<p>Zoosermom,</p>
<p>MOWC’s first post made it seem as if it was more cut and dried than my observed experience at another NYC law firm or acollegestudent’s experience as a*current employee at a NYC law firm indicates. </p>
<p>As those firms’ policies are ultimately determined by other lawyers in the form of firm partners, it provides possible valid alternative interpretations different from MOWC’s interpretation without necessarily disagreeing with her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what I meant when I said your experiences don’t support that. Your experiences were at odds with what MOWC said.</p>
<p>I am still shocked, shocked I tell you, that 2 attorneys might have differing views on their interpretation of the law. Or that judges opinions could differ. Who would have ever suspected this?</p>
<p>Cobrats’s experiences are always different from everyone else’s. Different beat and all that!</p>
<p>I am late to the game and I’ve read the entire thread, which I found interesting.</p>
<p>My interpretation is that temps (regardless of the industry) know they are not employees and should not be expected to be treated as such. That was the deal when they were “hired”, and if they do not like it, they should not have taken the deal.</p>
<p>Sometimes employers make some perks available to everyone, including contractors and temps, but the employers are not required to do so. As MOWC pointed out there are good reasons not to do so. </p>
<p>Microsoft lawsuit is a perfect example of why it is important not to treat your contractors and temps as employees. </p>
<p>[Don’t</a> Treat Contractors Like Employees | Reuters](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/04/01/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-dont-treat-c-idUSTRE53063S20090401]Don’t”>http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/04/01/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-dont-treat-c-idUSTRE53063S20090401)</p>
<p>P.S. In my industry (tech) we are all very familiar with the Microsoft case. The contractors, who want to be contractors, are not happy with the outcome. It makes their livelihood not as stable as it could have been without that case.</p>
<p>I’m not sure why this question is so complicated. Forget the legalities and best practices. Just invite the temps to the party, because it’s the nice thing to do. Sheesh.</p>
<p>Office politics was the one thing I never missed when I started my own business. We didn’t have enough time to worry about who was going to which party. Our parties were six-packs of Corona and takeout Mexican food. I don’t remember anyone complaining about missing a party. Of course, you didn’t need an invitation to attend.</p>
<p>Thank god I didn’t go to law school. :)</p>
<p>I went to law school and while any career has ups and downs, I work for the best company in the world and I’m grateful everyday that I get to do this and that they actually PAY me. I smile every day when I pull into the parking lot.</p>
<p>Very interesting article Lerkin, ty. I think maybe the “temp” crashers were expressing anger over a larger issue: our economy seems to be in the process of moving people out of full time employment with benefits to contract work status without benefits. It may be seen as an expression of the polarization of our economy. Huge salaries at the top and temps/contractors at the bottom with the proportion of contractors to management increasing. Like adjuncts at Uni’s where top management extract enormous salaries while the people teaching the kids are on food stamps. Perhaps the temps at the law firm were drumming for change. Let them eat cake? Perhaps not the social evolutionary direction best for the legal profession? Ruminating on a rainy day…</p>
<p>This story actually brings out so many issues facing businesses these days.</p>
<p>I have worked for companies that abuse the idea of contract workers by hiring them on a “permalance” basis that allows them to avoid paying benefits and payroll tax. I think that is unethical and exploitative.</p>
<p>Having said that, these people are choosing to work in a saturated field in an expensive city. Presumably they think it is worth it to do what they are doing rather than make some kind of life change.</p>
<p>And I agree with deb that this feels like an “everyone gets a trophy” mentality. I face it all the time in my office, especially with some of the younger employees.</p>
<p>And finally, I really hate the phrase “BigLaw.” It reminds me of Big Lots. Or something.</p>
<p>Sax (#74) I agree completely Both sides behaved badly. It seems to me very unwise to have such a party on site, during working hours, and exclude the professionals. Seems even more unwise to crash it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which explains why some of the temps apparently felt that they had little to loose by acting so badly. They are not hurting their chances if they have none.</p>
<p>If I were an employer, I would want to maintain a positive, cooperative atmosphere to maximize employee productivity. This sure didn’t aid that goal. They either should have managed the party differently, or communicated the purpose and reasons for exclusions better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From what I’m hearing from friends who are law student graduates and lawyers along with recent newsmedia articles covering the legal industry, most of them are taking those temp jobs because it’s one of the few jobs available remotely connected with the legal profession. </p>
<p>As for the location, it’s a mix of many of the advertised temp jobs tend to be in or near major legal centers in the US<em>, possibility many graduated from regional local area law schools with degrees which don’t “travel well”</em><em>, many regions outside those centers only accepting recent graduates from T-14 or regional law schools</em>*, and the admittedly remote hopes of remaining in such centers to see if they could network themselves into a permanent position. </p>
<ul>
<li>NYC, DC/N Virginia, Boston, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>** This has been a common theme in some media coverage of the law school graduate employment problem since 2008. They all repeat the mantra that outside the T-14, most firms…especially those outside the major legal centers prefer hiring from well-reputed local/regional law schools.</p>
<p>Yes, the poor job market for lawyers is something we are all aware of.</p>
<p>^Perhaps some of us have seen this thread that has been on the discussion landing page for weeks…</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/law-school/1593587-law-school-enrollments-drop-11-a.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/law-school/1593587-law-school-enrollments-drop-11-a.html</a></p>
<p>I missed my calling. I always took heat at workplaces for NOT attending all the parties.</p>
<p>I could have been a contender here, the company darling among the legal temps. All i need is a law degree, cardtable and their nonstop work ethic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha! While I wasn’t much of a party person in college, I made it a point to attend as many parties…whether campus or company thrown as possible afterwards. </p>
<p>Good free food, lots of enjoyable banter, singing, and sometimes even some dancing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nahh. One can crash parties without a law degree and its associated debt. </p>
<p>Crashed a few myself when I was an 18 year old sophomore with two freshly graduated college friends in the Boston area one summer. Didn’t even have a BA to my name yet, much less a law degree. :D</p>
<p>The firm should have thrown a catered affair off premises. How rude to have it going on with the temps right there!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see. Because these young lawyers are already underpaid and treated like second-class citizens at the firm, the firm is justified in having a party right at the location and not inviting them. Yeah. That makes sense and they should all feel just fine about it. How could they possibly object? I can’t imagine why anyone ever jokes about lawyers being insensitive jerks.</p>
<p>Cardinal fang, I can see both sides of the issue. It may seem cut and dried to you, but it wasn’t. The firm wanted to do something for its own employees to commemorate the time spent in the current space and to celebrate the future in the new space. Some of the temp attorneys have been here for a matter of days, some longer, but they aren’t employees of the firm. I think it would have been nice for them to be invited, although if everyone on site was invited, they might have felt uncomfortable about the trips down memory lane and the inside jokes. Maybe those would have been insensitive, too. It also would have been nice if the group of people would have understood that they aren’t part of the move, no matter what happens, just as they aren’t part of the partner dinners. I’m not sure there was a perfect answer. Someone was going to be bothered, it was just a question of who.</p>
<p>Regardless of whether or not it was rude or insensitive to not invite the temp employees, storming the party and making a huge scene when turned away seems every bit as crass. Not to mention foolish, as no one is guaranteed a job in this economy. I just cannot imagine behaving this way in the presence of people who can determine whether or not I work next week.</p>
<p>I’ve been a temp employee before. Not in a million years would I have felt entitled to go to a company party, much less been angry and aggressive in an attempt to force my way in. I find this situation to be just mind boggling.</p>