Bank of America: former green beret dies after work 120-hour week, IB associates going on strike

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just pay these children half as much (which is still a LOT) and hire two workers to get the job done with sane hours?

Why would an employer do that. Then they are paying for a second set of benefits/insurance, a second set of overhead/offices/tech, double the recruiting needs, and double the number of employee "hassles" they need to deal with. Maybe it's the same amount of $ in pure salary but there are expenses and time opportunities associated with it. Why do that when they're already getting the labor at the set price.

Even if they reduced the salary further to account for those costs, they could still pay well enough to recruit the elite undergrads. But only if the industry moved in unison, which would require government intervention of some kind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shout out to all the medicine residents right now working these exact hours

I thought there were laws against that?

Ha! No! There are rules that residents cannot work more than 80 hours AVERAGED over 4 weeks so you can work 120 hours one week and 40 the next and it’s “okay.” Also for medical residents hours are based on self report so programs pressure residents to lie. Residents also frequently work 24 hour shifts (yes you read this right and no you don’t get to sleep).

I am a nurse in the hospital and it’s rare that they don’t sleep. They don’t sleep WELL most of the time. But there is a resident room and there are cots and they sleep at night on and off. Again- not a lot, but 30-40min here and there. Or 1-2 hours here and there on a slow night

30-40 mins here and there isn’t much sleep. I’m a resident at a busy hospital (out on leave so on here) and we don’t sleep.

Again, no one wants that. I dont want a resident OB who hasnt sleep 8 hours multiple times in the past 2 weeks in charge of me and my baby. I dont. We are talking about protections which come from the government and there should not be exemptions. Point blank. Including doctors. Including feds. Including associates. 60 hours is more than enough and if its not then you need more people.

I know.. it scary to think about surgeons in particular who work 24 hours straight and patients have no idea :/ it’s all so dumb

This is all untrue. All residents have an 80 hour work week and it is enforced . Attending surgeons also do not work 24 hours straight,

Again you are wrong! I’m an actual resident and it’s not 80 hours a week- it is averaged. Also many programs punish residents for reporting actual hours and we do work 24 hours shifts often ever 3-4 days! Idk why you think this is not the case. Literally just go on Reddit residency and see for yourself.

An example: https://www.reddit.com/r/Residency/comments/11v9rbk/how_common_are_24_hour_shifts_and_what_is_your/


See this comment:

“ConcernedCitizen_42
•
1y ago
•
Edited 1y ago
Attending
In my experience they are still pretty standard, especially in the surgical world. Through most of my recent residency and my first year as attending I did 24 hour shifts on weekends. For my SICU rotations we were actually on rotating 28ish hour shifts the whole 2 months. 24hr + rounds -> afternoon + following day off, repeat. It actually worked pretty well since the day and a half off was more than enough time to recover.

Overall what you are describing sounds rough, but it is relatively common. At least at the 5 teaching hospitals I've seen. My take on 24s is that while they are doable, they really do throw a wrench in your sleep cycle. So I would try to avoid them if I had a choice in the schedule.“


See this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Residency/comments/1b7vw3l/24hour_shifts/


Sorry but your surgeons are working ok you with zero sleep. Only way things change is if the public gets bad about it but unfortunately no one cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just pay these children half as much (which is still a LOT) and hire two workers to get the job done with sane hours?

Why would an employer do that. Then they are paying for a second set of benefits/insurance, a second set of overhead/offices/tech, double the recruiting needs, and double the number of employee "hassles" they need to deal with. Maybe it's the same amount of $ in pure salary but there are expenses and time opportunities associated with it. Why do that when they're already getting the labor at the set price.

Even if they reduced the salary further to account for those costs, they could still pay well enough to recruit the elite undergrads. But only if the industry moved in unison, which would require government intervention of some kind.

Doubtful. They are already competing with tech and grad school for the best. The only reason to go to these places is money. If they money every gets comparable to normal jobs, people will just take normal jobs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just pay these children half as much (which is still a LOT) and hire two workers to get the job done with sane hours?

Why would an employer do that. Then they are paying for a second set of benefits/insurance, a second set of overhead/offices/tech, double the recruiting needs, and double the number of employee "hassles" they need to deal with. Maybe it's the same amount of $ in pure salary but there are expenses and time opportunities associated with it. Why do that when they're already getting the labor at the set price.

Even if they reduced the salary further to account for those costs, they could still pay well enough to recruit the elite undergrads. But only if the industry moved in unison, which would require government intervention of some kind.

Doubtful. They are already competing with tech and grad school for the best. The only reason to go to these places is money. If they money every gets comparable to normal jobs, people will just take normal jobs

The point is that cutting the hours would make it a normal job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just pay these children half as much (which is still a LOT) and hire two workers to get the job done with sane hours?

Why would an employer do that. Then they are paying for a second set of benefits/insurance, a second set of overhead/offices/tech, double the recruiting needs, and double the number of employee "hassles" they need to deal with. Maybe it's the same amount of $ in pure salary but there are expenses and time opportunities associated with it. Why do that when they're already getting the labor at the set price.

