2673

Oh, there are. But at the end of the day, that’s an issue you also have with associates who aren’t fucking around but still bill useless time. Law still has a metric that many other fields do not, in that you have to account for your day in much smaller time increments (again, I know we can argue that when you’re doing research, a lot of people can just write “10.5 - research,” but that is still usually the exception). And frankly, I know a lot of partners who really did not seem to care that much what the people billing time were actually doing - their sole question was, “Will the client pay for it?” Being honest, I’ve had partners angry at me when I was an associate because I did something too fast. Not too fast like “sloppy,” but that they frankly wanted more time billed on the file, because they thought the work I did would have “supported more hours.” Greed is a lovely thing.

It’s still very different in law, where you have to bill for a day and you are literally committing fraud if you write down time you did not actually work. Not every occupation has that.

As for me, the remote work really became more of an issue as a junior partner, where you still cannot simply disappear from the office (unless you literally have your entire own book of business and need nothing from anyone else) because you have old people irritated that “your light isn’t on,” (even though they don’t need you or interact with you the entire day), but you are more autonomous than an associate. I never made a formal pitch (because I knew how it would have been viewed), but yes, that pitch would have literally been, “I would rather bill time than sit in traffic, so why are you making me spend two hours in traffic to use a computer here instead of at home? Just let me make an extra $500-1,000 a day for everyone.”

Generally speaking, in my firm (I can’t speak for other firms), I found that attorneys are much more conservative than normal, and tend to be fairly hidebound in terms of how they do things. It took me fucking years just to be able to get a second monitor (long after the point where it became common place in the working world), because they literally could not understand the value of having a document on each screen, etc. Because they had never done it that way. They actually viewed my request for a $200 second monitor (in a nine figure revenue law firm) with suspicion, like I was trying to get away with something. It was really odd.

And it was very much the same with the “why isn’t your light on,” situation. Just in general for older partners, there is some type of ritual and machismo about “being in the office.” Like if you’re not in the office, you can’t be working somehow. It’s just stupid (for more reasons than just the ones I’ve discussed).

Fortunately, I’m past those days now, but I certainly remember them well.

2674

One possibly applicable thought is that the “ritual” of being in the office is part of their work/life balance. It’s a different environment but there are many teachers who swear by the idea of compartmentalizing things in that way so that when they leave school they are completely out of work mode.

2675

No disagreement there. I just don’t think that remote work versus office work is a black-and-white thing, even in industries like law that are heavily desk-bound. I think the individual factors matter as much, if not more, than the nature of the work, especially over the long run. Some folks just go stir crazy and/or become super inefficient.

2676

I think that some industries are much more built for it than others, but also agree that the individual component of it still matters.

At the same time, the individual component of it still matters because at the end of the day, how hard someone works is generally an individual thing, and that is true whether they’re in an office or at home. I also believe that a lot of people who are going to screw around at home aren’t going to be the best employees in the office either. Generally, if you have to have someone in an office to hold their feet to the fire, it’s not really the type of person who is going to be a good, independent attorney with initiative and drive.

But then, I’ve never been one of those persons who has to be in a certain place to study, or “remove distractions,” etc. I’ve always been fine just using a computer wherever, or reading wherever.

So in sum, I agree with you, and Albania is a land of contrasts. :)

2677
2678

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/outright-disrespectful-four-house-women-struggle-as-pelosi-isolates-them/ar-AAE962s?ocid=spartanntp

Pelosi is old and out of touch, and AOC et al are young and “woke” and on social media, but the latter are discovering that Twitter power doesn’t equal real power and don’t quite know what to do when people not woke on and not on social media are the ones calling the shots. Kind of exactly what plays out over and over again on progressive social media with ordinary people every single day.

It’s just interesting seeing in real life politics this sort of “line in the sand / no tolerance” attitude that is so polarizing and annoying among socially connected liberals who live on social media playing out on the national stage. Not that Pelosi is exactly all correct and they all wrong, but the fact that they immediately fall back on “women of color” as soon as Pelosi snubs them is exactly the dynamic you see on social media. Pelosi sees the big political picture and they seemingly do not. OTOH, there is probably a bit of traditional defense of influence jealousy going on here as well; it’s AOC et al on the covers of magazines and on everyone’s lips now, and Pelosi wants her to back off and get in line.

2679

Yep, this is AOC’s worst moment since becoming a public figure. She’s confusing Twitter followers with actual support. Calling Pelosi a racist is neither justified nor wise.

2680

The Democrats need to really not allow the rise of their own extremist version of the tea party. I don’t think AOC’s gone that far yet, but there are glimmers of it. The same kind of notion that they can just magically force whatever they want to happen, without compromise or actually doing any of the hard work to make it happen. Some of what we’ve seen from those members is right out of the tea party handbook… work to get concessions from your party on bills, but then vote against those bills anyway. That’s dumb. That’s not how it works.

