Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly, Julia Bryant.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law: #1 Northwestern University School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

When I last worked in an office (many moons ago) I was one of the millions of workers who are exempt from overtime. I did have some managerial responsibilities but I would not have characterized my job as “executive” or “professional.” Anyone with some common sense and a calendar could have effectively done the work I was doing. But because I was above the $23,660 per year threshold I was not eligible for overtime pay for the extra hours I worked. Depending on the season (my work ebbed and flowed dramatically based on the school calendar), I could work 60 hours a week and still be scrambling to get it all done; I could also be hunting for projects outside of my department just to make up a full work day. I started to think that I MIGHT be better off as an hourly wage worker because then at least I would be getting paid for how much I was working. But under the system, I was sometimes working 20 hours a week for free.

The recent changes in overtime rules are designed to address this concern for many employees who find themselves in a peculiar middle place. They are working more than 40 hours a week, but instead of being paid time and a half for the time they put in over 40 hours, they are barred from compensation for those hours because they make more than $23,660 a year or $455 per week. They are working for free. The recent changes to overtime rules–which will go into effect late this year–will raise the threshold from 23,660 to $47,476 per year. Meaning that all the workers who earn between $23,660 and $47,476 will now be eligible for time and a half–one and a half times their regular wage–for each hour they work beyond the 40-hour work week.

Are these workers going to be better off? Or are we going to place such a burden on employers that we actually do harm to these employees?

All About That Base

Nothing is more exciting than the phrase “let’s do some math!” but to understand the debate surrounding overtime we have to look at the numbers.

The previous $23,660 threshold, which was established in 2004, works out in the following way. Let’s say you have a job where you are right at the $23,660 and not eligible for overtime. If you are working 40 hours a week then the magic of math breaks that down $11.38 an hour gross ($23,660 a year divided by 52 weeks per year divided by 40 hours each week). That’s better than the federal minimum wage. But if you are working 60 hours a week for that same salary with no overtime eligibility, you’re only making $7.58 an hour. That’s barely more than the $7.25 federal minimum wage and in many states it’s actually lower than the required minimum.

If your $23,660 a year job is being a manager at a retail store and you’re working 60 hours a week with no overtime, there is a good chance that you are making less than the employees that you manage. Which seems inconsistent with the whole idea of managers being worth extra pay for their expertise and responsiblities and unfair that you are working for less than the minimum wage or working for free. Either way, you slice it that’s a fairly raw deal.

Under the new rules, which raises the threshold to $47,476 per year or $913 per week, many salaried workers are now entitled to overtime pay. In the same scenario as before–with a worker earning $23,660 per year–he or she would be paid the same 11.38 for a 40 hour work week. But for a 60-hour work week, that worker would make an average of 13.27 per hour, when you include the 20 hours of time and a half pay. That is a considerable improvement from the $7.58 per hour that he or she would earn without overtime.

In the video below, PBS NewsHour gives a brief explanation of how the overtime regulations currently work and what the proposed changes will do for workers.

How Businesses Might Respond

There are a few points to unpack from that video in terms of the arguments and counter-arguments for overtime. The reason that some people don’t think this is a sound policy is because employers are likely to react in several ways which could have negative consequences for employees.

The first way they might react is by reducing hours for workers who would be newly eligible for overtime and hiring multiple part-time workers instead in order to keep their labor costs about the same as they were before the change in the rules.

But is this necessarily a bad thing for the existing workers? Maybe not. Currently, a worker who is putting in 60 hours a week for a salary of $36,000 a year won’t be losing any money if their company reduces them to 40 hours a week and then hires someone else to work for 20 hours a week to avoid paying overtime. In fact, if you think about your time as having a monetary value you are getting more money because you are getting 20 extra hours a week back in time. The trickier scenario is a company that decides to change from one employee working 60 hours a week to two employees working 30 hours each–while also reducing the salary of the original employee or paying them on an hourly basis. This would, in fact, be a reduction in that worker’s total wages from $36,000 to about $27,000 per year (assuming that the hourly rate was the same).

That’s a significant decrease and a trade that many employees might not want to make for 30 extra hours a week. In a job market that had more positions available, those individuals would be able to get a second job for 30 hours a week. If it had a comparable salary they would actually be doubling their income. But in an economy where there isn’t a second job to take on with your extra time, this could be financially devastating.

In fact, some economists argue that increasing the threshold for overtime eligibility would be a good thing overall because it will help create jobs. Some employers will choose the second option of splitting one job into two. This change could be a mixed blessing for workers–a source of more jobs even if it might depress wages.

