Avoiding RTO Forum

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
mwells_56

New
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:18 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by mwells_56 » Tue May 03, 2022 8:08 pm

Ultramar vistas wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 7:33 pm
mwells_56 wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 7:05 pm
Moneytrees wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 5:05 pm
Sad248 wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 2:03 pm
I think fact of the matter is indeed people won't see eye to eye on it. The one cannot see the benefits of what the other person wants. I'm solidly in the WFH camp and I can't fathom why a non-partner wants to be in. To me they all seem like people who need their social fix from fake office friends, get off on their job, and live to work and WFH and learning to deal with it would actually be a wonderful time to learn there is more to life. Whereas I'm sure WFH seems like anti-social and depressed trolls who are soft and need the office environment to get their priorities reordered.

I thought for me the crux of the matter was that only one side requires the other to do something they don't want (only RTO forces the others to come in; WFH is fine with RTO'ers to come in), but seems that RTO'ers indicate they need people to come in to get the full joy out of their work, which I suppose makes sense (the social life, the office dynamics).

Honestly, I truly do not understand why RTO'ers need this so badly, but I suppose ultimately a 50/50 deal is fair, so the pain and benefit gets shared a bit.
From my perspective, this debate has little to nothing to do with hanging around the water cooler and socializing, but is more so about whether junior associates are receiving the requisite training if they never come into the office. IMO juniors need a lot of guidance and they aren't getting really that working from home.
People keep saying this but I think there's also a fair argument to be made that WFH will extend longevity in Big Law because being able to stay home with your families will decrease burnout. So even if it takes longer for juniors like myself to get up to speed, you could reasonably say we'll be around for longer and the firm stands to make more money off of us.
Except that the period of WFH also aligned with record attrition, and rightly or wrongly a lot of firm leadership views those things as connected. Record high hours is no doubt what the passionate WFH-er ascribes the departures to, but the partnership thinks otherwise.
I was under the impression the increased attrition was more intra-Big Law with the enticement of fat signing bonuses rather than exiting altogether?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Tue May 03, 2022 8:20 pm

mwells_56 wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 8:08 pm
Ultramar vistas wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 7:33 pm
mwells_56 wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 7:05 pm
Moneytrees wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 5:05 pm
Sad248 wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 2:03 pm
I think fact of the matter is indeed people won't see eye to eye on it. The one cannot see the benefits of what the other person wants. I'm solidly in the WFH camp and I can't fathom why a non-partner wants to be in. To me they all seem like people who need their social fix from fake office friends, get off on their job, and live to work and WFH and learning to deal with it would actually be a wonderful time to learn there is more to life. Whereas I'm sure WFH seems like anti-social and depressed trolls who are soft and need the office environment to get their priorities reordered.

I thought for me the crux of the matter was that only one side requires the other to do something they don't want (only RTO forces the others to come in; WFH is fine with RTO'ers to come in), but seems that RTO'ers indicate they need people to come in to get the full joy out of their work, which I suppose makes sense (the social life, the office dynamics).

Honestly, I truly do not understand why RTO'ers need this so badly, but I suppose ultimately a 50/50 deal is fair, so the pain and benefit gets shared a bit.
From my perspective, this debate has little to nothing to do with hanging around the water cooler and socializing, but is more so about whether junior associates are receiving the requisite training if they never come into the office. IMO juniors need a lot of guidance and they aren't getting really that working from home.
People keep saying this but I think there's also a fair argument to be made that WFH will extend longevity in Big Law because being able to stay home with your families will decrease burnout. So even if it takes longer for juniors like myself to get up to speed, you could reasonably say we'll be around for longer and the firm stands to make more money off of us.
Except that the period of WFH also aligned with record attrition, and rightly or wrongly a lot of firm leadership views those things as connected. Record high hours is no doubt what the passionate WFH-er ascribes the departures to, but the partnership thinks otherwise.
I was under the impression the increased attrition was more intra-Big Law with the enticement of fat signing bonuses rather than exiting altogether?
Impression I get, rightly or wrongly, is that partnership feels like a big part of this was lack of loyalty to firm, loyalty that gets built up from knowing your coworkers and feeling of belonging, etc. Even if true, that doesn't mean associates have to buy into that mindset, but I think that's the perspective.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Tue May 03, 2022 9:26 pm

nixy wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 5:19 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 5:17 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 5:14 pm
This thread in a nutshell:

