts fashion).

They don't decide how to make the sleepwear, or how to market it, or where to place it in the store, or what it should be made out of, or who should make it, or any of those things.

On the contrary, they are involved in ALL of these decisions.

To take but one example (I could give similar ones for each of the factors you name) - you have asserted that lawyers are not involved in the decision of "where to place it in the store". You would perhaps be surprised to know that such decisions - where goods are placed in the store, whether at eye-level, or the top shelf, or by the check-out desk - are all matters that are highly negotiated and subject to strict contractual control; and who does those negotiations and who drafts those contracts? Lawyers.

I am certina that they have input into decisions that do in fact impact the competitive success of the business, but mostly that is tangential to their actual job which is to protect the business from costs associated with the legal requirements and legal exposure of doing business. Absent those requirements or that exposure, they have no job, or certainly no job that could not be done by someone without a legal degree, and hence not a lawyer.

But I suspect this isn't an argument that can possibly get any traction with the lawyers.

Hell, here is another anaology: Lawyers are like officials in sports. That is something that I do, and I am perfectly content to say that we do not produce a damn thing, and if you could structure competitive sports business in such a way that our services were not needed, as a business you would be better off - we do not "produce" anything when it comes to sports. If you could make it so the players always followed the rules, we could (and would) be ditched immediately and replaced by people whose job it was to simply manage the mechanics of the game. And if you could have a game where even that wasn't necessary, you certainly would. We are not part of the product, we are just there because the alternative is worse.

I do not fault you for making the arguments you do, they are in fact the common perception. You in turn will not, I am sure, fault me for saying that your perception does not match the reality I see every single day, in my work.

The fact is that no business can possibly operate without someone doing the jobs lawyers do. Your point is like saying that businesses can operate without accountants. Sure, they can operate without someone called an "accountant", but without someone keeping track of the numbers it would not be a very profitable business.

Simply put, someone has to keep track of the way stuff actually works in the real world. The job of the business planners is to think big and to come up with the concepts. The job of professionals like lawyers, achitects and accountants is to translate those big thoughts into tangible reality. Sure, it would be nice if businessess did not need such translation, but that no more works in reality than basing the profitability of a business on the power of prayer.

Lawyers are not like umpires. In a game, everyone knows the rules and the only question is whether people are breaking them deliberately. This analogy may work for what BB does - he prosecutes rule-breakers - but it does not work for what corporate and regulatory lawyers do.

[CountDeMoney]

All I learned in my years was never to go to Legal for a ruling on course of action, as the answer will always be "No".

[garbon]

All I learned in my years was never to go to Legal for a ruling on course of action, as the answer will always be "No".

Indeed!

[Malthus]

All I learned in my years was never to go to Legal for a ruling on course of action, as the answer will always be "No".

There are lawyers like that. Crappy ones.

It is always the easy answer to say "no" because it is harder to be blamed for stuff not happening, than for stuff happening but going wrong. So, avoid blame by comming up with all the reasons stuff can't happen (there are always some).

However, in order for a business to operate, stuff has to happen. So a good lawyer will help you find a way to make stuff happen, not just give you all the reasons why stuff can't happen.

Now, there may be some cases where the answer has to be "no", but they should be few. 

[Berkut]

How very lawyerly of you Malthus.

I never said (actually the word you used was "asserted"), for example, that lawyers were not involved in those decisions, I said they did not make those decisions. Those decisions are not driven by them - of course they have influence over them in some cases. So what? The janitor probably ahs influence over them as well, but we don't say the janitor produces anything either.

Not the same thing at all. Of course they are involved - so what? Everyone is "involved" or they would not be there. That doesn't make them producers.

The fact is that no business can possibly operate without someone doing the jobs lawyers do.

Nobody has made a claim to the contrary. What is your point?

Lots of jobs are perfectly necessary and yet do not produce anything.

In a game, everyone knows the rules

x infinity

and the only question is whether people are breaking them deliberately.

[/quote]
Wow. You have no idea how thoroughly incorrect this statement is, on so many different levels.

