LSBC Member Resolution - Articling Employment Standards

[dontplay 4]

Quote

To amend the appropriate sections of the Law Society Rules and/or Code of Professional Conduct within 12 months of the date of this resolution, requiring that articled student agreements provide articled students with at least such rights and protections as are guaranteed under section 16 and Parts 4 and 5 of the Employment Standards Act, RSBC 1996, c 113, and ensure that articled students are able to seek financial redress for practices that contravene the amended Law Society Rules and/or Code of Professional Conduct. 

Thoughts on this? I think the biggest concern raised so far is that it will reduce the supply of articling positions. 

[almostnot 5567]

Architect interns aren't excluded.  That internship goes on for three to five years.  They seem to be able to make it work.

 

[Hegdis 18034]

I plan to support this one. Good on the new Calls putting it forward. 

[DavisFromCornerGas 90]

Hopefully BC leads on this and Ontario follows. I get the concern that fewer articling positions will potentially be available, and it's a valid concern, but...... something's gotta give here. We've been allowing articling students to be treated like crap for so long, and never taking substantial strides forward to help address that power imbalance out of a fear that already shitty articling principals are going to pull out of the articling program because they now have to be less shitty.

 

Are there any greater incentives that can be offered by the Law Societies to induce lawyers to take on articling students who otherwise aren't financially able to? Heck, that's something I'd support my massive LSO fees (and soon-to-be LSBC fees) going toward: generous grants to firms so they can better afford an articling student's salary. There has to be something the Law Societies can do to help get the shitty principals who balk at the idea of treating their articling students a little better out of the mix, and get better principals in there in their place.

[CoteDissenting 6]

I regard the concern that this will lead to fewer articling positions the same as the concern that minimum wage laws in general lead to fewer job opportunities – i.e., not highly.

[pzabbythesecond 4462]

37 minutes ago, CoteDissenting said:

I regard the concern that this will lead to fewer articling positions the same as the concern that minimum wage laws in general lead to fewer job opportunities – i.e., not highly.

This is a good point. The only caveat would be that articling students are regarded as less productive to firms than minimum wage workers are to enterprises. Though this has always just been claimed by lawyers to me, and I've never seen quantified numbers on it. 

[setto 929]

1 hour ago, CoteDissenting said:

I regard the concern that this will lead to fewer articling positions the same as the concern that minimum wage laws in general lead to fewer job opportunities – i.e., not highly.

Articling students can be a financial burden and aren't necessary for the success of a firm/business. Whereas employees are a necessary part of a business that is looking to expand and generate income beyond what a sole owner/operator can earn.

Allow me to pop in my monocle and twirl my moustache while holding a bag with "$" written on it....

If I own a mom and pop business and I need more hands to help me expand and make more money, I'll have to suck it up and pay at least minimum wage to bring in employees to accomplish my goal. If minimum wage increases, I'll have to make a judgement call and balance my desire to expand and supply my current clients vs. refusing to pay a higher wage to my employees. 

Whereas with a law firm, I don't need an articling student. Recruitment, fees, and mentorship can be costly. If I want to make more money and expand, I'll hire more lawyers who can bring in clients and practice without any guidance. 

[CoteDissenting 6]

3 hours ago, setto said:

Articling students can be a financial burden and aren't necessary for the success of a firm/business. Whereas employees are a necessary part of a business that is looking to expand and generate income beyond what a sole owner/operator can earn.

Allow me to pop in my monocle and twirl my moustache while holding a bag with "$" written on it....

If I own a mom and pop business and I need more hands to help me expand and make more money, I'll have to suck it up and pay at least minimum wage to bring in employees to accomplish my goal. If minimum wage increases, I'll have to make a judgement call and balance my desire to expand and supply my current clients vs. refusing to pay a higher wage to my employees. 

Whereas with a law firm, I don't need an articling student. Recruitment, fees, and mentorship can be costly. If I want to make more money and expand, I'll hire more lawyers who can bring in clients and practice without any guidance. 

This is true, though I suspect, albeit with only anecdotal evidence, that the firms that invest in recruitment and mentorship are not the ones that will have to change their practices if this resolution has its intended effect.

[Mal 2556]

If the difference between offering an articling position and not offering a position is that you have to respect basic employment laws, then you probably shouldn't have an articling student. 

The idea that articling students, who are among society's hardest working and most educated young people, are worth less than a McDonald's worker has always been absurd to me.

Outside of a few exceptions (thinking of criminal law here because of the general problems in criminal defence) good articling experiences already pay more than minimum wage.

 

[Hegdis 18034]

There are certain on-call realities to Crim defence articles, but the fact that employers would have to acknowledge that these are “extra” and figure out a way to deal with them seems an entirely reasonable proposition, especially if the alternative (and current reality) is that students just have to lump it. 

[Hegdis 18034]

Also, Mal, love the new avatar. 

[jjbean 370]

Just a note that Alberta articling students have been entitled to the minimum wage for decades, so this is not a novel idea....