ThanksGIFTing to y'all from Your JoeR!

Well, well, well! And well, again. It's time for Your JoeRecruiter to give all y'all some nuggets of wisdom and pre-Holiday Cheer. Okay, so not. But Joe has many things to say, and, as in times past, and, quite frankly, re-past, not many in thoid poisson. As it were. Joe doesn't know what "as it were" means, but it sounds terribly fancy, so Joe will say it from time to time. . . . as it were. It seems like terribly clever people say it a lot when they're trying to assure you they're terribly clever, don't it? Yup. So, every twice in a while, Joe will be doing that from now on. Just in case.

Today, we will be having a veritable boo-FAY of topics. Which means that the meds haven't yet kicked in, probably. When Joe remembers to, Joe will absolutely number them. Different numbers, too, just to be sure. Let us begin. And, for kicks, let us start with number one. No sense starting off on the wrong foot this early in the game.

1. ". . .And the Oozing Sincerity From Every Pore Award Goes To. . .": Let's start at the very beginning. As Julie Andrews said, it's "a very good place to start. What is WITH James J. Sandman, Esq., former Big Head of Cheese, I mean, Head Cheese, of the DC Bar, Partner of Ahhhnold and Pohhhtuhh, and other fayncee stuff? I mean, foh realz! Did you guys read this? All the way through? Without a Bromo to hand?

Thing is, Mr. Sandman was right about most everything he writed. Associates aren't just in it for the money, blah blah, satisfaction blah blah, clients don't wanna take it all up the yazz blah blah, so on and so forth blah blah . . . and blah. Bleaahhhh! Eck. Feh. ACK! (Sorry, hairball).

But the overweaning insincerity, and the little walk through "social conscientiousness-land" was a bit much, even for Your JoeR to stomach. (blechhh!).

I mean, it's one thing if you're like Joe's friend Dudley DoMe, and you make 14 Gazillion dollahs a year, and give most of it away, because that how you roll, baby, but Joe has a bit of a problem taking advice from a partner, who isn't exactly KNOWN for giving all his money away, sitting in judgment of newly minted Associates and telling them they shouldn't be thinking about the money, but rather thinking about doing things more for the social good.

Are you kidding? Sheesh! And Joe thought Crack Alley Sally was hitting the pipe a little too hard! Sandman is the right name for it, babylove, you are livin' in DREAMLAND!

Now, Joe knows that most partners don't make nearly as much as the average Associate thinks they make. But they still make a helluva lot more than the average Associate makes, and that, after all, is the damn thing. Moreover, I don't think this lecture impressed any clients either.

That sound you hear in the background is the sound of many MANY clients simultaneously coughing up a hairball, or yacking up what they had thought was a tasty piece of Hamachi, at the idea of a partner standing in front of God and everybody and saying "Oh, hell yeah, it's the Associate raise that's going to force us to jack our prices to you, and not our desire to preserve our partner distribution, because we don't wanna take it in the ass, so we'd rather make sure our CLIENTS take it in the ass, or even better, the Associates, because, by now, they should be used to it."

What cracks Your JoeR up about this is that El Sando actually dared to aim the word "disingenuous" at someone not himself. That takes solid steel cojo, that's all Joe gotta say about that there.

But wait, there's more.

Joe agrees that Associate salaries are too high. But that's all ya gotta say. Associate salaries are too high. And they're phony. Because the firms are just gonna, well, it rhymes with duck, the associates, in order to make them pay for the increase, so they don't actually get more money, they just work more hours.

It is NOT necessarily true that the firms will raise the hourly rate, because they'll have calculated how many more hours they want the associates to work in order to pay for the raise. They WILL use that as the excuse to raise rates, but that's just what it is, an excuse. Some firms will have to raise rates, of course, either because they can't get enough work to cover the nut on the raise, or because they want a higher payout, or just because they're poorly managed, but, if a firm knows how to hire, has enough work, and has the right attrition level, it doesn't have to jack its rates. However, doesn't have to and won't are two entirely different breeds of cat. And that is all Joe has to say about Associate raises. For now.

2. Pay Us More, Say MPs. Thousand of Associates Hospitalised For Hysterical Fits of Laughter! : Somebody sent Joe an article on raising Managing Partner pay to CEO level. Joe doesn't know what this means. First of all, it's a non-sequitur. Joe would need MUCH more information. When Joe thinks CEO, Joe thinks "of a major corporation, with, like, 50 THOUSAND employees," and, in that case, Joe says, "Oh, hell yeah."

But, based on the cursory research Joe has done (primarily in the area of his quite adorable navel, one must admit), most MPs do better than the "CEOs" of small, family-owned and private companies of similar size already. So Joe doesn't understand why this has come up. Unless whatever ill-thinking MP that floated this idea thinks they should be paid on par with, whomever, Jack Welch or Steve Jobs, or someone.

I mean, if they want to be paid co-equal with Warren Buffet, I'm down with that (last I heard, he made about $300K/year). And I'm okay with paying them co-equal with Bill Gates, too (a buck a year). I'll even pay it myself. Applications may be left with my Business Agents, Bialystock and Bloom.

But let's think about this for a minute. The premise of this is all goofy. First of all, the reason CEOs of companies are paid the way they're paid, theoretically, is because they are paid to INCREASE SHAREHOLDER VALUE. So I don't think we can entertain the notion until law firms become public entities in the first place. But let's put that aside for a minute, and just say, what the hell. Let's say they don't have to be public entities. Fine.

How do we assess CEOs on the basis of increasing the value of the firm? Who decides? Well, in MY estimation, it would have to be SOME kind of a stakeholder. It can't be the partners, because they're too close to the action. . .their ox is too easily gored. So, it has to fall to the (shuddah!) associates. Given that, how many CEOs (MPs) would get a raise? Hmmm? How many MPs would get fiddy cent? Just asking.

Don't get Joe wrong, Joe loves the idea of paying MPs co-equal with CEOs, but as Joe's great-aunt Suzannah Suffragette McSuccotash was fond of saying "Equal Pay for Equal Work, y'all." And, admittedly, Joe's view on this is, how shall we say this? Ah, yes. . .despoiled. Joe's cousin Wiley R. Crayn (the Crayns never were very clever at naming the offspring the sprang from their unsavoury loins), is the richest rich person Joe ever knew. Personally, Joe means.

Wiley was a tightwad. But he believed in paying a full-day's pay for a full-day's work. Sadly, for his workers, Wiley's full-day consisted of 24-hours work with no breaks, not even to see a man about a horse, if you know what Joe means. Joe thinks that there are a few MPs out there that think the same way old Wiley did, but, when the scope is aimed up THEIR tuchus, things all of a sudden are viewed from an entirely different perspective.

Joe thinks that the CEO pay story is unifinished, at best. And there are a few details that need to be made a LOT clearer. Perhaps, once those details fall into place (perhaps less with a bang, than a whimper), we will ALL be in a better position to evaluate this suggestion.

For now, Joe's recommendation to Law Firm CEOs, COOs, MPs, and LMNOPs would be to take what money you can get, and sit on it for a little while longer. We'll get back to you as soon as we can. Really. We MEAN it.

Love Your Recruiter!



JoeRecruiter



http://joerecruiter.blogspot.com

p.s. Could Joe get a little proxy for this here sandwich?