Why is the SEC slashing retirement and other benefits?

[Anonymous]

Why not get rid of the lease Instead of our benefits? I come into the office, my meetings are still on zoom, I spend most of my day doing exactly what I would do at home. It’s useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not get rid of the lease Instead of our benefits? I come into the office, my meetings are still on zoom, I spend most of my day doing exactly what I would do at home. It’s useless.

for one thing, you don't get out of leases early. that money is already committed.

secondly, not everyone has a laptop yet. covid supply chain issues have a long tail.

thirdly, it takes a lot of time and money to actually close down a building and return to landlord. closing sp3 was a huge push and thats a lot of time folks spent not working on other important tasks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not get rid of the lease Instead of our benefits? I come into the office, my meetings are still on zoom, I spend most of my day doing exactly what I would do at home. It’s useless.

for one thing, you don't get out of leases early. that money is already committed.

secondly, not everyone has a laptop yet. covid supply chain issues have a long tail.

thirdly, it takes a lot of time and money to actually close down a building and return to landlord. closing sp3 was a huge push and thats a lot of time folks spent not working on other important tasks.

I think it would s unfortunate. I am not clear on why SLRP is not at least partially funded.

[Anonymous]

Has any other Finreg done this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not get rid of the lease Instead of our benefits? I come into the office, my meetings are still on zoom, I spend most of my day doing exactly what I would do at home. It’s useless.

for one thing, you don't get out of leases early. that money is already committed.

secondly, not everyone has a laptop yet. covid supply chain issues have a long tail.

thirdly, it takes a lot of time and money to actually close down a building and return to landlord. closing sp3 was a huge push and thats a lot of time folks spent not working on other important tasks.

lol there has not been a shortage of laptops in like two years

[Anonymous]

Anyone that wants a laptop just has to ask OIT for one. As for leases, there seemed to be some legal loophole to get out of SP3. I assume the same could apply for other buildings. It’s a shock many of us still have reserved offices for 1 day per week. We’ve been RTO for a year at this point.

Cutting benefits when SEC is still struggling to recruit and retain talent because of the giant pay gap between public/private was an incredibly stupid move by admin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s called the market. The demand for “trying cases” actually isn’t that high since few cases ever go to trial. There IS a substantial demand for lawyers who can navigate and litigate complex financial matters.

Government salaries are set by legislation, not “the market.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s called the market. The demand for “trying cases” actually isn’t that high since few cases ever go to trial. There IS a substantial demand for lawyers who can navigate and litigate complex financial matters.

Government salaries are set by legislation, not “the market.”

This simply is not true for finreg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone that wants a laptop just has to ask OIT for one. As for leases, there seemed to be some legal loophole to get out of SP3. I assume the same could apply for other buildings. It’s a shock many of us still have reserved offices for 1 day per week. We’ve been RTO for a year at this point.

Cutting benefits when SEC is still struggling to recruit and retain talent because of the giant pay gap between public/private was an incredibly stupid move by admin.

NP and my understanding on the leases is that the SEC doesn't get to "keep" the money it saves on the leases. Admittedly, I don't entirely understand how that works but I think there is something with GSA where the savings have to be returned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s called the market. The demand for “trying cases” actually isn’t that high since few cases ever go to trial. There IS a substantial demand for lawyers who can navigate and litigate complex financial matters.

Government salaries are set by legislation, not “the market.”

This simply is not true for finreg.

wtf are you talking about? Congress created a non-GS pay scale for certain agencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s called the market. The demand for “trying cases” actually isn’t that high since few cases ever go to trial. There IS a substantial demand for lawyers who can navigate and litigate complex financial matters.

Government salaries are set by legislation, not “the market.”

This simply is not true for finreg.

wtf are you talking about? Congress created a non-GS pay scale for certain agencies.

The salary for most finregs is not set by legislation. It is determined by management at those agencies. If you think I'm wrong, can you point me to the legislation setting pay for SEC, FDIC, OCC, CFPB?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s called the market. The demand for “trying cases” actually isn’t that high since few cases ever go to trial. There IS a substantial demand for lawyers who can navigate and litigate complex financial matters.

Government salaries are set by legislation, not “the market.”

This simply is not true for finreg.

wtf are you talking about? Congress created a non-GS pay scale for certain agencies.

The salary for most finregs is not set by legislation. It is determined by management at those agencies. If you think I'm wrong, can you point me to the legislation setting pay for SEC, FDIC, OCC, CFPB?

PP might just be referring to FIRREA, the legislation that gave finregs the authority to create their own non-GS pay scales.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s called the market. The demand for “trying cases” actually isn’t that high since few cases ever go to trial. There IS a substantial demand for lawyers who can navigate and litigate complex financial matters.

Government salaries are set by legislation, not “the market.”

This simply is not true for finreg.

wtf are you talking about? Congress created a non-GS pay scale for certain agencies.

The salary for most finregs is not set by legislation. It is determined by management at those agencies. If you think I'm wrong, can you point me to the legislation setting pay for SEC, FDIC, OCC, CFPB?

PP might just be referring to FIRREA, the legislation that gave finregs the authority to create their own non-GS pay scales.

PP, thanks. I can see that. But in this context it is not accurate to say that "salaries are set by legislation." They aren't. The authority for agency management to set salary is set by legislation. But that actual salary is subject to change without legislation, including responding to "the market."

[Anonymous]

Some agencies have legislative authority to go off GS. Most do not. That’s Congress, not the market. Saying it’s the market would be as dumb as saying the difference in income vs long term capital gains taxes is set by the market.

[Anonymous]

The SEC forces fees of stock exchanges, broker dealers, public companies to pay for their fat salaries