WFH fanatic: why you gotta bring everybody in just so you can socialize? S'not fair!
RTO supporters: that's not our point, it's about [provides a list of other things].
WFH fanatic: [picks at maybe one of those points for a few pages].
New WFH fanatic: why you gotta bring everybody in just so you can socialize?
Logic friends, would you describe calling WFH "fanatics" and RTO "supporters" begging the question, or is there a more precise logical fallacy?
Not an inaccurate summary otherwise though.
I used those terms to make an actual point, not to assume my conclusion (which I assume you have assumed to be that WFH folks are wrong, though I didn't outright state it). The WFH fanatics ITT continue to attempt to convince everyone that there's no possible world in which they can rightfully be hauled into the office. No room for debate, hence "fanatics." The RTO supporters, save for a couple boomer outliers, recognize there are benefits to WFH and mandatory RTO, and thus that it's a judgment call through and through. They "support" it. Perhaps I should have used another word instead (absolutists/prosthelytizers come to mind), but the point still stands.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Tue May 03, 2022 9:33 pm

mwells_56 wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 8:08 pm
I was under the impression the increased attrition was more intra-Big Law with the enticement of fat signing bonuses rather than exiting altogether?
It's the other way around. Fat signing bonuses weren't what caused attrition. People started quitting first. Firms added bonuses to keep people in place and signing bonuses to add to their ranks in response, which further accelerated the great reshuffling.

Sad248

New
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2020 10:50 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Sad248 » Wed May 04, 2022 8:13 am

I guess my initial post did not cover this topic which has already been discussed ad nauseam as well, but since everybody who loves RTO has now turned into "Well, actually, I now suddenly don't care about social relationships anymore, it's actually for my career," I'll respond to this one in particular:
Moneytrees wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 5:05 pm
Sad248 wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 2:03 pm
I think fact of the matter is indeed people won't see eye to eye on it. The one cannot see the benefits of what the other person wants. I'm solidly in the WFH camp and I can't fathom why a non-partner wants to be in. To me they all seem like people who need their social fix from fake office friends, get off on their job, and live to work and WFH and learning to deal with it would actually be a wonderful time to learn there is more to life. Whereas I'm sure WFH seems like anti-social and depressed trolls who are soft and need the office environment to get their priorities reordered.

I thought for me the crux of the matter was that only one side requires the other to do something they don't want (only RTO forces the others to come in; WFH is fine with RTO'ers to come in), but seems that RTO'ers indicate they need people to come in to get the full joy out of their work, which I suppose makes sense (the social life, the office dynamics).

Honestly, I truly do not understand why RTO'ers need this so badly, but I suppose ultimately a 50/50 deal is fair, so the pain and benefit gets shared a bit.
From my perspective, this debate has little to nothing to do with hanging around the water cooler and socializing, but is more so about whether junior associates are receiving the requisite training if they never come into the office. IMO juniors need a lot of guidance and they aren't getting really that working from home.
Again, the whole training argument has a core of truth, but it's nonsense that one needs to be in the office to become a competent lawyer. At my firm I guess there are three avenues of learning:
1. Lectures: these can be followed online
2. Asking a senior associate about something and discussing it with them: can be done online
3. The whole osmosis argument, that you will learn just by being in the vicinity of other lawyers: maybe that is a thing, maybe not, but in my opinion it vastly overestimates how much collaboration lawyers do.