I would say probably the LEAST part of my job is trying to determine intent. Mostly because it is nearly impossible in 99% of the plays I have to rule on.

And no...everyone most certainly does NOT know the rules, anymore than "everyone knows the law". They don't know the rules, they don't know the accepted interpretations of the rules, and they don't know how those rules are applied in different situations. They don't know how the mechanics of administering penalties work, they don't know how the mechanics of administering the game itself work, they don't know the nuts and bolts of how the game operates in the corner cases when something odd happens.

In fact, officials are JUST LIKE LAWYERS! The difference is that we are not adversarial, in that the system doesn't allow for each team to have their own officials, but rather we operate as independent and hopefully neutral arbiters.

[DGuller]

I would flay a thousand lawyers and use their skulls for my throne.

I hope you hire a lawyer to make sure you're not breaking any ordinances.

[Malthus]

How very lawyerly of you Malthus.

I never said (actually the word you used was "asserted"), for example, that lawyers were not involved in those decisions, I said they did not make those decisions. Those decisions are not driven by them - of course they have influence over them in some cases. So what? The janitor probably ahs influence over them as well, but we don't say the janitor produces anything either.

Not the same thing at all. Of course they are involved - so what? Everyone is "involved" or they would not be there. That doesn't make them producers.

The problem here is I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "producers". Is the person making the decision a "producer"? They "produce" nothing themselves.

In fact, many businesses do NOTHING but, in effect, own intellectual property. All of the other activities - manufacturing, selling - are outsourced. Are they "producers"?

My "assertion" is that no business can operate without a team of professionals (or someone doing their jobs). They are essential aspects of the business, not merely "costs" that can, hopefully, be done away with.

Not sure what your division into "producers" and "non-producers" is intended to achieve. To my mind, it is an irrelevant distinction, or at least one you have not yet explained. Is the person selling stuff at the checkout counter a "producer"?

Nobody has made a claim to the contrary. What is your point?

On the contrary, you appear to be asserting that lawyers are something businesses would be better off not having to pay for. Not sure what *your* point is, if not that lawyering were somehow fundamentally 'not essential'.

No doubt, businesses would also be better off not paying for advertising, distribution or manufacture, if they could. So what?

x infinity

Wow. You have no idea how thoroughly incorrect this statement is, on so many different levels.

I would say probably the LEAST part of my job is trying to determine intent. Mostly because it is nearly impossible in 99% of the plays I have to rule on.

And no...everyone most certainly does NOT know the rules, anymore than "everyone knows the law". They don't know the rules, they don't know the accepted interpretations of the rules, and they don't know how those rules are applied in different situations. They don't know how the mechanics of administering penalties work, they don't know how the mechanics of administering the game itself work, they don't know the nuts and bolts of how the game operates in the corner cases when something odd happens.

In fact, officials are JUST LIKE LAWYERS! The difference is that we are not adversarial, in that the system doesn't allow for each team to have their own officials, but rather we operate as independent and hopefully neutral arbiters.

I admit I know nothing about the job of refereeing.  I assumed that everyone who, say, played football, knew the rules of the game.

I stand corrected.

What is amusing to me, is that you quite evidently know nothing about the job of lawyering. Are you willing to admit as much, I wonder? 

[Berkut]

I know enough to know that they don't produce anything. Which is all I've been arguing. I think you are arguing with someone other than me.

You are confusing me saying that lawyers are an example of a cost center with an argument that they ought to be gotten rid of. Which is weird, since I've stated very clearly several times that I am not making that argument, and in fact found the original claim made in the article stupid.

If you don't understand the difference in business between entitites that are costs, and entities that are production, then go wiki it or something. It isn't some kind of arcane concept.

Lawyers are a cost center, and yes, the business would be better off if they could in fact run their business without that cost. They typically cannot, which is why they pay lawyers.

I keep providing analogies, and you keep rejecting them on the basis of some factor that isn't relevant to the analogy.

Janitors are a cost center - they provide a completely necessary service that does not produce anything. If I make cars for a living, I need someone to sweep up the factory floor every night. If I could have a factory floor that never needed sweeping, then I would not need a janitor, and my business would be more profitable. Of course, like everything, the definitions are not perfectly strict, and you can argue about whether some particular activity falls more on the production side or more on the cost side. But the basic idea that there is such a division is not really debated.

