<p>"
Contract employees are not to be included in company parties or events.
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>MOWC is an employment lawyer who deals with this issue routinely. That trumps your second-hand experience.</p>
<p>On The Good Wife, the new firm invited hundreds and hundreds of people. ;)</p>
<p>We had hundreds and hundreds of people, including the temp attorneys, at the official holiday party with booze. And psychics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lawyers have been known to have had their interpretations of a given statute ruled invalid by the presiding judge or credibly challenged by other lawyers/legal scholars. </p>
<p>I was curious as MOWC’s interpretation was ignored by a Manhattan Biglaw firm I worked for which invited all temps and even some valued vendors to all-firm parties*, including the off-site Christmas parties held at a high-end hotel site or by other past employers. </p>
<p>And it also seems I’m not the only commenter having had such employers, whether Biglaw or non or wondering about the specific statute…including other lawyers here on CC. </p>
<ul>
<li>There were separate parties such as ones for all personnel celebrating a successful conclusion to a case where only those who participated in working on that case or providing support such as IT staff were invited.</li>
</ul>
<p>The business world can be a very small place and word gets around. A temp who crashed the party might want to be a little bit concerned about significantly shrunken future employment opportunities. People will hear about this and they will remember.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I have an personal perspective on this based on significant experience with litigation support and document coding for law firms.</p>
<p>Decades ago, I worked for a big law firm as a paralegal on a huge antitrust case. One of the things I did was supervise a document coding project. The coding was done by a combination of temps and trainees from Peat, Marwick. A few of the temps were people who had graduated from fifth rate law schools, but most were simply college grads who were looking for temp work for some reason. The coders were squeezed in around the office here and there, typically working at long tables in rooms holding 15 or so people. This being circa 1977-9, the coding was done on paper forms that subsequently went through data entry off site. In no way were these people part of the firm, nor were they treated as such. BUT: they weren’t lawyers. That makes a huge difference. What strikes me is that this type of work is now being done by large numbers of law school grads.</p>
<p>In this job, we did things like travel to corporate sites and go through the thousands of boxes of documents produced in discovery after they were microfilmed, creating a computerized index and flagging docs for special attention. We prepared for depositions–documents and written questions–and produced written summaries of the transcripts. The work was actually, very interesting, and college friends I talked to said that they had the same duties as associates. But anyway, the point is that we were employees of the firm, not temps.</p>
<p>Subsequently, I took a job as a contract/temp coder myself in another city, while I worked towards getting a job in another field. I worked for a firm that specialized in automated litigation support. By a sequence of events, I ended up becoming a permanent employee and the corporate copywriter. Eventually, the firm cut 25% of its staff, including me. They rehired me as a document coder on another project, where I worked at the firm’s offices on Wall Street. Again, the work was not being done by lawyers. I think this is significant.</p>
<p>Anyway, I can assure you that the people doing this sort of work are NOT regular employees of the firm, nor treated as such in any way, shape or form, except that they typically have access to the coffee machines and so forth. It is unimaginable to me that I or my coworkers would have expected to be included in a company party–we had our own parties–or would have crashed one. </p>
<p>But we were not lawyers.</p>
<p>"She was carrying on today because the temp agency had pizza for them and it came much later than anticipated. "</p>
<p>Well there you have the problem.</p>
<p>DH’s holiday party had palm readers and tarot card readers and numerologists this year too.Must be this year’s “in” thing for holiday parties. Too bad they couldn’t have given us the winning lottery numbers :mad:</p>
<p>While agree that the “farewell to the office space” party might have been better done after hours, preferably off site (though can completely understand why they might want to hold such a party in the space they are saying farewell to) agree that, while tacky, they have the right to limit who is invited. And if someone behaves that badly, I’d think it is perfectly ok to terminate their contract, for the aforementioned reason that one could have concern about retaliation and potential sabotage of data or records. These are not 5 yr olds. The sense of entitlement is unfortunate.</p>
<p>Where I live, the firms that hire hourly attorneys don’t stick them in dungeon-like space. But they are clearly hourly, non-partner track positions. In fact rarely if ever are any hourly attorneys hired on into the firm. Its pretty clear up front. You can take the job- or not.</p>