I think the crux is the second part, that those discussions become less frequent because of a higher threshold to pick up/answer the phone. Instead of raising your hands like "well, that's it folks, nothing can be done!" it for me requires a mentality shift, that in my opinion, should be promoted by firms as a lot of lawyers, plainly, suck in interpersonal skills and even more so online. That being said even if that is not instilled, is that enough on its own to mandate a RTO for people who hate it? In my opinion, no, as I don't think the higher threshold of having ad hoc discussions equates to the burden of RTO, but again, it goes back to that RTO'ers believing that everybody just needs to buckle up and do it in the way which 'worked' (if you can speak of that in biglaw, with high attrition rates, drug and alcohol issues, burnouts, massive inefficiency, etc.), which is a fair point in itself, I suppose. Why change if not necessary.

The other point about how it's just good for your career to be in the office is a given, but again, your partnership opportunities don't require me to be in the office, whereas me being trained giving training/talking with you around the watercooler, do.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


nixy

Gold
Posts: 4446
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by nixy » Wed May 04, 2022 8:38 am

I agree that conversations around work *can* be done online. But there is greater barrier to entry and to say "well everyone just needs to have a mentality shift" isn't going to be very convincing to powers that be who had no problems with the old system and were forced to go online by circumstances. Some will have been convinced that this works, but some won't.
RTO'ers believing that everybody just needs to buckle up and do it in the way which 'worked'
arguing that there are some benefits to going into the office and people would probably benefit from going in periodically (assuming there are enough people in the office to provide those benefits) isn't the same as saying "everybody just needs to buckle up and do it in the way which 'worked'" (though tbc I'm ignoring the yahoo proclaiming the end of civilization because no one can talk to each other any more). I feel like these kinds of comments are pushing back against an absolutist RTO that virtually no one is seriously advocating.
The other point about how it's just good for your career to be in the office is a given, but again, your partnership opportunities don't require me to be in the office, whereas me being trained giving training/talking with you around the watercooler, do.
I feel like this isn't necessarily true, if my partnership opportunities depend in part on managing juniors and if that's improved by in-person interaction with them. I offer that pretty tentatively, it doesn't have to be the case, but I think it can be the case.

Also, to the comment about collaboration: I do collaborate quite a lot in my work - not every day, but regularly. It can be perfectively effective over the phone or Zoom, but there are times when in-person works better. I'm definitely not saying get rid of virtual stuff - they're useful tools - just saying that working in-person can be a tool, too.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Wed May 04, 2022 8:59 am

Sad248 wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 8:13 am
I think the crux is the second part, that those discussions become less frequent because of a higher threshold to pick up/answer the phone. Instead of raising your hands like "well, that's it folks, nothing can be done!" it for me requires a mentality shift, that in my opinion, should be promoted by firms as a lot of lawyers, plainly, suck in interpersonal skills and even more so online. That being said even if that is not instilled, is that enough on its own to mandate a RTO for people who hate it? In my opinion, no, as I don't think the higher threshold of having ad hoc discussions equates to the burden of RTO, but again, it goes back to that RTO'ers believing that everybody just needs to buckle up and do it in the way which 'worked' (if you can speak of that in biglaw, with high attrition rates, drug and alcohol issues, burnouts, massive inefficiency, etc.), which is a fair point in itself, I suppose. Why change if not necessary.
Yeah so this is is pretty much the post the RTO supporters have been looking for. As Nixy pointed out, save for the sky is falling boomer, nobody is saying RTO is the only answer. It's just our opinion about the best way to balance competing interests. You're certainly entitled to disagree and you (and others) present some strong reasons why a firm might not chose to go with mandatory RTO. But those reasons don't settle the issue.

WFH proponents continue to act as if mandatory RTO is the only policy that imposes on others. But as you suggest, asking folks to change their habits around impromptu discussions / mentoring is also an imposition. RTO requires some to give up the convenience of working permanently from home; optional WFH requires people to change the way they think about collaboration. The former may be more tangible, but both are impositions.

