Vacation fears

June 15, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Attorneys are notorious for putting off vacation time or even bringing work with them while on vacation, but will the current state of the economy lead to an increase in work on vacation or even no vacation at all? According to a recent CNN.com article, some people are worried that if they take a vacation during this recession, they may not have a job to come back to. A survey released in May by CareerBuilder found nearly 20 percent of respondents said they were afraid of losing their jobs if they go on vacation or feel guilty in being away from the office.

The fear is once your company realizes the office can function without you, you are seen as expendable. Another possibility is people want to be seen as dedicated workers and now is not the time to take a vacation when they economy is in trouble.

Granted, law offices don’t run exactly the same way as other businesses, but who’s to say this hasn’t crossed a managing partner or law firm executive’s mind? A legal secretary takes a week off and returns to work only to learn that the firm’s decided to downsize after finding ways to be more efficient. Perhaps firm leaders realized the firm could do the work with fewer people after someone’s been on vacation.

Attorneys aren’t as vulnerable given the structure of the law firm, but if an attorney isn’t pulling his or her weight, it may become more noticeable when he or she is out of the office and someone else is helping out.

The irony of it all is that a vacation is probably needed by most workers now more than ever because many are overworked due to staff layoffs. Vacations help recharge and re-energize workers, and help with physical and mental health. According to the CNN.com article, the workers interviewed plan on taking long weekends for vacations instead of a week or more at a time.

What do you think about this article? Is it just the view of a few paranoid people or is this a valid fear?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT