<p>I think people should separate the issue of people with law degrees having to work as temps from temps not being invited to the party. While it is sad that they cannot find better jobs, they should realize that they are doing a job that does not require law degree. If they don’t want to take these jobs, there are plenty of paralegals who can take their place and not complain. </p>
<p>As far as party is concerned…</p>
<p>I work for a large employer. Many different divisions, business units are housed in the same building. Every now and then there you can see an organized gathering celebrating something or other. It would never occur to me to crash any of these gatherings.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why people not see that this situation is no different. Not everyone is invited to every party. Zoosermom stated that it was not only the temps who were not invited. Others were not invited either. From what I understand, Zoosermom was not invited. Yet, she and others did not feel entitled to crash the party. I feel like these temps felt that because they have a law degree, they should be entitled to all the perks those who are successfully employed in this field have. </p>
<p>I also think that people should get it out of their heads that employers owe them anything other than what was agreed on at the time of hire. The employers are justified in doing whatever they want if they don’t break any laws. If people don’t like it, they are free to leave to find another place of employment. Or better yet, they can start their own business which will operate according to their own high standards.</p>
<p>Lerkin, I was invited to and attended the party in question. There are plenty of parties that I am not invited to. Including the temp attorneys’ pizza party last week. I don’t expect to be invited to the Super Bowl brunch as I don’t participate in the Super Bowl pool. All temps and vendors on site will be invited to buy into that. Some participate and they have fun with it.</p>
<p>Ok, I stand corrected. Nevertheless, my point was that others who were not invited to this or other parties, did not feel the need to crash them. I have a strong suspicion that in this particular situation the temps felt it was their right to be at the party by virtue of having a law degree.</p>
<p>While I understand the valid reasoning behind limiting the guest list to permanent employees, people do have feelings and the party logistics seem insensitive. Perhaps a better way of handling an onsite party that was not inclusive, would have been to allow those not invited to leave earlier that day, long before any festivities began, with an explanation that while their contribution to the firm is appreciated, the gathering was for permanent employees to celebrate the firm’s past and future. They perhaps would have felt acknowledged and enjoyed an extra hour or two of free time. There was however, no excuse to crash a party they clearly knew was not meant for them.</p>
The firm doesn’t decide their hours, the temp agency does. They have an on-site manager from the company and she is the only person who would make such decisions. I just want to be clear that the party was in a location where nobody, not even permanent employees would casually pass. If you weren’t going to the party, you wouldn’t be on that floor at all. It wasn’t in anyone’s face. Also, the people whose business schedules didn’t permit them to attend, didn’t attend. The firm business didn’t stop. The party went on for a few hours and people who were invited came in and out throughout the period, with the express hope that everyone invited would be there at the end for the speech, the video and the toast. Then went back to work.</p>
<p>There was a temp agency manager onsite and this still happened?!!! How did she react? Did the firm’s management convey the party details to her beforehand? I think as more details emerge, it’s clear that the temps are in the wrong however, a more sensitive way of handling this may have been to in someway include everyone. Perhaps providing some appetizers or snacks for the temps in their area or such while they continued to work and the rest of the firm held the party. I don’t think the firm did anything wrong, but they also did not go out of their way to consider everyone’s feelings. The temps and the work they do are part of the firm’s history. Live and learn.</p>
She wasn’t part of the group that crashed the party, she didn’t find out until later and I can’t imagine that she was happy. I’m not sure what, if anything, the firm communicated to the agency. I don’t imagine that they said anything because I don’t think they considered an internal event to be the business of anyone else. I think that’s where the conflict comes in. They perceive themselves to be in charge and free to do what they choose in their space and with their money. They certainly don’t answer to their own employees at any level, and they probably don’t expect to answer to non-employees either.</p>
<p>Hmmm, trying to imagine how that conversation between the manager and her temps would go. Something like “there is a private event occurring on a floor in the firm. Put on your big boy pants and understand that it’s not all about you.” </p>
<p>Agree that the temp/contractors are getting a raw deal these days, but there was a time in some fields when they dictated their rate, their hours, etc. things unfortunately change.</p>
<p>I think firms need to balance the legal issues with the human ones. A lot of firms want to do the decent thing, and weigh that against the risks. Of course a disruption like this is a potential public relations and business productivity nightmare in and of itself. Apparently, there are ways to mitigate any claims of employment that might arise from something as seemingly innocent as an invitation to an office holiday party: </p>
Chiming in a little late to respond to this. First, temps are ALWAYS “second class citizens” at whatever location they’re working at. They don’t report to management, they have no history or future with the firm, they aren’t paid according to the firm’s compensation schedule, etc., etc. Their relationship to the firm is specialized and ephemeral. And why assume they are underpaid? The work they are doing is basically paralegal work. They aren’t entitled to premium pay just because they have JD’s. The only relevance their law degrees have to this situation is that they were educated enough to know exactly what their place was in the firm and how to behave properly in a business environment.</p>
<p>I’ve been the temp attorney, I’ve been the firm that hired temp attorneys, I’ve been invited to parties, I’ve not been invited. I’ve worked in a supply closet, at a shared temporary table in a conference room, in a file room, and I’ve been given a beautiful office with my own phone extension, training on the firm’s software, and had a secretary I shared with just one other attorney (sweet). I’m the contractor and I don’t get to set the working conditions.</p>
