Office Conflict

Parent Cafe
181

<p>

</p>

<p>Not to mention doing so in some cases can be considered a violation of ethical rules all attorneys are bound to observe as a precondition of gaining* and maintaining their bar license. </p>

<p>Especially if it’s something serious like violating confidentiality of a particular case/client. In that case, it’s very possible the local bar will find them in breach of those ethical rules and thus, take away their bar license to practice law in that state. Once that’s done, they can no longer legally practice law. </p>

<p>Moreover, once one’s bar membership has been pulled in one state for an ethics breach/felony conviction, other states’ bar associations are likely to take away their bar license as well. </p>

<ul>
<li>The case of Stephen Glass is a good illustration of how concerns about past ethical lapses can prevent one from gaining a bar license even after passing a law exam:</li>
</ul>

<p>[Stephen</a> Glass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass]Stephen”>Stephen Glass - Wikipedia)</p>

182

<p>I am referring to the employees that work for some other agency and not the ones that are being paid directly by your firm. We call all employees of this type contract employees at my company for clarification or contractors so that’s just me talking in my own language here. So presuming it was the temp employees that work for some other agency that did the rabble rousing, my company would fire the lot of them and not use the agency anymore.</p>

183

<p>Let me rephrase - we would fire the agency.</p>

184

<p>I was an independent contractor offered to work by agency for over 10 years, although I was not an attorney. I can fully understand the position of a “temp”.</p>

<p>As a temp, you have ZERO rights in the company benefit, including parties, since you are on the agency payroll. If I were invited to a company party, I shall be grateful, if I were not, I do not complain. The company can let you go any time and you can leave on you own any time as well.</p>

<p>How can there be any conflict?</p>

185

<p>What artlover said. It’s pretty clear that you don’t work for the company.</p>

186

<p>If I were the hiring manager, any “temp” who crash a company party he/she was not invited and make a scene of it, is to be dismissed immediately.</p>

<p>I was working on Wall Street as a temp once, I was assigned to help a secretary and I was just talk back to her unreasonable request, the next day, I was dismissed. The agency did not even want to talk to me afterwards. There are thousands who qualify was on the line to work for them.</p>

187

<p>zoosermom, You mentioned that “temps” are usually hired for short term projects but didn’t you also say (post 48) that some of them have actually been there for a few YEARS and are well known and generally well liked by everyone? Did the trouble makers come from the latter group? </p>

<p>I hear what some are saying about the exposure and the legal issues. If the intent was to publicize their woes and embarrass the firm, by now the workers probably know they can’t really get anywhere with it. But in reality, wouldn’t the firm have to breach a long itemized list, with no one item qualifying the temps as employees, to have a credible fear of exposure? As my earlier link points out, there are ways around that, that can help substantiate that these are not employees. </p>

<p>No question that the temps behaved very inappropriately, should NOT have expected anything, and that the firm absolutely had every right to invite whom they wanted. But considering the fact that the temps work right there on the practice floors, some of them for years, IMO it was a bit clumsy and insensitive on the firm’s part to hold a “catered blowout” during office hours that included almost everyone in the office from top to bottom.</p>

<p>You mentioned that it should have been clear to any official employees that the temps were not invited because this was an RSVP, by invitation only deal. Could someone have asked them if they were heading over, simply thinking that everyone on the floor got an invitation? </p>

<p>I also understand that this was billed as a combination moving and holiday party, but the timing, the description, and the guest list made it a de facto office holiday party and also an event that differed in scope and size from many other events geared to one particular group or another. </p>

<p>The temps are lucky if they are not let go by their agency. But in the current economic climate, and over the holiday season, when the level of desperation and despair that some of these folks are feeling really can’t be understated, perhaps there is some reflection that the managing partners can do on their part, as well.</p>

188

<p>I’ve also known long term temps and the practice is quite common where I live as the automotive industry does it a lot and it’s still quite clear as a long term temp that you work for the temp agency and not the company where you are placed.</p>

189

<p>

Definitely from the new-ish group. More than a few months, less than a year.</p>

<p>

No, absolutely not. It was made clear that this was employees only and, generally speaking, this particular group of temps is off in such a location that no one passes their area and they are on a separate elevator bank. People were also greeted at the door when entering, so they were at first told politely that it was a firm-only event, which gave them the change to turn around without fuss. They chose not to take that.</p>

<p>They are very filled with despair and anger. I understand that. We all understand that and are very sympathetic.</p>

<p>Edited to add: between all the temps and vendors, there are over 100 people.</p>

190

<p>

</p>

<p>Big deal! In my ten years of “temp” carrier, the longest stay was 4 years in one company. I was well received by the top management, but when push to the shove, I was let go without any recourse.</p>

191

<p>I don’t understand the anger and despair over a Christmas party snub.</p>

192

<p>Sounds like a planned event to me (perhaps root out the leader of the protest). That’s what it seems to be a protest and no actual desire to attend a Christmas party…</p>

193

<p>I believe the “anger and despair” is a reponse to the temp lawyer’s general situation, and not to not being included in the party. These young people have spent 3 years in law school, at great expense, and now they are almost certainly saddled with substantial debt. They have little chance of ever being hired by a law firm. They are looking every day at people who do have those great law careers, because they came out of law school at a more fortunate time. </p>

<p>It is a terrible shame that so many careers are now almost impossible to enter. It’s not only law, although that’s a glaring example. The silver lining is that legal education is very valuable and this is recognized by many employers in different fields. So they do have a chance of having a great career, just not in law.</p>

194

<p>“They have little chance of ever being hired by a law firm. They are looking every day at people who do have those great law careers, because they came out of law school at a more fortunate time.”</p>

<p>Isn’t that something they should have considered BEFORE investing 3 (or more) years and countless dollars in law school? Is there nothing to be said for common sense and personal responsability?</p>

195

<p>From the firm’s point of view, they have a contract with these temps, and they have the right to have whatever parties they want.</p>

<p>From the temps’ point of view, they can’t find a decent job, they have to take this crap job at crap wages. And you might say, correctly, that the younger ones shouldn’t have gone to law school, but if they hadn’t gone to law school they would still have had a difficult time finding a job and might well have had to take a crap job at crap wages. And then the firm throws this lavish on site party that they can’t go to in their faces. Granted they behaved badly, but shoving income inequality in people’s faces is not going to end well.</p>

196

<p>"And then the firm throws this lavish on site party that they can’t go to in their faces. Granted they behaved badly, but shoving income inequality in people’s faces is not going to end well. "</p>

<p>There has been “haves” and “have-nots” since the beginning of time. This is not a new phenomenon.</p>

197

<p>Not sure how simply throwing a party and not inviting a group is shoving income inequality in anyone’s face. Go do something else. Move to another state. Do some legal aid. Do corporate law. Blech.</p>

198

<p>It is not about haves vs have nots, it is about employees vs non-employees. As ZM repeatedly said, the party was not “in their face” - it was on a different floor and out of their sight.</p>

199

<p>Weird. Good luck…</p>

200

<p>@cmgrayson and straightshooter – The backstory here is that a very fine profession changed courses rather quickly. The recession hit in October 2008. When I say “hit” I mean like a tornado. Nobody in the midst of it could entirely imagine the length, depth and impacts on many industries for years to come.</p>

<p>In October 2008, if someone was preparing a law school app for a September 2009 start, they graduated in May 2012. Then they needed some months to study for and take the bar exam, so it’s autumn of 2012 when they can even begin fulltime work. We’re typing this thread in early winter 2013, so those folks are about year out, taking what they find.</p>

<p>How could a law school applicant have foreseen this big shift in opportunities before applying to law school?</p>