Even if they reduced the salary further to account for those costs, they could still pay well enough to recruit the elite undergrads. But only if the industry moved in unison, which would require government intervention of some kind.

Doubtful. They are already competing with tech and grad school for the best. The only reason to go to these places is money. If they money every gets comparable to normal jobs, people will just take normal jobs

The point is that cutting the hours would make it a normal job.

Not good enough for the super strivers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just pay these children half as much (which is still a LOT) and hire two workers to get the job done with sane hours?

Why would an employer do that. Then they are paying for a second set of benefits/insurance, a second set of overhead/offices/tech, double the recruiting needs, and double the number of employee "hassles" they need to deal with. Maybe it's the same amount of $ in pure salary but there are expenses and time opportunities associated with it. Why do that when they're already getting the labor at the set price.

Even if they reduced the salary further to account for those costs, they could still pay well enough to recruit the elite undergrads. But only if the industry moved in unison, which would require government intervention of some kind.

Doubtful. They are already competing with tech and grad school for the best. The only reason to go to these places is money. If they money every gets comparable to normal jobs, people will just take normal jobs

The point is that cutting the hours would make it a normal job.

Not good enough for the super strivers!

Who cares. Two well-rested 23 year olds who only got 1400s on the SAT will still produce better work than a sleep-deprived Dartmouth grad working 80 hours. Especially since people in this thread have pointed out the work isn’t that difficult, it’s just high volume.

Or is the real issue that these firms want Ivy grads because it makes they’re more attractive to clients, not because they do better work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just pay these children half as much (which is still a LOT) and hire two workers to get the job done with sane hours?

Why would an employer do that. Then they are paying for a second set of benefits/insurance, a second set of overhead/offices/tech, double the recruiting needs, and double the number of employee "hassles" they need to deal with. Maybe it's the same amount of $ in pure salary but there are expenses and time opportunities associated with it. Why do that when they're already getting the labor at the set price.

Even if they reduced the salary further to account for those costs, they could still pay well enough to recruit the elite undergrads. But only if the industry moved in unison, which would require government intervention of some kind.

Doubtful. They are already competing with tech and grad school for the best. The only reason to go to these places is money. If they money every gets comparable to normal jobs, people will just take normal jobs

The point is that cutting the hours would make it a normal job.

Not good enough for the super strivers!

Who cares. Two well-rested 23 year olds who only got 1400s on the SAT will still produce better work than a sleep-deprived Dartmouth grad working 80 hours. Especially since people in this thread have pointed out the work isn’t that difficult, it’s just high volume.

Or is the real issue that these firms want Ivy grads because it makes they’re more attractive to clients, not because they do better work?

They want 1 Ivy grad to work 120 hours instead of two working 60 hrs because that keeps their marginal costs down. It all comes down to $$ for these jerks

[Anonymous]

Working long hours without sleep is for sure a problem. Stay away from those energy drink. I experienced 2 cases of my coworkers suddenly collapsed without warning. Health is number 1 priority of life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just pay these children half as much (which is still a LOT) and hire two workers to get the job done with sane hours?

Why would an employer do that. Then they are paying for a second set of benefits/insurance, a second set of overhead/offices/tech, double the recruiting needs, and double the number of employee "hassles" they need to deal with. Maybe it's the same amount of $ in pure salary but there are expenses and time opportunities associated with it. Why do that when they're already getting the labor at the set price.

Even if they reduced the salary further to account for those costs, they could still pay well enough to recruit the elite undergrads. But only if the industry moved in unison, which would require government intervention of some kind.

Doubtful. They are already competing with tech and grad school for the best. The only reason to go to these places is money. If they money every gets comparable to normal jobs, people will just take normal jobs

The point is that cutting the hours would make it a normal job.

Not good enough for the super strivers!

Who cares. Two well-rested 23 year olds who only got 1400s on the SAT will still produce better work than a sleep-deprived Dartmouth grad working 80 hours. Especially since people in this thread have pointed out the work isn’t that difficult, it’s just high volume.

Or is the real issue that these firms want Ivy grads because it makes they’re more attractive to clients, not because they do better work?

Yeah it’s all about status of employees. How can you not get that? It’s always been about that — you usually have to have the right pedigree beyond even college, major doesn’t matter that much (I have friend who majored in Russian Lit then headed to Goldman, but his dad was a banker in CT). The poor fellow who died was probably a stretch for them to look patriotic (because being a green beret is crazy hard and impressive, and definitely will sway some clients) — but I’ll bet he was isolated and not included with the rest of his cohort of young UMC strivers, and in that isolation may have overworked without support and guidance on where to cut corners. Ready Bully Market for some insight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does the Green Beret have to do with this? It's not a tribute to the service of the anonymous person who died. He wasn't murdered as a hate crime against the Army. No one suggested that the Army is a factor in his death

It's to say this wasn't some soft kid who doesn't know how to survive in really tough circumstances. He is used to a grueling job, and in good shape mentally and physically. Presumably.

Taliban have said it is less stressful fighting than it is administering a city

There is a different type of “gruel” involved in 100 hrs week desk work vs .mil

I prefer the latter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just pay these children half as much (which is still a LOT) and hire two workers to get the job done with sane hours?

