Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mycousinsteve

Salary Negotiation Tips

Recommended Posts

For the record, when I referred to biglaw as a pyramid scheme I was i) exaggerating and ii) expressing my frustration over what appears to be some associates and partners who just seem to broker work and not actually do anything (including business development). Of course, when I look closer, I see that they are doing all sorts of work that I'm not privy to. Why would I be? I'm an articling student.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2019 at 3:11 PM, pzabbythesecond said:

You raise an interesting point RE the distinction between management and employees. In the industries I'm familiar with, there are very strict and clear splits between management and employees. In a law firm/partnership context, this is blurred - especially when you get away from the big law pay structure and enter into "pay plus commission" models that smaller firms employ more often. 

I would just reiterate that collective bargaining doesn't have to conform to traditional industrial agreements. Even physicians, who are private business owners with an incentive to maximize profits, bargain collectively with many provincial governments (and in some provinces, like Alberta, that right is enshrined in law). 

Also, there is often lots of ambiguity between management and employees. Determining whether a "supervisor" is an employee (and in a bargaining unit) or a manager (and therefore excluded) is bread-and-butter work at labour boards. There are established tests and lots of decided cases.... Associates would clearly fall within the employee category. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 10:07 AM, Diplock said:

I don't know if you even realize how non-sensical what you are saying really is. Organized labour politics has an extremely important role to play in ensuring that workers are appropriately compensated. But there's a point beyond which it stops working or applying to certain professions, and it should stop working also. Lawyers are all compensated very well, as a group. It may be hard to find a job in the profession for some people, but anyone who is employed as a lawyer is making a good income in Ontario, ranging all the way up into the top 5-10% of all income earners. It's unreasonable to expect to unionize the profession such that ... what? No lawyer earns less than $100,000/year? Make sure that everyone is equally able to afford a cottage and a boat? What are we even talking about here?

I don't necessarily agree with the post you were responding to (i.e. I don't think lawyers necessarily need to be organizing for the purpose of higher incomes), however, I don't know think lawyers' place of relative economic privilege is reason enough to say lawyers should never organize or that they shouldn't have the right to do so. 

Increasingly, professionals have shown a desire to partake in collective bargaining (even if it isn't done according to legislation - for example, when it comes to doctors in Ontario, they are subject to a system that looks very much like collective bargaining (e.x. exclusive rep. by the OMA, good faith consulting, and dispute resolution process). Also, when professionals (versus blue-collar workers) look to unionize, it usually centers more around issues like professional control, contributing to political debate, and so forth (collective bargaining isn't just about economics). 

I'm very iffy on making a blanket statement that lawyers should be excluded from collective bargaining. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • I would think it would help, but I suppose it depends on what you did in the military, and what the resumes look like of the rest of the applicant pool. People love to make predictions but at the end of the day, we don’t really know who we’re “up against”. I thought my resume was pretty interesting, for my age, considering I also have two kids, but I’ve come to realize it’s pretty unexceptional compared to a lot of high-achievers applying to law school 😆 My gut tells me military experience shows dedication, discipline, etc.    If your GPA is decent, you do well on the LSAT, and you can write a good personal statement, you certainly stand a strong chance! 
    • Ryerson and Ottawa U (applied in mature category at Ottawa U). I think I have a more realistic chance at Ryerson.
    • R v Miller. Criminal law case where a squatter lights a cigarette then falls asleep. He awakes to find the mattress he's sleeping on is on fire. Instead of attempting to put it out or vacating the premises he gets up, goes to a different room, and goes back to his nap. Next time he wakes up the whole house is on fire.
    • Meads v. Meads [4]               OPCA litigants do not express any stereotypic beliefs other than a general rejection of court and state authority; nor do they fall into any common social or professional association. Arguments and claims of this nature emerge in all kinds of legal proceedings and all levels of Courts and tribunals. This group is unified by: 1.            a characteristic set of strategies (somewhat different by group) that they employ,  2.            specific but irrelevant formalities and language which they appear to believe are (or portray as) significant, and  3.            the commercial sources from which their ideas and materials originate. This category of litigant shares one other critical characteristic: they will only honour state, regulatory, contract, family, fiduciary, equitable, and criminal obligations if they feel like it. And typically, they don’t.

×
×
  • Create New...