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

[Anonymous]

What “work” can someone even be doing for 120 hours in a week?

[Anonymous]

Maybe the Army trains people to push too hard, and then when they get out and they are past their youthful prime, their grueling training and experience catches up with their bodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now GenZ IB are going to strike for more rights? LMFAO.

This young man’s situation is tragic (I still don’t understand how his death was related to his job?) but agree this is a funny side note.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What “work” can someone even be doing for 120 hours in a week?

The minute to minute work itself isn't physically challenging. It's the sleep refusal and bad diet/drugs that get you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What “work” can someone even be doing for 120 hours in a week?

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What salary?

Why is it relevant? If you're paid 50k or 200k. There should be a law in this country that anything above 40 or 48, something reasonable, is paid as overtime for all salaried workers.

It's time Americans demand it.

No, it was his choice. I’m sure he was paid very well. He could have quit, but chose not to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But the "soft" kids didn't die... so this isn't about hard or soft.

I am PP and I'm a soft kid - I didn't evne last two years in BigLaw. I'm in favor of people doing things that feel like the right amount of work to them. But that is why they are talking about him being a Green Beret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What salary?

No salary is enough to work like this is it? If you were offered $500K would you work this many hours to your death?

I think PP's point is that people do make that choice. You could choose a sane career or a sane place to work and make a solid six figure salary, but the people that choose these insane IB jobs do it because they want to make insane money. Historically, they've been compensated for their willingness to sacrifice their personal lives and sometimes their health. (Unlike some other jobs, like loggers -- which has the highest death rate and is NOT compensated like IB workers.) I support workers' rights generally, but I don't think I'm crying my eyes out for the IB folks. If they are going to get OT for working hours over 40, as PP suggested, the banks will just cut them back to the normal base salary, which is probably not what these people want. The banks probably think that the salary they pay them already is compensating them for all the OT.

The real point is that working conditions that allow an employee to work himself to death should not be a legal option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What “work” can someone even be doing for 120 hours in a week?

That is what I am wondering? Spreadsheets? Slide Decks? Pivot Tables?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What salary?

No salary is enough to work like this is it? If you were offered $500K would you work this many hours to your death?

I think PP's point is that people do make that choice. You could choose a sane career or a sane place to work and make a solid six figure salary, but the people that choose these insane IB jobs do it because they want to make insane money. Historically, they've been compensated for their willingness to sacrifice their personal lives and sometimes their health. (Unlike some other jobs, like loggers -- which has the highest death rate and is NOT compensated like IB workers.) I support workers' rights generally, but I don't think I'm crying my eyes out for the IB folks. If they are going to get OT for working hours over 40, as PP suggested, the banks will just cut them back to the normal base salary, which is probably not what these people want. The banks probably think that the salary they pay them already is compensating them for all the OT.

The real point is that working conditions that allow an employee to work himself to death should not be a legal option.

That would be fine by me (not the PP you're quoting) if they passed a law limiting white collar jobs to forty hour workweeks, which would lead to lower salaries. I don't think strivers would appreciate it though.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

And one that actually matters and is physically grueling.

[Anonymous]

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

I thought there were laws against that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What salary?

No salary is enough to work like this is it? If you were offered $500K would you work this many hours to your death?

I think PP's point is that people do make that choice. You could choose a sane career or a sane place to work and make a solid six figure salary, but the people that choose these insane IB jobs do it because they want to make insane money. Historically, they've been compensated for their willingness to sacrifice their personal lives and sometimes their health. (Unlike some other jobs, like loggers -- which has the highest death rate and is NOT compensated like IB workers.) I support workers' rights generally, but I don't think I'm crying my eyes out for the IB folks. If they are going to get OT for working hours over 40, as PP suggested, the banks will just cut them back to the normal base salary, which is probably not what these people want. The banks probably think that the salary they pay them already is compensating them for all the OT.

I dunno. It will be interesting to see if the junior bankers actually strike in any significant numbers. I would like to see them protected very carefully by labor law. I don’t think they’ll actually unionize but they are still protected.

