<p>Zoos - I think I appreciate your POV. The party was the going out of one premises, moving to another. The temp employees, who already have a tenuous relationship, are not the packers and movers here, the company employees are. I understand why they had it on premises, you’re in NY, correct? Restaurants would be very expensive vs using your own space. The temp attnys were not singled ‘out’ here as there are also vendors working in the bldg that were not included here. Am I following?</p>
<p>I do think it’s bad form, immature really, to crash someone else’s event. Let’s all be adults and not get our knickers in a knot. Talk about First World Problems. Having said that, the firm would have done well to have an after work event, or an afternoon event and given the temp and vendors the afternoon off. </p>
<p>There are bound to be differing opinions, possibly based on past work experiences. There’s usually three ‘sides’ IMO…yours, mine, and neural territory.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, your explanation in post #17 ALMOST makes me still smile and raise a little hand of cheer for those temp employees - may not be right, but I can understand their pain a bit. </p>
<p>The lines of this may be in law/rules black and white, but emotions never are. They are individual and varied. Hope that things get ironed out a bit when the move takes place and everyone is separated as they “should” be - even though that still sounds somewhat pathetic to me!!!</p>
Yes you are. It was held during the day because at night there would be the expectation of alcohol and the firm would have liability, and I guess they didn’t hold it off site for cost reasons and to keep people in the building. The move is scheduled right after the new year, so it was a joint farewell to the old, welcome the holiday season thing.</p>
<p>
I can too. It’s absolutely heartbreaking.</p>
<p>
It’s not clear what will happen in that regard. The plan was to always keep them on the practice floors because the firm prides itself on treating people well, but they embarrassed the partnership, so I’m not now sure.</p>
<p>MOWC, I never heard of that as a law or rule. But for certain parties, really anything, there can be any kind of exclusions. I am appalled at the attitude of these attorneys, not the firm. Both DH, myself, my kids work at places where we have been excluded from any number of things and don’t think a thing about it. In many aspects of my life, this happens regularly. Even my best friends will exclude me from some things. I don’t take it personally at all. </p>
<p>I have a close friend who works as temp at a major university. She’s actually been there longer than many permanent employees, but has not been offered a permanent position. She loves the jobs, gets certain benefits, not others, and is included and excluded for a number of things, but it’s part of the territory. </p>
<p>There has always been discussion about adjuncts and post grad employment scenarios at universities, that has been building up to some labor movement. Perhap, the time will come when this changes. But really, I am on the side of the company here.</p>
<p>Which is completely understandable. The decision by management to hold a nice party right under the noses of these second-class citizens was insensitive at best. Let them eat cake! (The party should have been held off site.)</p>
<p>^^^^ I get it’s part of the territory - for benefits, etc. But if you want me to be on the “team” and representing the company just like a regular employee than a Christmas party is a time to erase some of those barriers that CAN be erased. Professional environment or not.</p>
<p>It isn’t a “law”. It’s a matter of not treating contractors the way you treat employees. Every aspect of the employment relationship is considered. Do you give them a company email address? Do you give them unlimited building access? Do you include them in company meetings? Everything adds up and is considered is determining if they are really an employee that you are just calling a “contractor” to avoid paying benefits. </p>
<p>Of course plenty of companies allow contract workers to come to parties. It’s just one consideration. But best practice is that they should not be included. </p>
<p>I’m an employment lawyer and I’ve been on both sides of this issue.</p>
<p>“Which is completely understandable. The decision by management to hold a nice party right under the noses of these second-class citizens was insensitive at best.” </p>
<p>I don’t think it’s completely understandable, or understandable at all. When you are in a field like law these days, and there are very few spots for many contenders for jobs, you had better toe the line to best be in position to get one of them. As I said before, it’ happens all of the time in the course of business that we aren’t asked to some things or have to cut a group for whatever reasons for something. Always has been that way. A bunch of spoiled brats there, IMO, and I mean the temps, not the partners or the permanent employees running the office. Good test of character and behavior here. Cut the worst offenders, unless they are truly worth being such PINs.</p>