Another way employers might respond is by increasing salaries for workers to the new $47,476 per year cap, thereby rendering them ineligible for overtime. For workers who are close to that level, it may just be cheaper for employers to pay an extra few thousand dollars a year than to deal with the added hassle of calculating overtime pay or the added expense of paying it. Workers in that situation will get a raise.

In the video below, the Department of Labor explains the history of overtime as well as the recent rule change:

Obviously increasing labor costs places a burden on employers and some employers will have difficulty accommodating. The argument against increasing the overtime threshold essentially boils down to not wanting workers to lose what they already have in an effort to get a deal that is fairer. Instead of elevating worker wages, changes in overtime may decrease worker pay overall and alter the flexibility that some workers enjoy.

One of the benefits of being overtime exempt, some argue, is that you have more freedom from your employer to work a 30-hour week to make up for the 60-hour week you had to work. That was my experience when I was working–although culturally at the office it may breed resentment when other employees see you leaving early or not working Fridays if they don’t also see you working late or doing some of your tasks from home on the weekends. But for many workers, the mythical 30-hour work week never comes and so employees have essentially just charitably donated hundreds of hours of their time to their employers. Or they have worked as “managers” for less than the minimum wage.

The greatest danger that this change in overtime rules presents is that employers may cut workers and not replace them, making the unemployment situation worse. For some companies that will undoubtedly be the case and these businesses will take hits in productivity and be run by skeleton crews. But it is unclear whether, on balance, the changes will do more harm than good or more good than harm. And it is hard to anticipate how many workers will be cut versus how many will get raises. It’s even harder to know beforehand whether this change will be worth it for the overall health of the economy.

Conclusion

If you look at the numbers an increase in overtime benefits is undoubtedly helpful for those workers who currently are putting in more than 40 hours a week at their jobs. They will be more fairly compensated for the hours they work. But the larger effects on the economy are tricky to determine. Depending on how employers react, and how much of an increase in labor costs employers can absorb, this change can have serious negative impacts as well.

There will undoubtedly be some job loss and wage depression, as well as job gains and wage increases. As we get closer to the December 1 deadline when this change will go into effect, there will probably be more predictions about how this will ultimately shake out. But the fairness argument that workers should be paid for the time that they work when they aren’t actually making the high salaries for an executive or professional role is hard to refute.

Resources

U.S. Department of Labor: Final Rule: Overtime

U.S. Department of Labor: Questions and Answers

US News: Are The New Overtime Rules About To Boost Your Paycheck?

The Atlantic: Overtime Pay For Millions of Workers

Bloomberg: Obama’s Overtime Rule Defies Econ 101

The Hill: Senate GOP Files Motion To Roll Back Obama Overtime Rule

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Overtime Changes: Is it Time for More Time and a Half? appeared first on Law Street.

Consider a scenario: the restaurant where you work is short-staffed and even though you are billed as a “part-time” worker, you are asked to pick up 34 hours in one week. This is completely legal–the Bureau of Labor Statistics considers a job that requires 34 hours or less in a week to be “part-time” whereas 35 hours or more in a week is considered “full-time” employment. But, before you accept the 34 hour week, consider another dimension: you are a college student and this is the week of your final exams. What comes first: your paycheck or your education?

According to a 2013 survey, 71 percent of college undergraduates work a part-time job. Out of that number, one in five were working at least 35 hours a week year-round. Among undergrads who weren’t full-time workers, more than half of them clocked in more than 20 hours a week.

The American Association of University Professors states that college students should be working total of ten to fifteen hours a week, based on research assessing retention rates for students who work part-time during the academic year. The College Board agrees that working more than 15 hours a week can lead to decreased success, which may in turn lead to dropping out of school entirely. During a presidential debate this fall, Hillary Clinton proposed that under her new education plan, college students would be expected to work 10 hours per week. Most colleges have accepted this 10 to 15 hour rule and attempt to limit the number of hours per week a student can work on campus, but that does not prevent students from seeking off-campus employment. In addition to part-time employment, college students spend an average of 17 hours per week studying outside of class. Students also have lives outside of the library and workplace. They make time to participate in clubs, play sports, act, play music, work on political campaigns, and go out with friends. In my experience, the young person who comes to college just to drink, sleep until noon, and build an insane Instagram feed is a myth.

Every student should have the opportunity to work during their academic career, either to finance their studies or to earn a little spending money, but the work-life balance many are expected to maintain is setting them up for failure. Unfortunately, without holistic reform of college tuition, students will have to keep working twice the number of hours they should be. The majority of students spend responsibly, sticking to budgets and depositing their earnings into savings accounts.

Several candidates in the 2016 presidential race have promised sweeping reforms if they are elected but in the meantime, I would like to appeal to the professors and employers of America’s undergraduate population: cut them some slack this month. Don’t make them choose between their education and their employment. Professors can give extensions on final exams and papers, and employers can assign their student employees fewer shifts during their final exam period. Higher education comes at a steep financial cost and these students are doing the best they can to balance their aspirations in the classroom with the realities of their checking accounts.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Textbooks and Time-cards: Working “Part-Time” in College appeared first on Law Street.

From adding practical training opportunities to “personalizing the admissions process,” law schools across the country are finding ways to stand out in today’s tough recruitment environment. Brooklyn Law School is taking it a step further, establishing a tuition repayment program that offers students who have not found a full-time job nine months after graduation 15 percent of their total tuition back.

The 15 percent figure only applies to out-of-pocket tuition expenses, including loans; scholarships and grants do not apply. “This builds on the overall approach that we’ve taken to be very student-centric, to listen to what students need,” Brooklyn Law School Dean Nicholas W. Allard told The New York Times. The program, dubbed “Bridge to Success” and made possible by a $133 million endowment in May, was established to give students the time and resources to land the job they want and not settle for the first offer they receive, said Allard.

To qualify for a repayment, graduates must take the bar exam, although they do not need to pass it. In addition, students must demonstrate that they have actively searched for employment and exhausted the law school’s career resources.

The program is part of Brooklyn Law School’s efforts to remain competitive by lowering tuition costs. In April 2014 the school also decided to reduce yearly tuition by 15 percent to an average of $43,237 per student, which is still higher than the average private tuition of $41,985.

Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistic show that the legal sector lost 60,000 jobs during the recession, only 20,000 of which have been added back. In particular, lawyers with two to three years of experience were hit hard, according to New York Bar Association President David P. Miranda. Consequently, he pointed out that recent law school graduates find themselves in a legal job market in which they have to compete with seasoned lawyers.

Brooklyn Law School is ranked the 78^th best law school in the nation, according to the U.S. News & World Report. Brian Leiter of the University of Chicago Law School, told the Washington Post that he expects as many as 10 schools to close over the coming decade, and about half to three-quarters of schools to reduce class size, faculty, and staff. We will see if Brooklyn Law School’s latest initiatives will help the school avoid this fate.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brooklyn Law School Lends a Financial Hand to Unemployed Grads appeared first on Law Street.

Beaches, sun, internships, and vacations; these are some of the highlights associated with Summer. That’s not the case though for thousands of 19 and 20 year olds frantically preparing for arguably one of the most overrated exams looming in the second week of June: the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). By now, every college sophomore and junior has probably heard that getting into law school  is “easier” than ever due to the decline in the applicant pool. Is it really though? Moreover, what does this notion entail once graduating seniors actually commit to their respective law schools? It seems that what used to be a competitive challenge for those truly passionate about law and policy has become an option for the thousands of students wanting to avoid “funemployment” and who are unsure of their post-graduation plans.

Millennials are being victimized by the fallacy that a law degree from a middle-top tier institution will provide stable employment upon graduation. Many refer to the phenomenon of the smallest applicant pool in 30 years as a “buyers market,”  wherein students are sold the idea that applying to law school now is a good idea because they will have a higher chance of attending a top Law School, thus potentially being scouted by a top law firm and earning a six-figure starting salary. Although this sounds very appealing, the “buyers market” leaves out a minor detail–law firms are placing little emphasis on the small applicant pools given the excess law graduates from years past and job demand finally stabilizing.  

Last year saw the smallest class of incoming law students at 38,000–a 37 percent decline from 2010. There is no denying that the smaller applicant pool and decreased percentage of high-test scorers contributes to the evidence that admission into tougher law schools is in fact a more viable option.  Furthermore, these numbers indeed provide an incentive for thousands of students who, prior to the applicant decline, would never have considered taking the LSAT. The formerly serious and competitive reputation of the LSAT, wherein students would prepare months in advance for the arduous five-hour assessment, has become arguably as common as taking the SAT.  The increase in under-prepared students taking the exam is shown by studies conducted on the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) data. Statistics disclose that the number of applicants with higher LSAT scores (above 170) has declined exponentially more than the number of applicants with lower scores, advocating that some students with high LSAT scores do not apply to law school at all while students with lower scores continue to apply.

