Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 13112525)

Not in Calgary. I have no idea about other places.

The thing that struck when I came here was that there was a ladder: First year lawyers did first year lawyer things; second year lawyers, did second year lawyer things, etc. There was no way to expedite the process. All of the associates from all of the larger firms shared income information and that was used by the firms to set salaries. All first years are paid the same; all second years are paid the same, etc. It was not based on merit and it was a total shock to me. If you are not able to bill your 2500 hours a year, you are let go. If you can, you make partner in year 7.

I had been practicing for 10 years in England prior to arriving here. Once I was admitted, half of the partnership wished for me to practice as if I had the same level of experience in Canada as I'd had in England. The other half wanted me to go through what they had gone through and start as a first year. In the first 6 months after admission I had brought in clients that generated more fees than the partners that were wanting me to start from scratch and that pissed them off. I told them to sort themselves out, or I would leave and, 10 months after I was called, I left to set up on my own.

In England, you were paid depending upon your billing, irrespective of experience and you only made partner if you were a rainmaker. Rainmakers are not necessarily good lawyers and they can always pay good lawyers, that don't have the interpersonal skills to become rainmakers to do the work for them.

In England, I could bet that, if I spent 5 minutes speaking to a solicitor, I would be able to tell you what area of law they worked it, as it is very personality specific. Law firms there recruit trainees with a specific area of practice in mind and, if recruited, very few trainees are let go as the firm has spent 2 years training them. In Calgary, Articles are for a single year and a big firm will take on 100 students, aiming to keep 10 of them at the end. It's a totally different system.

I agree that, for most, it is a route to riches, at the expense of the clients. Don't get me started about the Q.C. system here. Real Estate Lawyers becoming Q.C.s. Kavanagh, they are not!

Apologies for the thread drift.

Originally Posted by bats (Post 13112581)

The thread drift is interesting. What's a rainmaker? Someone who brings business in?

Originally Posted by bats (Post 13112581)

The thread drift is interesting. What's a rainmaker? Someone who brings business in?

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 13112473)

I call that "learning by osmosis" and I agree it has really suffered by being out of the office. However, we adapt, and I for one hope I'm never in an office full-time again. Hybrid suits me just fine.

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 13112481)

This office socialisation idea is something I hear from HR and from what they call L1s and it may be true that senior executives of large organizations spend much of their day chatting with other senior executives in a suite of offices with doors and a view of the mountains. Perhaps they have cocktail cabinets in the shape of globes. They will have a common background and ethnicity and mingle easily, chatting about lacrosse or tennis or eventing.

At the tactical level however it's nonsense. The staff are spread across the country, the development teams are in Ireland or Portugal or wherever's cheaper this year, the grunt work is done in India. The workers are from the four corners and share only an appreciation for cricket and the World Cup. Regardless of where a team member is sitting they will have headphones on and be speaking to someone far away. Conference rooms are of little value as to have some people physically together and others remote creates an imbalance; it's easier if everyone is using the internet conferencing facility. In any case, it's not physically possible to attend back-to-back meetings if more motion than a mouse click is required to get to them.

Working from home offers a stable environment. Once the machines are on the kitchen table I don't have to move them until the end of day. There isn't the nonsense of making sure the correct phone is blue toothed in the car and that the pc has enough battery for the trip. I don't have to drag all this gubbins to and from the kitchen table before and after commuting.

I get that some people want company and feel that an office can provide that but, for most white collar work, it's less productive than being at home. That need is better addressed by the people who desire it setting up their machine in a coffee shop or fruit and veg market. The latter provides plenty of hubbub without infectious proximity and without having to have a dedicated building.

Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd (Post 13112659)

I think the big drive for working at home is pushed by the employee as it benefits them, (well some I don't feel it benefits me in anyway) I don't think there is much of an advantage to be had for the employer...

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 13112673)

Less need to provide office space and parking facilities. - Can't disagree with that but what is to become of all that unused space?
Less absenteeism. - Will people be ill less due to being at home? I accept that there is an argument that the spread of sniffles will be reduced, but I doubt very much that many people "catch" cancer at work.
Fewer workplace liability claims (if people fall down their stairs that's their problem, the employer's stairs, the employers). Until they start suing their employers for not having risk assessed their homes. You know what lawyers are like!
More hours worked due to less time commuting. I accept that there will be less commuting but I doubt very much that most employees will clock on, earlier as a result.
More productive use of time (where physical proximity isn't critical to the position). Why? Why would typing a letter at home be done any more efficiently than typing it at work? I suspect the opposite may apply. One doesn't normal get the opportunity to let the dog out for a wizz at work.
Happier employees/fewer defections. Return to Office has been a factor in all recent resignations and the direct cause of some. I agree that, in the initial implementation, this may be the case, but once everyone is in the same boat, I anticipate more defections as one's personality will no longer be an issue. If you are fantastic at your job but an absolute knob, office politics will no longer dictate that you cannot be employed.
Environmental benefits (many corporations claim green credentials) But, just like our Federal Government, claiming to be green and doing green things do not necessarily go hand in hand

I get that, in some jobs proximity has value. I also get that the vanity of senior management, their need to feel people around them, is more important than the efficiency of their companies. I understand that pressure will be applied to get people to go and sit uselessly in the office, the way it is to force people to donate to questionable charities, and that many will succumb. It just gets on my tits that business people don't put the business first.

Originally Posted by bats (Post 13112581)

The thread drift is interesting. What's a rainmaker? Someone who brings business in?

Originally Posted by JamesM (Post 13112606)

That's my guesstimate!

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 13112692)

My responses in red


I cannot disagree with your last comment.

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 13112714)

Three points there.

Firstly, absenteeism isn't reduced because people don't get sick but because, when they are at home, they work when they are sick. Lots of colleagues currently have covid, probably because we met in a bar last week and infected one another. They're all working, coughing and spluttering through meetings. They'd be less likely to drive to an office and attend a physical meeting while gagging.

Secondly, I know it to be the case that people converted commute time to billable hours. I did that and I see them online and talk with them.

Thirdly, the better use of time is because people don't have to shuffle between meeting rooms, desks and coffee shops. They don't have to locate a hotel station and go and pillage pieces from others to make it work. They just sit and click on a meeting, half an hour later they click on another meeting, there's no 10 minutes lost looking for the room and then the power bar. They can multitask without appearing to be rude as one does when working during a physical meeting.

Of course, I want my performance bonus so, if I have to drive my gas guzzler to a far away office to sit on Teams and listen to the launch of another green initiative, that's what I'll do. Shaking my head as I go.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 13112750)

I have to admit that I have never worked in an environment where people attend meetings simply for the sake of attending a meeting. I pity those that have to, as I imagine I would stab both of my eyes with forks if I was required to do so. But I defer to your greater experience on that issue.

Originally Posted by Danny B (Post 13119560)

The Wife and I finally caught COVID this week, at least those test at home kits say we did.

We are both in our late 40's, fit and healthy people, normal BMI and it was similar to a bad cold. I'm feeling 95% back to normal, can't wait to leave the house as tea bag situation is getting dire.

Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd (Post 13119611)

...on the plus side I ate a lot of my freezer stocks...