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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT