<p>There is a conflict going on in my office that is all sorts of swirling drama. I’m curious to know what you all think. With the caveat that it doesn’t affect me personally and I can do nothing to change the situation. I’m interested in thoughts and perceptions, rather than advice.</p>
<p>I work in a firm with many temp attorneys. As some of you know, this is a big thing in the legal community and mostly they are treated very badly, housed in basements lacking even appropriate restroom facilities, other indignities galore. Here, they are on the practice floors in permanent attorney offices whose furniture has been removed, so where one person used to sit at a desk with a credenza and shelves, now 3-5 people sit at card tables. But it’s better than most situations. </p>
<p>The firm is preparing to move in the early part of the new year, so there is packing and moving-related STUFF going on. The cafeteria is closed in anticipation of the move, so the firm has been providing continental breakfast (fruit and stuff) for employees. The temp attorneys generally get there early and stock up on the food, which bothers the firm, but isn’t a big deal. However, there was a party last week in the firm (in a private area, not out in the open) with catered food, RSVPs, the whole bit (it was absolutely huge, took up an entire floor of the firm), to say farewell to the location and ring in the holidays. It was very nice, but only employees were invited. The temp attorneys crashed the party and raised a ruckus. Eventually they were turned away, but have continued to be irate and extremely vocal. </p>
<p>There are two sides here: the first being that they are human beings who are resident on the premises and should be treated with the respect of every other human being here and invited to the party. The second is that it was an expensive party thrown for a specific reason and the firm was ok to invite whomever it pleased. Which, technically, is true, but there are a lot of upset people on both sides here and the outcome may be that when the move is completed, many of the people at issue could end up in the basement anyway because of this.</p>
<p>I agree with you on your first point. That if they are working there - temp or not, while they might not receive a year end bonus or whatever, it would see “the right thing” to invite them to the party. </p>
<p>The second point that bothers me is a lavish party while people - temp or not - are working on card tables with inadequate bathroom facilities. Just rubs me wrong. </p>
<p>(Spoken as a grant funded position with an office IN the basement and who often feels like that temporary worker you speak of even though I’ve been in this position for a dozen years!!! - as opposed to the union associated people who are well taken care of around me)</p>
No, you misunderstood. They are working on card tables, but they have adequate facilities, free breakfast, unlimited gourmet coffee, etc. In many temp attorney situations, they are housed in basements or off-site and the lack of adequate facilities is many situations has gained a great deal of publicity, but that isn’t the case here. They are at card tables because there are so many of them and the office is, obviously, extremely overcrowded and thus the move. Even permanent employees are inconvenienced and overcrowded through the preparation for the move. My point was that this is a pretty nice firm in the circumstances and they are treated much better here than pretty much anywhere else.</p>
<p>I have mixed feelings (you can tell, right?) because there are a lot of other people who work here permanently but aren’t employees of the firm who didn’t get invited but didn’t raise a ruckus. The attorney agency and the other companies who provide services have parties for their own employees to which we are not invited.</p>
<p>So annoying when the hired help don’t know their place – didn’t Scrooge say something like that?</p>
<p>Treat people like cattle, and it isn’t surprising that they stampede, especially when food is involved and they’re being paid a pittance.</p>
<p>The higher-ups should have rented a restaurant or hotel space if they really wanted to keep it solely for the valued employees. </p>
<p>Better yet, they should have listened to A Christmas Story and decided to do something more generous for all these contract attorneys. (And just because they’re not treated as badly as they are at some firms doesn’t make the treatment they’re getting right and justified.)</p>
<p>Blech. Let me guess: this same management will be shocked when a unionization effort begins.</p>
<p>I agree with abasket. I think it is poor form to exclude the temps from a party given on the premises. It was, of course, uncouth of them to crash a party to which they were not invited. It is really questionable to grind your heel in the face of the masses by throwing an expensive party from which they are excluded while providing them with poor working conditions. How Dickensian.</p>
<p>Cross-posted: I understand that their conditions aren’t THAT bad. But still. It’s like inviting only part of a class to a child’s birthday party, then making a big deal about it in front of the others. Or maybe like bringing cupcakes for the class, but only for the friends.</p>
<p>Very poor form to exclude the temp attorneys. It actually surprises me greatly that this was done, if, indeed, all others at the firm were able to partake.</p>
<p>The masses who work for the firm were invited from the top to the bottom. The temp attorneys don’t have Dickensian working conditions. As I said, their working conditions are better here than in most other firms and are exactly the same, down to free breakfast, as every other employee in the firm in this time of crowding, boxes and transition. I guess I have more of an opinion than I thought because thinking about it, it doesn’t seem wrong to reward the people who are going to do the actual packing, shipping, moving and setting up of an entire new space over people who aren’t included in that process. The temp attorneys have been invited to every other event that the firm holds, just not this one because it was such a blowout and must have been expensive.</p>
<p>Alwaysamom, not all others at the firm were included. All outside vendors housed on the premises were excluded as were all temps at every other level of service and the people connected with the firm who aren’t employed here but rent space from the firm.</p>
<p>I do agree that they should have either invited everyone or had it somewhere else. But the bottom line is that they are indeed free to invite whomever they want and crashing the party and making a scene seems to be to be in equally bad form.</p>
<p>Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding. So if they have those “perks” at least there is at least a little less division. Agreed that if there was to be a separate party it should have been off premises - tacky to hold it in the same building and not invite all. </p>
<p>As far as the crashing - are we sure that someone more permanent didn’t suggest they “help themselves”??? Was it truly crashed or did they just not imagine that everyone wouldn’t be invited???</p>
<p>If one takes a strictly legalistic view of etiquette and free association, the second position is correct.</p>
<p>However, those who take the perspective of maintaining good atmosphere and a sense of basic human decency would feel the first position is correct. Personally, this is the position I take as the position one is of the worst ways to maintain a good atmosphere and a sense of basic human decency in an organization. </p>
<p>It’s also at odds with my experience working at a Manhattan Biglaw firm as the temp employees we’ve had were invited to the firm parties, including the Christmas party. However, that took place before the 2008 crash so the effects of the post-2008 economy and perceptions may have influenced firm attitudes on this score.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Incidentally, some of the parties where temps along with full-time employees were invited, including the Christmas parties the Biglaw firm I worked for had were held in high-end hotels or restaurants.</p>
Positive. I was personally present when a small group that grew larger decided, using the exact word, to crash the party. The party took over an entire floor of the firm, but it’s a service floor and no people actually reside there, so it wasn’t in anyone’s face. They showed up intending to raise a fuss and did so. There was no question about it being open to the public because everyone was reminded over and over again to RSVP. interestingly, the temp agency has pizza for its employees on our premises regularly. I don’t think anyone feels offended about not being invited. I do see what you are all saying, though, about having two different sets of people in the same firm. I suspect that’s why so many firms opt to house non-employees off site.</p>
<p>My husband’s jobs have had holiday parties and group events for various groups, excluding others. I see this all of the time. We are going to a Time Square Shindig, get to watch the ball drop from an office and I guarantee you all of the staff at that office will not be there–they are not invited or welcome. Happens all of the time in my life, so I don’t see the big deal. </p>
<p>IMO, those temp attorneys acted badly, and if I were in charge of hiring, unless any of them are true standouts at what counts the most for the company, out they go, and we try another cycle of temps. With so many attorneys out there, one is bound to find ones that know how to behave.</p>
<p>I don’t think you understand. Contract employees are not to be included in company parties or events. It is a basic rule of keeping the “contractor” designation and not having them be considered employees and be entitled to insurance and other benefits. This is basic employment law. No, it doesn’t seem fair, but blame the department of labor! </p>
<p>Also, I would not say that most contract lawyers have draconian working conditions. I am very educated on this topic. Yes, the rooms crammed with low paid lawyers with few breaks do get the press, but most contract lawyers are treated quite well. Unfortunately, they are paid what the market dictates these days, which isn’t a whole lot.</p>
<p>The interesting thing would be to have a discussion with the crashers to hear why they did it - if there was more intent beyond getting some delicious crab cake appetizers. Were they trying to make a point?</p>
<p>So if it’s contractual (so to speak) that they should not be included then that’s that. Guess they surely should have known. (but it still FEELS wrong to an outsider). </p>
<p>Wow, must have been some drama when they were turned away!!!</p>
I can’t speak to all of them, but the group who started the fuss is a group of very, very angry people who have a lot of law school debt and are very smart, accomplished people who are making not a whole lot of money. They sit on the practice floors and see how other attorneys who are permanent employees are treated, how they live, and what perks they have and are just enraged. The point was to show that they are as good as the permanent attorneys and that they matter just as much. We’ve had other problems with different groups before (not this current group) with things like small vandalism, abusive behavior to the staff, taking office supplies, etc. On my floor, a group of five sits in between two very important partners. The partners are courteous and pleasant, but anyone can see how well they live and how well they are treated. It’s an awkward situation at all levels. It’s also very sad and I often tell young people considering law school how demeaning such a circumstance can be. And when their cases settle or otherwise are resolved, they have no job and since they aren’t in the loop, they often don’t see that coming and get no warning.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, could you point me to the specific statute which addresses that? I’m really curious as that didn’t seem to concern the Manhattan Biglaw firm I was employed with when they were inclusive with invites to firm-wide parties. </p>
<p>It also wasn’t a concern with some past employers including a mid-sized financial company as temp employees were included in invites to firm wide parties. </p>
<p>Granted, this was all pre-2008 so it’s possible post-2008 economic concerns may have changed once generous attitudes.</p>
<p>Sounds like an episode of The Good Wife. I guess if employment law is behind treating temps like dirt, go for it. Glad I chose another profession.</p>
So if they have those “perks” at least there is at least a little less division. Agreed that if there was to be a separate party it should have been off premises - tacky to hold it in the same building and not invite all. </p>