[Berkut]

From wiki:

A cost centre or cost center is a division within a business which is financed from the profit margin adding to the cost of the organization, but contributing to its profit indirectly.


Typical examples include research and development, marketing and customer service.

There are some significant advantages to classifying simple, straightforward divisions as cost centres, since cost is easy to measure. However, cost centres create incentives for managers to underfund their units in order to benefit themselves, and this underfunding may result in adverse consequences for the company as a whole [for example, reduced sales because of bad customer service experiences].

Because the cost centre has a negative impact on profit (at least on the surface) it is a likely target for rollbacks and layoffs when budgets are cut. Operational decisions in a cost centre, for example, are typically driven by cost considerations. Investments in new equipment, technology and staff are often difficult to justify to management because indirect profitability is hard to translate to bottom-line figures.


Business metrics are sometimes employed to quantify the benefits of a cost centre and relate costs and benefits to those of the organization as a whole. In a contact centre, for example, metrics such as average handle time, service level and cost per call are used in conjunction with other calculations to justify current or improved funding

The bit about funding is a great way to think about it, I wish I had mentioned that earlier.

[Malthus]

I know enough to know that they don't produce anything. Which is all I've been arguing. I think you are arguing with someone other than me.

I'm asking you what you think *does* "produce something". To my mind, it isn't nearly as clear-cut as you claim.

You are confusing me saying that lawyers are an example of a cost center with an argument that they ought to be gotten rid of. Which is weird, since I've stated very clearly several times that I am not making that argument, and in fact found the original claim made in the article stupid.

If you don't understand the difference in business between entitites that are costs, and entities that are production, then go wiki it or something. It isn't some kind of arcane concept.

I'm not interested in what Wiki has to say, but in what *you* are saying. 

Lawyers are a cost center, and yes, the business would be better off if they could in fact run their business without that cost. They typically cannot, which is why they pay lawyers.

I keep providing analogies, and you keep rejecting them on the basis of some factor that isn't relevant to the analogy.

Janitors are a cost center - they provide a completely necessary service that does not produce anything. If I make cars for a living, I need someone to sweep up the factory floor every night. If I could have a factory floor that never needed sweeping, then I would not need a janitor, and my business would be more profitable. Of course, like everything, the definitions are not perfectly strict, and you can argue about whether some particular activity falls more on the production side or more on the cost side. But the basic idea that there is such a division is not really debated.

Again, that's about as meaningful as saying businesses would be better off if they could run without any sales staff or R&D. So what? What's the point here?

In your first post you said:

That is all very true, and yet, it is still the case that that person assisting you with those matters produced exactly nothing of value.

[Emphasis]

... and that is what is under debate, not whether or not lawyers are a "cost centre" - a concept you have mentioned for the very first time here. The two are obviously not the same. Or are you claiming Research and Development - which is the very epitomie of a "cost centre" according to the Wikipedia you set such store in - produces "...exactly nothing of value?" 

[Zanza]

All I learned in my years was never to go to Legal for a ruling on course of action, as the answer will always be "No".

I made the experience that you need to find the right guy, best if he is someone senior. I work in automating and streamlining business processes and one of the question that always comes up is whether you need physical "wet" signatures in a certain jurisdiction to make documents legally binding. Often the actual business units say yes, it's a legal requirement. But when you get the right lawyer, we often found that you can in fact get rid of physical signatures and only have electronic signatures. That can cause huge efficiency gains in places where they still stamp, sign, chop etc. their documents.

[Berkut]

I know enough to know that they don't produce anything. Which is all I've been arguing. I think you are arguing with someone other than me.

I'm asking you what you think *does* "produce something". To my mind, it isn't nearly as clear-cut as you claim.

I never claimed it was clear cut, counselor. I said the division exists. It isn't always clear cut at all.


And who does produce something? The parts of the business whose output is something that is sold, of course. Profit centers.