I happen to think there's no possible way to completely capture the benefits of in-person interactions remotely. You may disagree or think that the benefits left on the table are too minor to require everyone to come into the office, but as I've said time and time again that's a judgment call, not a fact.

Sad248

New
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2020 10:50 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Sad248 » Wed May 04, 2022 9:53 am

nixy wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 8:38 am
RTO'ers believing that everybody just needs to buckle up and do it in the way which 'worked'
arguing that there are some benefits to going into the office and people would probably benefit from going in periodically (assuming there are enough people in the office to provide those benefits) isn't the same as saying "everybody just needs to buckle up and do it in the way which 'worked'" (though tbc I'm ignoring the yahoo proclaiming the end of civilization because no one can talk to each other any more). I feel like these kinds of comments are pushing back against an absolutist RTO that virtually no one is seriously advocating.
Yeah, I think a compromise indeed is the only way forward. But I think for me and many other people who are WFH fans just don't see why RTO people love it so much. Even a partial RTO is weird to me, because the benefits (social contact, training, career advancement) are all aspects that people can decide for themselves if it is worthwhile. For me, I have friends outside of work, I can pick up the phone if I want to discuss with someone junior/senior, and don't want to become a partner and feel like I'm growing enough WFH. But I understand the argument from RTO is that everybody needs to be in for some days, because whilst WFH'ers might be doing great WFH, the office crowd is not without a critical mass in the office.

However, in my opinion, the only point that might have some merit from this perspective is training. I think mandating people in, is a larger imposition than expanding people's skillsets. I also think a partial RTO is weird here (so 3 days we are going to have ad hoc training days where we discuss and mentor all the way and the rest of the week it's back to supposed purgatory where...what? People have to pick up the phone to discuss, an approach that apparently is so bad and ineffective that people had to mandated back into the office?)

Again, this is my opinion, and I cede the point I will never understand the benefit of having people in an office who perform worse there, but I'm sure people are just as dumbfounded there are people who apparently do not need to be in an office to become and be a good lawyer.
nixy wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 8:38 am
The other point about how it's just good for your career to be in the office is a given, but again, your partnership opportunities don't require me to be in the office, whereas me being trained giving training/talking with you around the watercooler, do.
I feel like this isn't necessarily true, if my partnership opportunities depend in part on managing juniors and if that's improved by in-person interaction with them. I offer that pretty tentatively, it doesn't have to be the case, but I think it can be the case.

Also, to the comment about collaboration: I do collaborate quite a lot in my work - not every day, but regularly. It can be perfectively effective over the phone or Zoom, but there are times when in-person works better. I'm definitely not saying get rid of virtual stuff - they're useful tools - just saying that working in-person can be a tool, too.
That's fair, but again, if your partnership opportunities rely on that, maybe you should just learn how to manage your associates remotely, instead of making them hate you by requiring them to go in because you can't cut it online. But I think this still boils down to my overarching point, where every point the RTO base raises, in my opinion, is just minutiae and indicative of their failure to expand their toolset. A toolset which multi-billion dollar firms should help advance. Of course, the inverse is also true, where RTO'ers can't fathom what's so nice about not being burnt out in an office, because they actually love the office. In their eyes, the WFH crowd just needs to try harder to grasp the full benefit of being in the office, just as they see it.

