Work-Life Balance: Can the Greedy Associate Have It All?
Over at Law21
, Jordan Furlong has composed an elegy of sorts
for the oft-scorned term "work-life balance." He suggests that, though the work-life balance movement was already receiving considerable criticism, the concept as such is a dead letter in the modern law firm, undone by an economy that requires would-be associates to accept pretty much any terms of employment that a firm is willing to offer. The debate ends when associates lack the leverage to make any demands at all of their employers.
To be sure, not everyone has received Furlong's message that the debate is, at the very least, back-burnered in the current recession. As noted here and elsewhere in the past few weeks, Gen Y-ers and Boomers, in the personae of Adrian Dayton
and Scott Greenfield
, have been engaging in an online slam-fest over why partners don't get Gen Y
, how Gen Y is full of "slackoisie,"
the evils of old-school requirements like face time
, and the partners' prerogative to use associates as profit centers
We do love a good inter-generational dispute -- who doesn't? -- but the
Dayton/Greenfield showdown strikes us as ultimately more of a generic,
hey-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn confrontation, notwithstanding its use of
the terminology of the work-life balance debate. The crux of the
work-life balance issue may have been summed up, though, by a blogger
commenting on the feud. Mark Bennett at Defending People
noted the fundamental character of law firms
and how that defines associates' work lives: "[A]ssociates are not, as
you might guess, labor, but rather capital -- the oxen that drive the
mill. The firm exists to turn the minutes of young lawyers' lives into
In that light, Furlong may have the right idea about the work-life
balance debate; his post goes on to argue that firms, profit mills that
they are, were never
responsible for ensuring happiness or
balance for associates; that responsibility falls squarely on the
individual lawyer, who must decide for herself whether the time tradeoffs
are worth the money/prestige/whatever.
So the term "work-life balance" may be dying, at least insofar as it
was meant to invoke a direct challenge to law firms to act
differently towards their associates. But as Furlong notes, whatever name you choose to use, a
significant problem remains: law school is really expensive. With all
their school debt, what else can new lawyers do but sign up to be oxen? That's a problem that is unlikely to go away anytime soon, recession or no. The best we can hope for, for now, is that the legal economy turns around, and we can at least get back to being greedy