<p>Many industries use contractors in their companies. The rules to differentiate them from employees or to not have them designated as statutory employee have been tightened up, but dont know how that extends to invitations to social functions. IIRC, OP said the contract employees were invited to the holiday party, just not this “last one out, please turn out the lights” farewell office space party. The daytime party with limited invitations was perhaps in bad taste, but the response of the crashers was immature and unacceptable. I’d show them the door. Immediately. And perhaps make it clear in writing the reason for termination (insubordination ought to do it) so they are less likely to sue or file for unemployment.</p>
<p>About five years ago I was a member of the HR team and we had to “deconstruct” our contract workers because they had so fully integrated our organization, same employee badges, same non-pay related perks, some had been there for over a decade and many employees had no idea that the person in the office next door was contract. It is a thorny legal issue of which “inclusion” or “exclusion” in company events is but the tip of the iceberg. If I were in HR in zooser’s example I would hope that those contract employees were employees of a temp agency and not directly hired. If so I would talk to “their” employer so that going forward the concept of who was the employer was clear.</p>
<p>I worked in a “manager” position as a contract employee a few years ago. It was a year contract with a firm begin and end date. It was always clear to me who my employer was and my security badge was a different color and it was always clear and transparent to me when and when I was not “included.” Theoretically while I was obligated to fulfill the work included in my contract, my time was my own. My “contact” for performance included a company representative as well as the agency I was employed through. I was not included in the big “company” Christmas party, but was included in a smaller department gathering. I, too, think the behavior of the employees was unfortunate, but clearly there is some misunderstanding or gray area within the organization about their contracts and what that means. How ironic considering it is a law firm.</p>
<p>DH works as a contract employee in a large corporation.
It is very clear that his group of 15 are not regular employees.
Sometimes they are included in parties, sometimes not. Always clearly stated.
There ARE treated with respect but have limited physical access to buildings and distinct badges coded accordingly.</p>
<p>Cobrat- are you getting it yet? No statute that says “Thou shalt not attend parties!” It’s just all part of the analysis and what constitutes best practices. News flash! You aren’t correct</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Best practices, like legal interpretations can vary greatly depending on the attorney and how each examines a case and the applicable laws, statues, and rules behind them. </p>
<p>This could be shown in publicly available court records and news about how interpretations of lawyers are ruled invalid by the presiding judge in a given case or how prior judge’s rulings are overruled after the case has been appealed to the higher courts. </p>
<p>Unless there’s an arbitrated/mediated settlement before trial, this usually has to be the case due to the adversarial nature of our court system. </p>
<p>Where there are two opposing sides each with their own legal representation and overseen by a judge(s) and/or jury, one side’s legal arguments will always end up losing in favor of the side the judge/jury perceives to have better arguments and/or more valid evidence. </p>
<p>I was asking about the statute because of your seemingly definitive prior post in which you said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I asked about the statute because it conflicted with my observation some former employers’ practices, including a Manhattan Biglaw firm. </p>
<p>Another commenter corroborating that his/her NYC Biglaw firm also practices including temps in all-firm parties as seen here:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Moreover, other commenters with legal backgrounds were also curious about the specific statute or law as they weren’t sure it was that cut and dried, either.</p>
<p>It’s not cut and dried. I’ve explained that. If you think the law is clear, I have some property to sell you.</p>
<p>I think that anyone considering law school should be looking long and hard at the time/money vs job opportunities. IMO this has been the case for a long time, but in the last several years, the job shortages have be exascerbated. It still is a good choice for a lot of people. </p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that everyone needs to be more flexible about career, job and life paths. Things have been changing very quickly, and it has become increasingly likely that big changes will occur. If you can’t swing with what life brings your way, it’s going to be a problem.</p>
<p>I have a number of friends as well as knowing a number of young people who are law school grads. Many have found employment in law, and those who have not have in time, found value, a lot of value, maybe even worth the cost and time, in their law education. My one firend worked for years at a utility company in a postion that had nothing to do with law, but managed several years ago to move into the filed when an opening came up. She is now practicing law. Not a direct path, but she got there. This is happening increasingly much to the chagrin and discouragment of those who expected more immediate rewards.</p>