As to the collaboration point, for me, that is always the exception and I think collaborative teams should be in the office when possible. I have never collaborated during my entire legal career, so I did not know that was a thing, but yeah, completely with you, and if that is the case I'd say you'd probably have to be in at least 3-4 days a week. There is verifiable proof that WFH is detrimental to work product.
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 8:59 am
Sad248 wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 8:13 am
I think the crux is the second part, that those discussions become less frequent because of a higher threshold to pick up/answer the phone. Instead of raising your hands like "well, that's it folks, nothing can be done!" it for me requires a mentality shift, that in my opinion, should be promoted by firms as a lot of lawyers, plainly, suck in interpersonal skills and even more so online. That being said even if that is not instilled, is that enough on its own to mandate a RTO for people who hate it? In my opinion, no, as I don't think the higher threshold of having ad hoc discussions equates to the burden of RTO, but again, it goes back to that RTO'ers believing that everybody just needs to buckle up and do it in the way which 'worked' (if you can speak of that in biglaw, with high attrition rates, drug and alcohol issues, burnouts, massive inefficiency, etc.), which is a fair point in itself, I suppose. Why change if not necessary.
Yeah so this is is pretty much the post the RTO supporters have been looking for. As Nixy pointed out, save for the sky is falling boomer, nobody is saying RTO is the only answer. It's just our opinion about the best way to balance competing interests. You're certainly entitled to disagree and you (and others) present some strong reasons why a firm might not chose to go with mandatory RTO. But those reasons don't settle the issue.

WFH proponents continue to act as if mandatory RTO is the only policy that imposes on others. But as you suggest, asking folks to change their habits around impromptu discussions / mentoring is also an imposition. RTO requires some to give up the convenience of working permanently from home; optional WFH requires people to change the way they think about collaboration. The former may be more tangible, but both are impositions.

I happen to think there's no possible way to completely capture the benefits of in-person interactions remotely. You may disagree or think that the benefits left on the table are too minor to require everyone to come into the office, but as I've said time and time again that's a judgment call, not a fact.
I mean, I touched upon this, but the comparative imposition of walking to someone's office compared to picking up the phone is negligible. Mandating someone to commute into an environment they don't perform as well in is a way more severe imposition. But that's my view and I'm sure there are people here who are in a state of dread of dealing with someone remote, just like people who love WFH dread being in the office again.

As I've indicated earlier I have no clue why people really like RTO, just like I'm sure that camp can't understand why WFH like being at home/anywhere else but in the office. It ultimately is a feelings thing and if RTO'ers really feel the need to have people fake smile at the watercooler/be around for ad hoc discussions because they hate their phone/need the cheers of others when they are going for that partner role/whatever other reason, so be it, just like RTO'ers can be upset at the WFH crowd wanting to be anti-social hermits who don't go hard enough for their work. In my opinion, ideally, I'd like to see it where office lovers can be there 7 days a week and people who don't never have to be in an office again, and everyone can excel in life and work just the way they want it, but happy to share the pain on this front so both get some benefit and some burden as RTO people have made it clear they need everybody in the office to receive the full benefit. Again, don't understand it, but I don't need to.

nixy

Gold
Posts: 4446
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by nixy » Wed May 04, 2022 10:13 am

This focus on “loving” the office is weird and seems to be part of a fundamental disconnect in this discussion. I don’t love going into the office in the same way that I don’t love brushing my teeth or eating vegetables or (many kinds of) exercise. I don’t do those things because I love them, I do them because they’re good for me.

All else being equal, I *like* WFH much better because I can roll out of bed and head to my desk without the rigmarole of showering, dressing like a professional, and commuting. I can hang with my cats and eat out of my fridge. I’m a huge introvert who finds people exhausting lots of the time. In terms of what I love to do, going into the office is very far down on the list. But I also know that I do some aspects of my job better if I go into the office to do them (and there are other things I just have to leave my house to do, like go to court). Hence, sometimes I go in, and sometimes I WFH.

I mean if we were talking about what we love, I wouldn’t be working at all, I’d be like hanging on the beach or living in some artist colony in the mountains learning to be a potter or something equally impractical but fun. But I don’t live in that universe. It would be great if I found a job that I love to do so much I’d do it in my free time even if they didn’t pay me, but there’s a reason it’s called work.