Why would an employer do that. Then they are paying for a second set of benefits/insurance, a second set of overhead/offices/tech, double the recruiting needs, and double the number of employee "hassles" they need to deal with. Maybe it's the same amount of $ in pure salary but there are expenses and time opportunities associated with it. Why do that when they're already getting the labor at the set price.

Even if they reduced the salary further to account for those costs, they could still pay well enough to recruit the elite undergrads. But only if the industry moved in unison, which would require government intervention of some kind.

Doubtful. They are already competing with tech and grad school for the best. The only reason to go to these places is money. If they money every gets comparable to normal jobs, people will just take normal jobs

Banking should be a normal job

Borrow at 3%, lend at 6%, golf course at 3 pm

The 363 model was better for everyone vs what we have today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just pay these children half as much (which is still a LOT) and hire two workers to get the job done with sane hours?

Why would an employer do that. Then they are paying for a second set of benefits/insurance, a second set of overhead/offices/tech, double the recruiting needs, and double the number of employee "hassles" they need to deal with. Maybe it's the same amount of $ in pure salary but there are expenses and time opportunities associated with it. Why do that when they're already getting the labor at the set price.

Even if they reduced the salary further to account for those costs, they could still pay well enough to recruit the elite undergrads. But only if the industry moved in unison, which would require government intervention of some kind.

Doubtful. They are already competing with tech and grad school for the best. The only reason to go to these places is money. If they money every gets comparable to normal jobs, people will just take normal jobs

Banking should be a normal job

Borrow at 3%, lend at 6%, golf course at 3 pm

The 363 model was better for everyone vs what we have today

Who is going to lend them money at 3%? Retail investors now put money in stocks and bonds and skip the bank and their interest free CDs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why shouldn't attorneys use Big Law as a weigh station given the up or out culture?

It's way station. A weigh station is where you get a moving van or truck measured for the freight load. Or to make sure your truck is legal to travel on certain roads.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/way_station#:~:text=way%20station%20(plural%20way%20stations,used%20during%20a%20longer%20journey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they just pay these children half as much (which is still a LOT) and hire two workers to get the job done with sane hours?

Why would an employer do that. Then they are paying for a second set of benefits/insurance, a second set of overhead/offices/tech, double the recruiting needs, and double the number of employee "hassles" they need to deal with. Maybe it's the same amount of $ in pure salary but there are expenses and time opportunities associated with it. Why do that when they're already getting the labor at the set price.

Even if they reduced the salary further to account for those costs, they could still pay well enough to recruit the elite undergrads. But only if the industry moved in unison, which would require government intervention of some kind.

Doubtful. They are already competing with tech and grad school for the best. The only reason to go to these places is money. If they money every gets comparable to normal jobs, people will just take normal jobs

The point is that cutting the hours would make it a normal job.

Not good enough for the super strivers!

Who cares. Two well-rested 23 year olds who only got 1400s on the SAT will still produce better work than a sleep-deprived Dartmouth grad working 80 hours. Especially since people in this thread have pointed out the work isn’t that difficult, it’s just high volume.

Or is the real issue that these firms want Ivy grads because it makes they’re more attractive to clients, not because they do better work?

Yeah it’s all about status of employees. How can you not get that? It’s always been about that — you usually have to have the right pedigree beyond even college, major doesn’t matter that much (I have friend who majored in Russian Lit then headed to Goldman, but his dad was a banker in CT). The poor fellow who died was probably a stretch for them to look patriotic (because being a green beret is crazy hard and impressive, and definitely will sway some clients) — but I’ll bet he was isolated and not included with the rest of his cohort of young UMC strivers, and in that isolation may have overworked without support and guidance on where to cut corners. Ready Bully Market for some insight.

Have you worked in IB with the last decade or so? Fewer analysts are from ivy leagues and analyst classes are increasingly diverse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IB, MBB consulting, and Big Law attracts a type. I am not at all surprised that the BoA banker was a former Green Beret. The pushing beyond normal limits is a part of the draw. And the compensation is a tangible metric that rewards their sense of achievement. Money and prestige is their shiny brass ring.

A healthy person though quickly learns that this is no way to go through life. The costs - personal life, health, other interests, friendships, sleep, etc - outweigh the benefits in "prestige" and money. So the healthy person eventually regards their time at McKinsey, or Goldman, or Kirkland as a way station they can leverage into a more sane and fulfilling position elsewhere. And they leave.

As for those that continue on the path toward managing director? I don't think it's a coincidence that Wall Street as an industry has the highest percentage of clinical psychopaths of any industry in the world. American Psycho isn't that great of an exageration. No doubt Big Law is right up there too. The healthy people don't stay. The trick is not to die on the way to the exit.

This is reminding me of when my B-School gave an award to one of the highest ranking women at Goldman Sachs (a Boomer for sure). She told the audience or the student reporter (it was published as a quote) that she loved her job more than being a mother. She had four kids. Shudder! I always wondered how that worked out for the kids. And why my school was sucking up to her besides "Goldman". She wasn't our alum.