Avoiding RTO Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm a Millennial, and believe it or not, but prior to 2020 the workforce was maintained just fine without the ubiquity of WFH. People would wake up and commute to this thing called an "office," and interact with their coworkers *gasp* IN-PERSON. You really think requiring people to do this again would destroy the workforce? No. First off, if anything, it's the Boomers who are pushing hardest for WFH because they've already had long successful careers and want to spend their last few working years in their nice houses. Furthermore, what would be the alternative if WFH were illegal? Not working and starving to death? I think you'll find that almost every worker would capitulate, and they will quickly learn to actually socialize and engage with their fellow humans once again rather than spending all day festering alone in an apartment.

lmao, it's genuinely funny how these people always tell on themselves

Right?? What part of "I want to spend time with my wife and kids" wasn't clear?

Just lol. Also, the jobs I had before law school and while clerking before big law were FAR more social. Generally, Big Law strikes me as a very closed-door-grind vibe. I go in 2ish times a week, but I only have a meaningful in-person interaction (i.e. a conversation beyond superficial pleasantries) once every two weeks or so. Hell, even on days when both and I and the partners I work with are in the office, we STILL just call eachother 90+ % of the time.

Basically, the days I am in, I often find myself wondering what the point is if we're all just going to sit in our offices with the door closed. Especially because I live <5 minutes from the office. If we have an impromptu in-person meeting, I just throw on work clothes and come in anyway.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a Millennial, and believe it or not, but prior to 2020 the workforce was maintained just fine without the ubiquity of WFH. People would wake up and commute to this thing called an "office," and interact with their coworkers *gasp* IN-PERSON. You really think requiring people to do this again would destroy the workforce? No. First off, if anything, it's the Boomers who are pushing hardest for WFH because they've already had long successful careers and want to spend their last few working years in their nice houses. Furthermore, what would be the alternative if WFH were illegal? Not working and starving to death? I think you'll find that almost every worker would capitulate, and they will quickly learn to actually socialize and engage with their fellow humans once again rather than spending all day festering alone in an apartment.

lmao, it's genuinely funny how these people always tell on themselves

I was coming up here to say "tell me you're spending all day festering alone in an apartment without telling me." I don't understand why people view the choice as being between working in the office all day and spending all day in your bedroom with the door closed. The free time I get from working from home allows me to see *people I actually want to spend time with.*

[BrowsingTLS]

Would be useful to have some sort of list of which firms are fully RTO, which fully WFH, hybrid etc. Seems like these are the categories, am I missing anything? Might make a new thread and try to keep that one slightly less toxic.

A. Fully in person, 5 days a week
B. Tue-Wed-Th mandatory
C. Some in person required/strongly encouraged but less than 3 days or not really mandatory,
D. Fully flexible / WFH

For B I would just say three days mandatory and specify the days if you want. Otherwise, you're only capturing a subsection of firms requiring 3 days.

I think there's a qualitative difference between firms going to a formal middle of the week 3 days in person, and flexible pick any 3 days. Unless they're taking attendance, flexi any 3 days sort of becomes not mandatory bc who's to know when you came in unless they take attendance. But if everyone is expected to come in on a specific 3 days (and a few firms seem to be going to this) then if you miss a day suddenly you missed a day.

My point that a category is being missed stands.

I don't think our opinions on this require anonymity.

[Anonymous User]

Would be useful to have some sort of list of which firms are fully RTO, which fully WFH, hybrid etc. Seems like these are the categories, am I missing anything? Might make a new thread and try to keep that one slightly less toxic.

A. Fully in person, 5 days a week
B. Tue-Wed-Th mandatory
C. Some in person required/strongly encouraged but less than 3 days or not really mandatory,
D. Fully flexible / WFH

For B I would just say three days mandatory and specify the days if you want. Otherwise, you're only capturing a subsection of firms requiring 3 days.

I think there's a qualitative difference between firms going to a formal middle of the week 3 days in person, and flexible pick any 3 days. Unless they're taking attendance, flexi any 3 days sort of becomes not mandatory bc who's to know when you came in unless they take attendance. But if everyone is expected to come in on a specific 3 days (and a few firms seem to be going to this) then if you miss a day suddenly you missed a day.

My point that a category is being missed stands.

I don't think our opinions on this require anonymity.

Agree, makes sense to break into B) 3 set days, C) 2-3 days, D) some in person, E) no requirement.

And don't care.

