Comments
Posted by: Anonymous July
24, 2007 03:07 PM
First.
Posted by: jdr July
24, 2007 03:08 PM
second
Posted by: Anonymous July
24, 2007 03:09 PM
David - can you seriously tell these
fools to stop wasting comment space that claimthey are first, second, etc. I'd
like to see a legitimate flow but having these on EVERY post is not even funny
anymore. Not that it ever was in the first place.
Oh, and the remainder of the post is about right. I think those outside Big Law just dont understand how often people get assignments at 5,6, even 8pm. Many of those people are in the office until 5am the next morning. Asking them to return at 9:30am because those are "regular business hours," is not just shortsighted with regard to the firms productivity, it is insulting to someone willing to put in that kind of time to begin with.
And for those who would say, "but you are being paid...." At 2300 hours, even $170K is only $73/hr. ($73/hr would add up to $118K at a normal, yearly billing requirement of 1600. That might seem high, but (a) this is highly skilled labor and (b) this does not take into account that hours billed over 1600 should really be 1.5x overtime, lowering the overall pay grade to about $60/hr).
1 comment:
To strengthen your argument a tad more, my reading of the FLSA, which governs OT pay for non-exempt employees, indicates that time spent in excess of 40 hours per week OR 8 hours per day is considered OT, and should be compensated accordingly.
So while there are 2080 (52*40) non-OT possible hours in a given year, my understanding from my assorted legal-type-friends is that it's necessary to work 2100 hours to bill 1600, and much of that is in the form of 10 and 12 hour days, which would mean that a non-trivial amount of the straight time should be viewed as OT.
Of course, lawyering is generally considered an "exempt" activity. Kind of funny, when you think that lawyers certainly wrote the law...
Post a Comment