Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=309965
Elaborate?thisismytlsuername wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 11:56 amThis is the weirdest false dichotomy I've ever seen
... but there are three options????!!!!thisismytlsuername wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 11:56 amThis is the weirdest false dichotomy I've ever seen
so tl/dr - you're saying it's fear of change. OK that's another possibility.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 1:05 pmIt's neither, this is a bad poll question. It's not an ego thing, and I frankly don't see why anyone would think it is. They want to be able to see peons working for them and cackle about how they control their lives? They measure their self worth by the number of cars in the parking garage? I just don't see it.
That said, it's also not a valid business reason, or at least not a well grounded one. If you just look at business metrics, there is of course a strong case for never going back permanently, or at least maintaining an extremely flexible work from home option.
The reason I think a lot of partners want to go back into the office is the same reason partners back in the day used the library to do their legal research instead of Lexis and Westlaw, insist on calling people rather than email or teams, or do all their editing on paper rather than redline: it's what they are used to, and they've been successful working that way. From their perspective, it's brought them sucess so far, so why should they want to change it? Which makes complete sense, but is neither a larger business reason nor "ego."
how is it not ego-motivated to be stuck in your old, conservative ways due to having a fossilized mentality, despite associates making abundant and reasonable requests?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 1:05 pmIt's neither, this is a bad poll question. It's not an ego thing, and I frankly don't see why anyone would think it is. They want to be able to see peons working for them and cackle about how they control their lives? They measure their self worth by the number of cars in the parking garage? I just don't see it.
That said, it's also not a valid business reason, or at least not a well grounded one. If you just look at business metrics, there is of course a strong case for never going back permanently, or at least maintaining an extremely flexible work from home option.
The reason I think a lot of partners want to go back into the office is the same reason partners back in the day used the library to do their legal research instead of Lexis and Westlaw, insist on calling people rather than email or teams, or do all their editing on paper rather than redline: it's what they are used to, and they've been successful working that way. From their perspective, it's brought them sucess so far, so why should they want to change it? Which makes complete sense, but is neither a larger business reason nor "ego."
Link to this study?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 1:33 pmAs far as "business purpose", hard to argue that profits will suffer because of WFH given the case study last year.
Because you have one absurdly broad category ("valid business reasons," which could be almost anything, including the other category), and one hyper-specific category that is very obviously designed to cater to the sensibilities of TLS posters.motojir wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 12:00 pmElaborate?thisismytlsuername wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 11:56 amThis is the weirdest false dichotomy I've ever seen
I read this post three times and, unlike the poll, there's not an ounce of meaning or substance to it. Nothing there. Just a bitter, angry little dork posting empty rants on the internet.ExpOriental wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 1:48 pmBecause you have one absurdly broad category ("valid business reasons," which could be almost anything, including the other category), and one hyper-specific category that is very obviously designed to cater to the sensibilities of TLS posters.motojir wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 12:00 pmElaborate?thisismytlsuername wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 11:56 amThis is the weirdest false dichotomy I've ever seen
What you're actually posting is just "I think the only reason to bring people back to the office is to preserve partners' egos," but you've chosen to articulate it as a poll for reasons that escape me.
Not that you actually needed someone to explain any of this to you; it's abundantly clear that you're just shitposting and asked for elaboration in bad faith.
Relatedly, as someone who wants WFH flexibility moving forward, I don't think whiny rhetoric as exemplified by this thread is particularly helpful. Even as someone who is ostensibly on the same side, I do not want to be lumped in with anyone who centers their discussion around "partner egos." There are legitimate, earnestly held perspectives on both sides, and the best path forward is some compromise that takes that into account.
It's remarkable that you thought it was worth deleting your prior response, which was actually (marginally) less pathetic, to replace it with this one.motojir wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 2:46 pmI read this post three times and, unlike the poll, there's not an ounce of meaning or substance to it. Nothing there. Just a bitter, angry little dork posting empty rants on the internet.ExpOriental wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 1:48 pmBecause you have one absurdly broad category ("valid business reasons," which could be almost anything, including the other category), and one hyper-specific category that is very obviously designed to cater to the sensibilities of TLS posters.motojir wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 12:00 pmElaborate?thisismytlsuername wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 11:56 amThis is the weirdest false dichotomy I've ever seen
What you're actually posting is just "I think the only reason to bring people back to the office is to preserve partners' egos," but you've chosen to articulate it as a poll for reasons that escape me.
Not that you actually needed someone to explain any of this to you; it's abundantly clear that you're just shitposting and asked for elaboration in bad faith.
Relatedly, as someone who wants WFH flexibility moving forward, I don't think whiny rhetoric as exemplified by this thread is particularly helpful. Even as someone who is ostensibly on the same side, I do not want to be lumped in with anyone who centers their discussion around "partner egos." There are legitimate, earnestly held perspectives on both sides, and the best path forward is some compromise that takes that into account.
Pathetic is coming in here to lick partner ass (pro tip: they already have all the leverage and don’t need your help)ExpOriental wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 3:43 pmIt's remarkable that you thought it was worth deleting your prior response, which was actually (marginally) less pathetic, to replace it with this one.motojir wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 2:46 pmI read this post three times and, unlike the poll, there's not an ounce of meaning or substance to it. Nothing there. Just a bitter, angry little dork posting empty rants on the internet.ExpOriental wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 1:48 pmBecause you have one absurdly broad category ("valid business reasons," which could be almost anything, including the other category), and one hyper-specific category that is very obviously designed to cater to the sensibilities of TLS posters.motojir wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 12:00 pmElaborate?thisismytlsuername wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 11:56 amThis is the weirdest false dichotomy I've ever seen
What you're actually posting is just "I think the only reason to bring people back to the office is to preserve partners' egos," but you've chosen to articulate it as a poll for reasons that escape me.
Not that you actually needed someone to explain any of this to you; it's abundantly clear that you're just shitposting and asked for elaboration in bad faith.
Relatedly, as someone who wants WFH flexibility moving forward, I don't think whiny rhetoric as exemplified by this thread is particularly helpful. Even as someone who is ostensibly on the same side, I do not want to be lumped in with anyone who centers their discussion around "partner egos." There are legitimate, earnestly held perspectives on both sides, and the best path forward is some compromise that takes that into account.
TIL not being a whiny dipshit = "licking partner ass"Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 3:46 pmPathetic is coming in here to lick partner ass (pro tip: they already have all the leverage and don’t need your help)ExpOriental wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 3:43 pmIt's remarkable that you thought it was worth deleting your prior response, which was actually (marginally) less pathetic, to replace it with this one.motojir wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 2:46 pmI read this post three times and, unlike the poll, there's not an ounce of meaning or substance to it. Nothing there. Just a bitter, angry little dork posting empty rants on the internet.ExpOriental wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 1:48 pmBecause you have one absurdly broad category ("valid business reasons," which could be almost anything, including the other category), and one hyper-specific category that is very obviously designed to cater to the sensibilities of TLS posters.motojir wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 12:00 pmElaborate?thisismytlsuername wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 11:56 amThis is the weirdest false dichotomy I've ever seen
What you're actually posting is just "I think the only reason to bring people back to the office is to preserve partners' egos," but you've chosen to articulate it as a poll for reasons that escape me.
Not that you actually needed someone to explain any of this to you; it's abundantly clear that you're just shitposting and asked for elaboration in bad faith.
Relatedly, as someone who wants WFH flexibility moving forward, I don't think whiny rhetoric as exemplified by this thread is particularly helpful. Even as someone who is ostensibly on the same side, I do not want to be lumped in with anyone who centers their discussion around "partner egos." There are legitimate, earnestly held perspectives on both sides, and the best path forward is some compromise that takes that into account.
Adding to this - it matters for senior/midlevel associates to come back as well. Juniors typically receive that mentorship, advice and practical knowledge of going over things in person from midlevels/seniors - not partners. If all the midlevels/seniors are WFH and the juniors are in office, the juniors are still missing out on that development.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 1:33 pmAs far as "business purpose", hard to argue that profits will suffer because of WFH given the case study last year, but I think it does make a difference for junior associates, especially those just starting, to be able to meet in person and go over redlines, chit chat and find mentors organically, etc. Also, culture probably is much more consistent and enforceable if everyone is in the same office. The more senior you are, the less this matters since you're already experienced and have a network.
As far as ego, I can understand partners/senior associates wanting to maintain their sense of "professional prestige" that comes with working in a corner office in a high rise, wearing office attire, making juniors come to your office for meetings, etc. Reckon you feel a lot more important than if you were in your sweats at home, hammering away in your home office, with your spouse telling you to do things and kids yelling in the background. I'd think this sense applies less the more junior you are (who cares where you're doing diligence, a cramped office or your cramped apartment), but this "prestige" aspect is definitely an intangible but non-negligible component to why people grind to be a fancy BL lawyer.
None of this may trump the freedom of working from home, but I can see the appeal to partners for things to go back to the way they were.