[Anonymous User]

Out of curiosity, anyone know of firms where you can just take 1-2 months of WFH and then be in the office the rest of the year? Specifically corporate (so not Quinn). I'd love to be able to get out of the city and work from my family's cabin for a bit in the summer.

[1styearlateral]

The anon abuse here is mind blowing. It makes it impossible to gauge the public support on either side of the argument. My guess is it’s just one or two severely disgruntled (or bored) associates.

In any event, still don’t understand why this is so hotly contested. No amount of bickering here is going to have any effect on anyone’s RTO requirements. At this point we’re just recycling the same arguments over and over.

[Sad248]

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.

[Bdgerald]

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.

I think you nailed it exactly.

For some people, your life outside of work came secondary to work, and for you, work could serve as a replacement for something you were missing. Maybe you don't have (or don't like) a family or social life outside work, or you just work so much you can't focus on the non-work aspects of their life. Whatever the reason, for RTO to really fill that purpose, you do need a critical mass of people in the office.

If you want to stay at home you don't care about that. You don't care if literally everyone else goes into the office, you just want to stay home. It's really not a fair fight because the anti-RTOers aren't demanding that everyone else also stay home.

I appreciate from some who've been in this industry longer the sense of loss of community or culture at the workplace. But that's also a relic of a time when you literally spent the majority of your waking life at the office. Ultimately people are going to need to adapt because like or it or not, those days are over. The firms that are going to succeed are the ones who will embrace this new reality. The firms that try to cling to the old school mindset are going to fail.

[Moneytrees]

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.

[1styearlateral]

Imagine spending all the time and money it takes for one to become an attorney only to be reduced to an e-mail address.

Also, how does one build a book of business from home? Or is everyone planning on going in-house in years 5 through 8? (Plot twist: companies are making their employees RTO, too). I bet ambitious associates who are willing to get into the office to build actual relationships with soon-to-be-retiring partners and with clients will do quite well for themselves, since competition will be low.

[Moneytrees]

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.

I think you nailed it exactly.

For some people, your life outside of work came secondary to work, and for you, work could serve as a replacement for something you were missing. Maybe you don't have (or don't like) a family or social life outside work, or you just work so much you can't focus on the non-work aspects of their life. Whatever the reason, for RTO to really fill that purpose, you do need a critical mass of people in the office.

If you want to stay at home you don't care about that. You don't care if literally everyone else goes into the office, you just want to stay home. It's really not a fair fight because the anti-RTOers aren't demanding that everyone else also stay home.

I appreciate from some who've been in this industry longer the sense of loss of community or culture at the workplace. But that's also a relic of a time when you literally spent the majority of your waking life at the office. Ultimately people are going to need to adapt because like or it or not, those days are over. The firms that are going to succeed are the ones who will embrace this new reality. The firms that try to cling to the old school mindset are going to fail.

This is a patronizing post and completely misses the point of why midlevels and seniors want juniors to come into the office.

[Anonymous User]

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?

[Anonymous User]

I appreciate that the tone of the more recent posts has mellowed but I don't think it's accurate to say that RTO/hybrid is about social life. I'm a junior and despite the fact that it's more fun to stay at home and not have to commute, I recognize that I learn a lot more when I'm in the office, and I get to know partners who can mentor me. It's just better for my career. So to me the balance of 2-3 days in the office is a good one, because after all I don't actually enjoy the commute and downtime etc. Not trying to tell anyone else what to do.

Also, a lot of the discussion about social life started from ppl like me saying stuff like "in person is better for training and mentorship" and other people saying "lol what are you just chatting with partners in the coffee room" and.....yes I am? So that generated a lot of comments on all sides that we don't have to repeat.

Bottom line is long term you need training, you need to get to know people at the firm. At the same time, we've seen that short term we're plenty efficient working remotely. So, hybrid is the new normal. And then there are individuals who are exceptions from the new normal.

[Anonymous User]

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?

[nixy]

The psychoanalysis of the RTO crowd is getting a little weird. There are reasons to want to be in the office at times, with other people, that are about work development and career progression, not fulfilling a deep psychological need for something you’re missing. To the extent that being in the office makes it easier for me to develop *work* relationships with people that help me learn to do my job better and progress in my career, that doesn’t have anything to do with not having a family/social life outside of work, or not being able to focus on anything besides work. It means that *when I’m at work,* being in the office can help me succeed *at work.* If I had a choice I wouldn’t work at all, but since I do have to spend a lot of my time on my job, I want to do it effectively.