<p>What should have happened here is that the managing attorney (or supervisor) of the temp agency should have told the temps that there was going to be a party that didn’t include them, and there could be other parties, and they are NOT to go unless specifically invited by a firm member. If the agency didn’t know in the past, they should be informed of the boundaries , since these attorneys clearly don’t know their place and their mothers didn’t teach them. There IS a hierarchy at a law firm, and those at the top got there by working hard.</p>
<p>The agency should have a ‘stern talk’ with its employees, the temps. They should be told that they are not to eat the entire breakfast every day, they shouldn’t assume they are invited to the birthday cake for a secretary, that the terms of their employment are different. If these temps don’t like the work, there are plenty of other unemployed attorneys that can take their places at your firm.</p>
<p>I work for the federal government. There was a time we were not even allowed to take a cup of coffee from a contractor or use their office supplies when we were at their offices. It was not fun for us to drive out to the boondocks to do an audit and then have to leave for lunch and then drive back to work the afternoon. Take cake? Heaven forbid! But we did follow the rules.</p>
<p>The firm is allowed to do (invite) who they want BUT it truly showed their lack of class. I would think, that for no other reason than self-serving PR, that the partners would treat people better.</p>
<p>I do understand the argument that many posters are advancing about temps not being permanent employees and not having the same standing as regular, full time employees. But honestly, it is the holiday season and a time to spread good cheer and all that good stuff. So we are all adults here, could they not have either invited the temps, given them the afternoon off or held the party elsewhere? Whoever organized this did not think things through and ended up insulting a lot of people at a time of year when showing appreciation is the norm. To be diplomatic, it reflects poorly on the firm and was poor form. To be blunt, it was classless.</p>
<p>Harvestmoom1, it was only incidentally a holiday party. We are moving next month because of the end date of the lease. The actual holiday party was at night off premises and the temp attorneys were invited. The party wasn’t held elsewhere because of its purpose and because work continued throughout. In two weeks there will be a formal, catered, white glove service state of the firm address. Only attorneys of the firm will be invited. No one else, no matter now high ranking, will be invited, and it will be right there for anyone else to see.</p>
<p>zoosermom,
I have been sitting back and reading about this for days and wasn’t planning to respond. But, some posters are just jumping in without READING the prior posts, particularly your explanations. My DH has worked as an attorney for two of the very big NYC firms and now works in NYC for a smaller, although not small, firm. In the past, because of their location, they have had parties surrounding the lighting of the big Rockefeller Center Christmas tree. Clients were invited, not secretaries, not other staff members. I never heard about any “incidents” such as the one you have described. There were other office holiday parties where everyone was invited. </p>
<p>I believe that your temps behaved badly. This party was not “in their face.” It was not held on the floor they were working on. They had previously been invited to the firm’s blow-out holiday booze-fest off-site party. They don’t need to be invited to every party. Doesn’t matter if it’s the “holiday season.” Some parties are held for specific people to attend for specific purposes. Such as the one your firm threw for those involved in the move and to celebrate that move.</p>
<p>After reading all of zoosermom’s posts again, I have to say I could not disagree more. The only “classless” behavior here was that of the temps. I said before that I’ve been a temp and it would NEVER have occurred to me to crash a party (particularly when I was invited to and attended the “Holiday party”) and behave in such a boorish manner. The only explanation I can come up with here is that by virtue of being *attorneys[/] rather than administration support staff, these people had a huge sense of entitlement really rather exaggerated relative to their actual standing and practical role in the firm. </p>
<p>The only thing I’m truly amazed at is the amount of defense being mounted for such outrageous behavior exhibited by the town mob (oops, the temp attorneys) trying to break down the door at the castle with a huge log.</p>
<p>I agree. I can’t imagine any justification for this behavior or placing blame on the firm for having the party. I think there are folks that don’t understand that the business world is not the kindergarten playground.</p>
<p>Interesting situation. I think this may also be about semantics and how the event was described. If you call it a “holiday party” - then you can argue about holiday spirit, good cheer, inclusivity and so forth. But, if it is an “moving locations-related event” - then it clearly pertains to only employees who are impacted by the move - which would not include temps - who would not have nostalgia connected to the location. The temps were in the wrong here, but the whole fiasco might have been avoided had the temp manager been given a schedule of what social events/parties would be taking place in December that did include the temps, so they knew from the beginning that they would be included in at least some festivities.</p>
<p>What has happened since? Temps apologize? Temps fired? Is is still a heated topic or calming down?</p>
<p>@OP - "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 her and invited to the party" …</p>
<p>There may also have been some consideration as to the scheduling of this “moving party” so it didn’t come so close to the Christmas/New Year holiday season where there is feeling in some quarters that folks should be more kind and generous and not be sticklers for strict legalistics. </p>
<p>That’s not to say one doesn’t have the legalistic right to throw parties which exclude others within a given organization. </p>
<p>However, in some contextual situations, doing so can cause hurt feelings and ill-will which could have been easily prevented with some more foresight and consideration. </p>
<p>While the latter isn’t legalistically required, it’s sometimes better to plan with those factors in mind to avoid the entire problem rather than insist on one’s legalistic principles.</p>