As for deciding which benefits are worthwhile - it’s absolutely your prerogative to decide where you want to put your efforts. But (and I’ve said this before) I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a firm to say “you don’t want to be partner? Cool cool cool, we’ll treat you differently and a bunch of stuff no longer matters.” I get that it’s ironic or maybe hypocritical because firms only promote a small number of people to partner* and rely on people leaving, but if they started treating people differently from year 1 based on who they think is/isn’t going to make partner (even if it’s because they don’t want to), that seems like a really bad precedent. Firms can’t structure their workplace around people who want to be there 3 years and bounce. (And I’m not knocking that goal! It’s totally reasonable as a personal goal. It’s just not a good goal for a firm to organize around.)

*talking about big fancy NY firms, at least; tons of my classmates in my secondary law school market have made partner at their firms.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Wed May 04, 2022 10:37 am

TBH this seems like a good point to [/thread].

User avatar
BrowsingTLS

Bronze
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:17 pm

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by BrowsingTLS » Wed May 04, 2022 11:57 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 10:37 am
TBH this seems like a good point to [/thread].
Agreed but commenting to say I love the last WFH post.

If we all had a live and let live attitude, there wouldn't be anything to be discussed here. RTO fans would just go to work in person, however many days each of them favors going in and they would go in with other RTO fans and any WFH fans who forced themselves into the office. And while WFH fans who want to stay home would choose to stay home without caring what RTOs choose to do, unless RTOs are choosing to force them in, RTOs would be content to work with the people who choose to be in person. But alas, some of us are convinced that there is a zero sum game involving personal choice on the issue of WFH/RTO and in-person benefits of training, socializing, career prospects, etc.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Wed May 04, 2022 1:49 pm

BrowsingTLS wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 11:57 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 10:37 am
TBH this seems like a good point to [/thread].
Agreed but commenting to say I love the last WFH post.

If we all had a live and let live attitude, there wouldn't be anything to be discussed here. RTO fans would just go to work in person, however many days each of them favors going in and they would go in with other RTO fans and any WFH fans who forced themselves into the office. And while WFH fans who want to stay home would choose to stay home without caring what RTOs choose to do, unless RTOs are choosing to force them in, RTOs would be content to work with the people who choose to be in person. But alas, some of us are convinced that there is a zero sum game involving personal choice on the issue of WFH/RTO and in-person benefits of training, socializing, career prospects, etc.
OMFG do you not know how to read? This issue has literally been argued OVER and OVER ITT and there are a plethora of counter points to "just let the WFHers WFH." How can you agree with [/thread] and yet reopen a settled issue?

Edit: and by settled I mean there are reasons for your proposal, and there are also reasons for requiring everyone to come in.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Wed May 04, 2022 3:48 pm

I'm not coming in because my firm is desperate for senior associates and I do not want to. The rest is for the partners to figure out.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Thu May 05, 2022 4:20 am

I’m hypersensitive to noise and my firm assigned me open / bullpen seating. That is why I’m not going in. If they really want me to come in they should be less cheap.

User avatar
BrowsingTLS

Bronze
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:17 pm

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by BrowsingTLS » Thu May 05, 2022 8:30 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 1:49 pm
BrowsingTLS wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 11:57 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 10:37 am
TBH this seems like a good point to [/thread].
Agreed but commenting to say I love the last WFH post.

If we all had a live and let live attitude, there wouldn't be anything to be discussed here. RTO fans would just go to work in person, however many days each of them favors going in and they would go in with other RTO fans and any WFH fans who forced themselves into the office. And while WFH fans who want to stay home would choose to stay home without caring what RTOs choose to do, unless RTOs are choosing to force them in, RTOs would be content to work with the people who choose to be in person. But alas, some of us are convinced that there is a zero sum game involving personal choice on the issue of WFH/RTO and in-person benefits of training, socializing, career prospects, etc.
OMFG do you not know how to read? This issue has literally been argued OVER and OVER ITT and there are a plethora of counter points to "just let the WFHers WFH." How can you agree with [/thread] and yet reopen a settled issue?