<p>They don’t represent the company in any way. They code documents on a computer for 10 or 12 hours a day, which is absolutely miserable. There is a new person this week who is as nice as he can be. An older gentleman who was let go from his previous job. He is absolutely losing his mind from having to sit there all day long and look at the computer and being in the room with other people. I feel very bad for him because he keeps getting up and pacing and has this panicked look on his face.</p>
<p>^^^^Do you mean that if they do treat them the same as their other employees that they could expose themselves to some kind of lawsuit claiming that the employees are de facto “real” employees who are due compensation in the form of benefits as well as potential additional damages?</p>
<p>Zoosermom, I can come up with some folks who would love that job. It’s a tough go out there for lawyers. </p>
<p>Anyone who works for your company, temps or not can represent your company. </p>
<p>There is a social issue here, but I don’t think the party is a good way to push it. As I said, there are lines drawn for all kinds of parties, get togethers, meetings at a firm.</p>
<p>I don’t know if inviting them to the party would have been a good thing or not. Where one draws those lines can vary depending on the situation . But given the reactionary behavior and attitudes that Zmom has told us, I think that this is a bad batch here. Or perhaps the whole set up is a bad one. But under no circumstances should any employee or person crash parties, and at work? Really a breach of professional behavior. </p>
<p>When I had my offices, I did include the few temps here and there to things like this if everyone else was included. But not the security officers or the cleaning crew. Where does one draw the line? Should the one day temp who happened to be there as a fill in that day be invited? My group was small enough that it didn’t much matter, but there were many times when lines were drawn for things, and I even excluded myself at times.</p>
<p>We invited our contract lawyer (1) and our on-site-employees-of-a-contractor (2) to our 25 -person in-house holiday lunch. Gave them presents, too.</p>
<p>I am not involved with policing the employee/contractor line on a daily basis, but I visit that border from time to time. I don’t think there is anything like a bright-line rule “No inviting contractors to internal parties.” On the other hand, it sounds like zoosermom’s firm has a couple of toes right on the line all the time – if these people were not lawyers, they might well have a claim to be treated as employees for wage/hours, FICA, and pension purposes, and it’s not so clear that their law licenses should change the outcome – so the firm’s management is probably pretty sensitive to cosmetic stuff that could turn the case one way or the other.</p>
<p>In my mind, the real moral question here isn’t why the contractors weren’t invited to the employee party. It’s why the contractors aren’t treated as employees in the first place? It would be a little more expensive for the firm, but it would be the more comfortable position, legally, morally, and personally.</p>
<p>I think I haven’t been clear. These aren’t contract attorneys of the firm. We have some of those. They were invited and have private offices, secretaries, etc. This group of people are all employees of a temp agency who come and go, often in large numbers for short periods. I believe the number at issue was just above 50. There are less than 10 contract attorneys. Some have been here for years and have benefits.</p>
<p>^^^Well, it seems the temps have shot themselves in the foot. Won’t the temp agency terminate them once the partners at the firm complain about this? I’m surprised the whole lot is able to step foot on the property after that incident.</p>
<p>I’ve worked for temp agencies before (not as a lawyer), and it was very clear to me that I was not an employee of the company where I was working as a temp. I wouldn’t have DREAMED of demanding anything, much less crashed a party insisting I be let in and then making a scene when denied. That’s just kind of crazy, imo.</p>
<p>They are right in the middle of a project and the firm is much more interested in year-end collections and preparing to move. However, I am aware that there is much discussion among the partnership about what to do going forward. They feel that they have been very gracious in having the temp attorneys in the practice floors and allowing them to partake of the freebies, as well as to attend all other get togethers (of which there are legion) and utilize the firm resources (like getting and shipping packages through the mailroom in the holiday season). So it is being discussed, but right now the final decisions about which partners will get which offices on which floors in the new space is the most important thing.</p>
<p>I have certainly been to firm parties where the “staff” (secretaries etc) receive a different/less lavish party than the lawyers and are keep apart in everyday matters so this divide surprises me not at all. </p>
<p>Your comment that they are not YOUR temps/your contract ees TOTALLY changes things in my mind. Making it much closer to crashing another employers’ party–which might be grounds for calling the police. I think in this case a strong word with the temp agency is in order. Dang crowd mentality.</p>