Tlaib made a really stupid statement recently, telling some other member of the Democratic caucus “it’s my job to agitate, it’s your job to govern” or something along those lines.

No, it’s your job to govern. Hell, on some level, her statement even undercut any notion that she should be taken seriously at all.

2681

I’ve been looking for that quote but can’t find it.

If true, it does intersect a worry of mine - or kind of an apprehension of language and context and what/how social media evolves - that the political philosophy underlying a lot of young people’s political conceptions express a kind of reverse-paternalism.

They don’t have power, don’t expect to have power, and don’t really care what power is on some practical level. They just have problems and want whoever is in charge (/waves hand randomly) to do something about X. They just assume there are “adults in the room” running things and that obviously for them adulting is too hard and isn’t their cup of tea and something that they shouldn’t have to do, now that they think about it. That’s not their job, that’s your/their job. For them, just pointing out the problem should cause someone, in some kind of parental overarching role, to make this problem better, and that even to express the problem is almost too hard for them to do; where bravery for them is just making a statement about a problem, and this sets the wheels in motion and then the adults, someone off beyond view, make things right again. Sometime like that.

2682

Dude, stop saying this. The difference is that Democrats aren’t idiots. I mean that’s it. Pure and simple. Democrats aren’t dumb. The “extremist” policies that the Demcratic left are advocating for are reasonable, popular, and necessary policies. I get that Pelosi is trying to protect moderates within the party and that’s bound to create some tension in the caucus (that is almost certainly wildly overblown by press). The Tea Party is pure id: rage and fire. There’s no comparison. You keep warning about “ooh scary liberal extremists”, but never talk about what policies are extreme or why they’re extreme or why Democrats should shy away from those policies in particular. It’s always One Side… and then The Other with you. The Tea Party was bad… therefore the Green New Deal is bad. It’s nonsensical.

2683

No.

I know you THINK this… but you maybe need to consider the reality that a lot of Democrats actually ARE in fact idiots.

2684

So, which policies again?

2685

Whatever might be wrong with AOC et al, it is not at all clear to me that the statement above is true. There are a good many people, none of them AOC, criticizing Pelosi’s nearly incomprehensible posture at this point.

2686

I’m not talking about the policies, I’m talking about the people being idiots.

For instance, attacking your own political party’s leadership, seems a really dumb move straight out of the tea party’s playbook.

While tons of the policy motivations of the Tea Party were bad, the thing that made them DUMB was that the means by which they went about achieving those goals were ineffective. By attacking their own leadership, they weakened their own party, prevented compromise, and ultimately resulted in the achievement of fewer of their own goals.

When I say that the Democrats need to not allow the rise of their own version of a Tea Party, I’m not saying “don’t let the communists take over” (I mean, don’t do that, but that’s not my focus).

What I’m saying is to be wary of fringe elements who are so ideologically static as to miss the forest for the trees. To be unwilling to make tactical decisions (because in this case, we’re often not even talking about compromise, as much as simply making smart political plays), because it violates some ethereal notion of their ideals.

Or, in some desire to increase their own personal power, attack their own party’s leadership and accuse them of some sort of racial bias. In their attempt to weaken their leadership such that they are more powerful comparatively, they will also end up weakening their party’s overall power compared to the GOP. And the result of that will be that they will likely get nothing of value done at all.

2687

The Democrats need to ignore it when Republicans tell them how to Democrat.

2688

These are not dictators. They have every right to question and conflict with party leadership. In fact when that stops happening, you wind up with the GOP.

And don’t mistake a right to conflict with the status of actually being right. The newer members are not always right, but that’s okay. They’re new and can still question.

2689

Of course they do, but there are better ways to do it than openly attacking their leadership.

Again, it’s a matter of strategy and tactics, rather than goal. Their goals are fine. I don’t necessarily agree with all of the things the far left of the party wants to do, but they are certainly free to have those views.

But it’d be more productive for them to work behind the scenes with leadership, and then form a unified front in the public eye, as that will make them stronger against the GOP.

2690

In a world where the GOP has created a scenario where anyone who criticizes Donald Trump is labeled a traitor and pretty much ousted from their party unless they step in line, it is more important than ever that the Democrats demonstrate that is possible to have public dissent, that there should be public dissent, and still have and maintain a functional party with relatively similar goals.

It might not be ideal in every scenario, and the new group might come off a little strong especially since our incompetent media can’t wait to pen another Democratic disarray message, but I wholeheartedly disagree that all these things should be out of the eye of the public.

2691

Perhaps (and I tend to agree, personally), but mistakes are how people learn. They’re the next generation of leaders. They’re going to challenge the previous generation. They’ll figure out how to do so more productively along the way.

2692

What we need are Democrats who stand in solidarity with their party in all things, come hell or high water. Questioning the leadership shows weakness.

This week, on Republicans telling Democrats how to handle their business.