Anonymous User wrote:itbdvorm wrote:I get what you're saying being in your shoes. I really do. Just know that from my vantagepoint I saw some of the "safe" firms you mention screw people just as badly (if not worse) and somehow avoid the PR hit by flying under the radar. Remember, just because abovethelaw didn't report it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I don't really think it's screwing people if it's truly a performance-based termination (which, by the way, happened even in good times). If people aren't hacking it, they get transitioned out. Not to mention under performance based-terminations, you aren't just let go immediately (as was the case with Latham) - you are given 6 months when you're still "working" at the firm to try to find another job.
Also, I have friends who worked through the recession at three of those firms, and categorically deny there was anything but normal performance-based attrition. Just because you report it doesn't mean it did happen.
Why do you assume I'm only talking about performance-based terminations? I'm not. These weren't those. These were layoffs couched as something else to effectuate the same result, a reduction in headcount.
I hear you on the last point, but that just cannot be true given the numbers and seniority levels I'm aware of. Believe me, firms took actions to reduce headcount dramatically (some just did so more publicly than others). Check NALP figures on number of associates from prior years, plus incoming associates, and do some math. Actions were taken in a number of ways that would not necessarily be clear to junior / mid-level associates.