Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=227937
Desert Fox wrote:Who the fuck cares. Are they worried there is a lack of lazy old ladies stinking up the coffee room with their shitty diet of the week food?
/may have done this thread before
Good point.westphillybandr wrote:Page views = Ad money.
If the bloggers include "layoffs at major law firm" as the caption ---they know lawyers will click on the article, not realizing until it is too late that the article is about staff and not attorneys.
I do this each time.westphillybandr wrote:Desert Fox wrote:Who the fuck cares. Are they worried there is a lack of lazy old ladies stinking up the coffee room with their shitty diet of the week food?
/may have done this thread before
Page views = Ad money.
If the bloggers include "layoffs at major law firm" as the caption ---they know lawyers will click on the article, not realizing until it is too late that the article is about staff and not attorneys.
Tech has undoubtedly reduced the need for support staff. Cutting needless costs doesn't necessarily mean the firm is hurting.bk1 wrote:
In the grand scheme of things, sure. Has technology evolved so much in the past year that firms suddenly don't need staff they're laying off today, though?westphillybandr wrote:Tech has undoubtedly reduced the need for support staff. Cutting needless costs doesn't necessarily mean the firm is hurting.bk1 wrote:
NYC-WVU wrote:Tech advances don't occur so rapidly that they justify chopping a bunch of people all at once.
I bet you could fire 50% of them and get more work done because they'd be afraid.A. Nony Mouse wrote:In the grand scheme of things, sure. Has technology evolved so much in the past year that firms suddenly don't need staff they're laying off today, though?westphillybandr wrote:Tech has undoubtedly reduced the need for support staff. Cutting needless costs doesn't necessarily mean the firm is hurting.bk1 wrote:
EDIT: I for sure think that firms undoubtedly cut staff when they are in trouble. I just don't think it is as dramatic as the canary in a coal mine analogy.westphillybandr wrote:NYC-WVU wrote:Tech advances don't occur so rapidly that they justify chopping a bunch of people all at once.
BUT firms review staffing needs periodically. Its not as though a firm will review their staffing needs as soon as new tech. makes a certain job function obsolete.
rad lulz wrote:First they came for the staff
And I said nothing
Desert Fox wrote:Who the fuck cares. Are they worried there is a lack of lazy old ladies stinking up the coffee room with their shitty diet of the week food?
/may have done this thread before
Why does Desert Fox post about ATL and staff layoffs in the employment forum? Who the fuck cares?Desert Fox wrote:Who the fuck cares. Are they worried there is a lack of lazy old ladies stinking up the coffee room with their shitty diet of the week food?
/may have done this thread before
The tech advances happened over the last couple of decades. The post-recession economy just gave firms an excuse to do the cutting.NYC-WVU wrote:Tech advances don't occur so rapidly that they justify chopping a bunch of people all at once.
dead head wrote:Why does Desert Fox post about ATL and staff layoffs in the employment forum? Who the fuck cares?Desert Fox wrote:Who the fuck cares. Are they worried there is a lack of lazy old ladies stinking up the coffee room with their shitty diet of the week food?
/may have done this thread before
I felt the people had to know. HAD TO KNOWzweitbester wrote:dead head wrote:Why does Desert Fox post about ATL and staff layoffs in the employment forum? Who the fuck cares?Desert Fox wrote:Who the fuck cares. Are they worried there is a lack of lazy old ladies stinking up the coffee room with their shitty diet of the week food?
/may have done this thread before