Edit: and by settled I mean there are reasons for your proposal, and there are also reasons for requiring everyone to come in.
Cry more while abusing anon Q-Q

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Thu May 05, 2022 8:30 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 4:20 am
I’m hypersensitive to noise and my firm assigned me open / bullpen seating. That is why I’m not going in. If they really want me to come in they should be less cheap.
Bullpen seating for associates is bullshit.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Thu May 05, 2022 1:44 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 8:30 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 4:20 am
I’m hypersensitive to noise and my firm assigned me open / bullpen seating. That is why I’m not going in. If they really want me to come in they should be less cheap.
Bullpen seating for associates is bullshit.
Correct. I billed 17 un-padded hours yesterday and don’t have even a shared office … meanwhile graphic designers for the firm’s website have to interior offices

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Thu May 05, 2022 1:53 pm

Which firm has associates in bullpens? I would not come in for that.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Thu May 05, 2022 2:00 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon May 02, 2022 11:50 am
FWIW (and IMHO) I think the only reason RTO is being loosely enforced is because COVID continues to be a concern for large groups of associates (and a potential liability for the firm?) - not because "the cat is already out of the bag." I got this sense from firm management when I lightly addressed the pitiful response to RTO. If someone released a new vaccine tomorrow that was 99% effective forever and ever and meant COVID was a thing of the past, I bet firms would be pushing harder.

With that said, I could be wrong. I'm a part-time RTO supporter, but this could just as easily be a recognition by the powers that be that WFH is here to stay for some. Any others have insight into why their firms are being so chill about RTO? This is relevant to OP's Q, as if I'm wrong then it should be pretty easy to continue to avoid RTO.
I'm one of those DPW anons. I heard through the grapevine that one or several groups had a covid outbreak at a training session or something. Finance or litigation (or something else), unsure.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Thu May 05, 2022 2:01 pm

Latham LA has associates in bullpen, no?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Thu May 05, 2022 2:45 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 1:44 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 8:30 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 4:20 am
I’m hypersensitive to noise and my firm assigned me open / bullpen seating. That is why I’m not going in. If they really want me to come in they should be less cheap.
Bullpen seating for associates is bullshit.
Correct. I billed 17 un-padded hours yesterday and don’t have even a shared office … meanwhile graphic designers for the firm’s website have to interior offices
When I was looking for post-clerkship positions I ruled out all firms with bullpen seating/shared offices. That is some major bullshit.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Thu May 05, 2022 3:53 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 2:45 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 1:44 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 8:30 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 4:20 am
I’m hypersensitive to noise and my firm assigned me open / bullpen seating. That is why I’m not going in. If they really want me to come in they should be less cheap.
Bullpen seating for associates is bullshit.
Correct. I billed 17 un-padded hours yesterday and don’t have even a shared office … meanwhile graphic designers for the firm’s website have to interior offices
When I was looking for post-clerkship positions I ruled out all firms with bullpen seating/shared offices. That is some major bullshit.

Yup, same. I got an offer from an "elite" boutique out of my clerkship, with above-market clerkship bonus, but said "no thanks" and big reason why was the open-office shared pod-type workstations for associates. That's a hard no.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Mon May 09, 2022 10:58 am

Kirkland DC has some first years in a bullpen.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Mon May 09, 2022 11:28 am

We're in a pretty bad bear market right now and rising interest rates are killing deals. M&A at my firm has slowed down considerably and cap markets is dead because nobody wants to IPO. Real estate deals have dried up too because financing isn't dirt cheap anymore. I'd think about RTO so management doesn't have an easy reason to fire me later this year when my hours will dip.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428117
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Avoiding RTO

Post by Anonymous User » Mon May 09, 2022 11:08 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon May 09, 2022 10:58 am
Kirkland DC has some first years in a bullpen.
Which sort of made sense when it was Covid times — but if they now actually want them to show up, that’s beat

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”