<p>So if the field of law is one a person really want to learn, if the finances allow it, I don’t see the problem in pursuting it, and I would not hesitate to help out one of my kids who wants to study this discipline. It’s just important that anyone contemplating this time/money investment, understand what the employment picture is at this time. </p>
<p>I had thought about going to law school, and had a direct application of any knowledge I would have gained from the degree, which was not practicing law. Many in my primary field are attorneys but few are practicing. But their knowledge of law, what they gained from going to law school, taking some jobs in the field certainly had value. </p>
<p>What happened here, IMO, is primarly because this group of temps were a spoled group with unrealistic expectations. The temp company involved as well as the law firm should use this as a lesson as to how to make things clearer as to what their roles are in their temp jobs. Like, there will be NO permanent employment offers made to those in this group. That may even be an issue in the contracts signed in using the temp agency. Also when there are functions, it should be made very clear who is invited and who is not. THere are a lot of contract employees in any firm; many know “their place”–a cleaning crew vaccing in one part of an office is not going to expect to drop their work and go join the party going on in another part of the office.</p>
<p>Not the same thing, but I went to a large wedding last week (beautiful, luxurious, sumptuous, extravagent). A lot of “vendors” present to help out with the wedding, and it was not expected that they would be part of the dinner head count. Apparently some of them though they were and they ate, drank with the guests, and now there is a per plate charge for them, hefty ones. My friend had had a wedding for her DD a few years ago, and this issue did not arise, and it’s become a point of contention as she and her DH had committed to paying for the per person charge over a certain number since their guest list was what was putting the count over allocation. But the vendors were brought in by the other family. One, two, a few would not have been an issue, but this is a significant number. Something they did not consider.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was my very point in making the prior posts. I wasn’t saying your best practices were wrong. </p>
<p>Just that it’s one of many possible valid legal interpretations/best practices and there are room for many valid alternative legal interpretations/best practices. </p>
<p>My impression from reading some of those cases and talking with practicing lawyers/law students is that law/legal interpretation can be very fluid depending on many variables.</p>
<p>cobrat, you really abuse the whole / thing. Sometimes it’s hard to read your posts for all the words/synonyms in every sentence.</p>
<p>Go back through your posts and see if you can find even one that doesn’t have at least 5 of them!</p>
<p>As to the subject, MOWC, who is a LABOR lawyer, says in her practice it’s common for employers to avoid just the kind of situation described in the OP. So your experiences don’t support that. I don’t think MOWC ever said it was an absolute, just the norm in her professional world. We could probably find exceptions to every “best practice,” and perhaps there is a regional component or it’s more common in certain professions rather than in others.</p>
<p>Quite frankly, by virtue of the behavior described in the OP, I think the temps are lucky to still be employed. And all over a party. Good grief.</p>
<p>Since when is any legal opinion or decision an absolute? Ever? The law is subject to interpretation. This is not news.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, it does as the Manhattan Biglaw firm I worked for didn’t follow MOWC’s interpretation of best practices considering they included temps in all-firm parties when I was employed there. </p>
<p>acollegestudent also corroborated that experience by also citing his/her observations as a CURRENT employee of a Manhattan Biglaw firm. </p>
<p>It’s also relevant because OP is citing a situation from another NYC Biglaw firm. </p>
<p>In short, there’s room for many different interpretations of what constitutes best legal practices even among lawyers as the Partners of such firms are the ones who ultimately determine law firm policies with consultation with their respective HR departments.</p>
<p>Cobrat, do you really have to do this every single time? I have gotten great insight, information and wisdom. Particularly from MOWC. I am very grateful to all the people who took the time to post in order to help me understand. Which I do much more now. But I still don’t understand why you have to make other people’s threads about you so often. Your claimed experience is long before the legal field collapsed and everything changed. I have been continually employed in this field for 28 years and have seen the changes. I believe MOWC has, as well. I am going to take her personal experience and professional knowledge as being valuable. But I commend you for not making up cousins in this thread.</p>
<p>Zoos- post of the day.</p>
<p>Cobrat- I doubt that even your BigLaw buddies would argue that inviting contractors to a company event is a best practice. Is it done? Sure! Risk might be quite low, everything else considered. Or- they might not give a crap about the risk and want to include the folks! But best practice? Nope.</p>