(I’m talking about some kind of periodic critical mass of people, though, not 9-5, 5 days a week. Maybe the all RTO/no WFH EVER people deserve the psychoanalysis, though as I think I’ve mentioned before, I haven’t seen anyone here advocate for this?)

I’m not remotely convinced that this a a new reality that’s going to do away with being in the office. It would be great if I’m wrong, but it’s way too early to say that. Firms have been treating this a temporary function of the pandemic, not something they’ve committed to doing. People can absolutely vote with their feet, but it’s going to be a game of chicken depending on whether firms cave or people who want biglaw jobs cave. Or, as someone already suggested, firms will fall into two camps and it’ll become another element of culture that people will consider at OCI (but if you don’t get hired by a WFH-exclusive firm, are you going to ditch biglaw altogether? I’d be surprised if enough people do to radically change the work conditions, but hey, I’d be happy to be wrong).

[nixy]

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.

[1styearlateral]

(I’m talking about some kind of periodic critical mass of people, though, not 9-5, 5 days a week. Maybe the all RTO/no WFH EVER people deserve the psychoanalysis, though as I think I’ve mentioned before, I haven’t seen anyone here advocate for this?)

I don't think any RTOers are advocating for 9-5, 5 days a week, but the WFHers fervently reject even a modest hybrid schedule.

Hybrid RTO/WFH schedules will be the future, except for those that need to be on-site to do their jobs.

[Anonymous User]

(I’m talking about some kind of periodic critical mass of people, though, not 9-5, 5 days a week. Maybe the all RTO/no WFH EVER people deserve the psychoanalysis, though as I think I’ve mentioned before, I haven’t seen anyone here advocate for this?)

I don't think any RTOers are advocating for 9-5, 5 days a week, but the WFHers fervently reject even a modest hybrid schedule.

Hybrid RTO/WFH schedules will be the future, except for those that need to be on-site to do their jobs.

There was someone advocating for having to pull all-nighters in the office. So I guess you can find someone for every position no matter how extreme.

[Anonymous User]

(I’m talking about some kind of periodic critical mass of people, though, not 9-5, 5 days a week. Maybe the all RTO/no WFH EVER people deserve the psychoanalysis, though as I think I’ve mentioned before, I haven’t seen anyone here advocate for this?)

I don't think any RTOers are advocating for 9-5, 5 days a week, but the WFHers fervently reject even a modest hybrid schedule.

Hybrid RTO/WFH schedules will be the future, except for those that need to be on-site to do their jobs.

I don't really have a strong preference, but I think WFH proponents feel that any compromise is a one-way ratchet toward full time RTO.

[mwells_56]

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.

[Dahl]

I’m in gvmt and back in the office five days a week (and willing to deal with it because I love my job). But if I were still in BigLaw, working from home would be a godsend. I know this debate will go round and round here, and apparently the RTO people have decided they’re the only sane and rational ones which is essentially an end to any honest debate. But speaking specifically to BigLaw, I definitely think working from will keep people from burning out and leaving as quickly. Which maybe firms don’t care about, in the end.

[Anonymous User]

I wonder if a good policy for a firm to have would be to require juniors to be in-office most of the time, and then midlevels and seniors get to choose WFH or RTO as they see fit? Lets the juniors have their camraderie/training without unduly hurting people who know their stuff already.

[Ultramar vistas]

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.

[Anonymous User]

I wonder if a good policy for a firm to have would be to require juniors to be in-office most of the time, and then midlevels and seniors get to choose WFH or RTO as they see fit? Lets the juniors have their camraderie/training without unduly hurting people who know their stuff already.

That would be wonderful for morale!

Also pray tell who would be training in the juniors?

[nixy]

I’m in gvmt and back in the office five days a week (and willing to deal with it because I love my job). But if I were still in BigLaw, working from home would be a godsend. I know this debate will go round and round here, and apparently the RTO people have decided they’re the only sane and rational ones which is essentially an end to any honest debate. But speaking specifically to BigLaw, I definitely think working from will keep people from burning out and leaving as quickly. Which maybe firms don’t care about, in the end.

I mean, no, this is not what the RTO people have decided. There are sensible and crazy takes on all sides of this issue in this thread. RTO people have pushed back on the idea that they're losers with no social life outside of work, and WFH people have pushed back on the idea that they're anti-social losers who can't deal with people.

The lack of burnout is a good point, although biglaw seems kind of built around people leaving.