You are confusing me saying that lawyers are an example of a cost center with an argument that they ought to be gotten rid of. Which is weird, since I've stated very clearly several times that I am not making that argument, and in fact found the original claim made in the article stupid.

If you don't understand the difference in business between entitites that are costs, and entities that are production, then go wiki it or something. It isn't some kind of arcane concept.

I'm not interested in what Wiki has to say, but in what *you* are saying. 

And I am saying nothing that isn't said elsewhere. Lawyers are a cost of business, and unless you business is being a lawyer, they are not in the "production" siide of the ledger because they don't produce anything that a business sells.


What I don't get is why the lawyers get so offended at the idea that they are a cost. Hell, most parts of business are costs. The only part that is not is the part that actually makes the things the business sells.


Unless you work for a law firm that sells legal advice, of course. Then you are part of the profit center, of course.

Lawyers are a cost center, and yes, the business would be better off if they could in fact run their business without that cost. They typically cannot, which is why they pay lawyers.

I keep providing analogies, and you keep rejecting them on the basis of some factor that isn't relevant to the analogy.

Janitors are a cost center - they provide a completely necessary service that does not produce anything. If I make cars for a living, I need someone to sweep up the factory floor every night. If I could have a factory floor that never needed sweeping, then I would not need a janitor, and my business would be more profitable. Of course, like everything, the definitions are not perfectly strict, and you can argue about whether some particular activity falls more on the production side or more on the cost side. But the basic idea that there is such a division is not really debated.

Again, that's about as meaningful as saying businesses would be better off if they could run without any sales staff or R&D. So what? What's the point here?

That lawyers don't produce anything. Nothing more or less. If you don't find that point interesting, then great.

In your first post you said:

That is all very true, and yet, it is still the case that that person assisting you with those matters produced exactly nothing of value.

[Emphasis]

... and that is what is under debate, not whether or not lawyers are a "cost centre" - a concept you have mentioned for the very first time here.

Not true, I've mentioned that they are a cost several times. The fact that they do not produce anything of value for the company they work for is what defines a cost center. So yeah, I think it is rather relevant.

Wal-mart doesn't sell anything their lawyers produce.

The two are obviously not the same. Or are you claiming Research and Development - which is the very epitomie of a "cost centre" according to the Wikipedia you set such store in - produces "...exactly nothing of value?" 

R&D do not produce anything that the company sells, no. That isn't the same as saying that what they do has no value, only that they don't produce anything of value. Which is rather obvious, since they don't produce anything, they do research. The outcome of which presumably might be the production of something, of course.

But they cost the business money, they do not generate money. You don't sell what the research department produces. They indirectly contribute to profitability.

[crazy canuck]

How very lawyerly of you Malthus.

I never said (actually the word you used was "asserted"), for example, that lawyers were not involved in those decisions, I said they did not make those decisions. Those decisions are not driven by them - of course they have influence over them in some cases. So what? The janitor probably ahs influence over them as well, but we don't say the janitor produces anything either.

Not the same thing at all. Of course they are involved - so what? Everyone is "involved" or they would not be there. That doesn't make them producers.

Yeah, thats why people pay lawyers hundreds of dollars an hour.  They are just good window dressing. 

[Berkut]

How very lawyerly of you Malthus.

I never said (actually the word you used was "asserted"), for example, that lawyers were not involved in those decisions, I said they did not make those decisions. Those decisions are not driven by them - of course they have influence over them in some cases. So what? The janitor probably ahs influence over them as well, but we don't say the janitor produces anything either.

Not the same thing at all. Of course they are involved - so what? Everyone is "involved" or they would not be there. That doesn't make them producers.

Yeah, thats why people pay lawyers hundreds of dollars an hour.  They are just good window dressing. 

You lawyers sure are sensitive.

What is funny about this is that this argument has nothing to do with what lawyers actually do - you don't need to know anything about the job of a lawyer to classify them as a cost or a production division of the business (except to know that they are not producing anything the business sells). It isn't some kind of slam on them to note that they are not in the production part of the business, yet you insist on taking it that way no matter how many times I state otherwise.

What a bunch of prima donnas.