As for the salary - I feel like I hear BigLaw lawyers frequently say they would do half the job for half the pay. But it really is a “greedy” job and even people who go supposedly part-time end up having to work very long hours. Then law firms push out top performers right when they know the most because they make so few partners. As a business, it kind of depends on grinding out as many hours as possible from those lowest on the totem pull. When those at the top decide there are no limits to how much they can force those at the bottom to work, this is what happens.

I've heard that from Big Law attorneys as well. Interestingly, I work on the business side at a Big Law firm and we've seen a lot of what looks like "quiet quitting" in the industry lately. There are always associates who wash out but it feels like it's increased in recent years with associates taking these jobs and then balking at the long hours or the stress. It's happened at the same time as salaries and bonuses for associates have gone really crazy (reflecting some extremely good years for Big Law firms, admittedly -- we can afford it). But I have started to hear more rumbling from partners than usual about paying these very high salaries and then getting push back from associates on things like being in office, working nights or weekends, or some of the stressors inherent in the job like tough deadlines or being taken to task for shoddy work (bad work can lose clients huge sums of money so partners take it seriously and expect associates to as well).

I'm not sure exactly what the fix is. At our firm we have been focusing on improving our recruiting so we are bringing in lawyers who understand the job and are willing to do, and not just using us as a weigh station to pay off their loans before going somewhere less demanding. It's hard. Even graduates of top law schools have a surprising resistance to the Big Law lifestyle sometimes. It's no wonder the lateral market has gotten so hot in recent years -- I think many firms have pipeline problems because there just are not enough talented lawyers willing to put in the time and effort to meet client demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What salary?

No salary is enough to work like this is it? If you were offered $500K would you work this many hours to your death?

I think PP's point is that people do make that choice. You could choose a sane career or a sane place to work and make a solid six figure salary, but the people that choose these insane IB jobs do it because they want to make insane money. Historically, they've been compensated for their willingness to sacrifice their personal lives and sometimes their health. (Unlike some other jobs, like loggers -- which has the highest death rate and is NOT compensated like IB workers.) I support workers' rights generally, but I don't think I'm crying my eyes out for the IB folks. If they are going to get OT for working hours over 40, as PP suggested, the banks will just cut them back to the normal base salary, which is probably not what these people want. The banks probably think that the salary they pay them already is compensating them for all the OT.

I dunno. It will be interesting to see if the junior bankers actually strike in any significant numbers. I would like to see them protected very carefully by labor law. I don’t think they’ll actually unionize but they are still protected.

As for the salary - I feel like I hear BigLaw lawyers frequently say they would do half the job for half the pay. But it really is a “greedy” job and even people who go supposedly part-time end up having to work very long hours. Then law firms push out top performers right when they know the most because they make so few partners. As a business, it kind of depends on grinding out as many hours as possible from those lowest on the totem pull. When those at the top decide there are no limits to how much they can force those at the bottom to work, this is what happens.

I've heard that from Big Law attorneys as well. Interestingly, I work on the business side at a Big Law firm and we've seen a lot of what looks like "quiet quitting" in the industry lately. There are always associates who wash out but it feels like it's increased in recent years with associates taking these jobs and then balking at the long hours or the stress. It's happened at the same time as salaries and bonuses for associates have gone really crazy (reflecting some extremely good years for Big Law firms, admittedly -- we can afford it). But I have started to hear more rumbling from partners than usual about paying these very high salaries and then getting push back from associates on things like being in office, working nights or weekends, or some of the stressors inherent in the job like tough deadlines or being taken to task for shoddy work (bad work can lose clients huge sums of money so partners take it seriously and expect associates to as well).

I'm not sure exactly what the fix is. At our firm we have been focusing on improving our recruiting so we are bringing in lawyers who understand the job and are willing to do, and not just using us as a weigh station to pay off their loans before going somewhere less demanding. It's hard. Even graduates of top law schools have a surprising resistance to the Big Law lifestyle sometimes. It's no wonder the lateral market has gotten so hot in recent years -- I think many firms have pipeline problems because there just are not enough talented lawyers willing to put in the time and effort to meet client demand.

Good, because it is really all so much self-importance. It will work itself out.