Moreover, statistics demonstrate that companies are not hiring more lawyers than they were in 2010. Top law firms not only continue to scout and favor aspiring attorneys from top-ten schools, but now have the luxury of choosing from a much wider pool of applicants than just students who have just graduated.

According to the American Bar Association,  in 2013 only 57 percent of all law school graduates found full-time work, meaning the job lasted one year or more and was either a clerkship or mandated bar passage. It is important to note that 4,714 of the jobs reported were in fields that technically did not require law degrees, but rather employers preferred to hire Juris Doctorates (i.e. congressional staffers, labor organizers, or NGO workers etc). An additional 1,724 jobs were completely unrelated to law.

The employment numbers are not expected to differ much for the Class of 2016. There are 36,000 students predicted to graduate in 2016, as opposed to 46,776 in 2013. The ABA further projects that there will be 19,650 jobs available for those graduates. While these numbers convey that fewer people will graduate unemployed, the previously mentioned values do not take into account individual student qualifications and readiness, which prominent law firms rely heavily on before offering employment.

So while at face value the numerical indicators provide an optimistic view for undergraduate students banking on attending a higher-ranked law school, confounding variables such as fierce competition among peers and lack of preparedness factor into the discussion. As Slate’s senior business and economics correspondent puts it:

Most people should not attend law school. Specifically, you shouldn’t attend law school unless: a) you have an overwhelming compulsion to actually become a lawyer and b) you understand exactly what becoming a lawyer entails.

Although not the worst time to apply to law school, do your homework. Completely disregarding the average $122,158 debt law students graduate with–because that is an entirely different topic on its own–undergraduates who are not 100 percent convinced about law and policy might want to think twice about applying to law school. What momentarily may seem like a fantastic educational opportunity to attend a slightly better law school than what would’ve been the case a few years ago could end up being a curse in disguise; a detrimental and slipshod attempt at a legal career.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are You Sure Now’s a Good Time to Go to Law School? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Unlike most of the world I don’t start my day off with a morning cup of Joe. I tend to just jump right into whatever I have going for the day minus the caffeine jolt. I know, it’s a little weird. But all of you who survive your days because of a great cup of coffee should take into consideration that, most likely, that cup of coffee you are drinking is from one of the greatest companies in the United States.

I’ve had my love affair with a venti White Chocolate Mocha with an extra shot of espresso, but too many of those and a massive anxiety attack will cause anyone to stop with the coffee for a while. Starbucks makes a mean cup of coffee and you can have it any way you want it, that’s the point of their existence. Until now. I was intrigued the other day when I heard the announcement that Starbucks would be paying for any employee who works 20 hours or more to go back to school. It was even more interesting to discover that it would be online and at Arizona State University. I find it odd that there is a specific school that Starbucks has teamed up with in order to get their employees a higher education. Why Arizona State? Isn’t Starbucks a Seattle-based company? Wouldn’t they want to promote a Washington state school? These are all valid questions but then I realized, why am I asking such silly questions. I just graduated from Arizona State with my Master’s.

Arizona State is a great school, the curriculum is sharp and to the point. Not to mention I had the greatest experience with the professors. Most college professors are extremely liberal and I did have a few moments of uneasiness when things were said about the Republican Party or conservatives in general but I was allowed to voice my opinion and it was well received. So of course Starbucks would want to pick Arizona State and the online program has such an extensive selection that you could pretty much become a doctor or lawyer through their online program.

Although I have personal reasons for thinking this is a great idea, I wonder how many other people would agree. I mean there are those who may not like the idea of an online education or attending Arizona State, but I feel like this is a great partnership between Starbucks and ASU. I don’t think, though, that Starbucks is taking into account what their employees might want out of their own education. Some may not feel comfortable with the online method of learning or they may learn better in a classroom. Though an online education is just as good as being in a classroom, some just don’t do well with it. There is a certain kind of person who can succeed with the online program and that is usually someone who is very dedicated and organized. Online classes are in no way easier then classroom courses; in some instances they are even harder. With that being said it is a great step in the right direction for a company to promote education and to want to help their employees become better in their own personal lives.

All in all I say kudos to Starbucks and Fear the Fork!

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Jun Seita via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Starbucks and Arizona State Team Up in Exemplary Partnership appeared first on Law Street.

There are a few ways you can screw up an interview before it even starts. Here are some common (and not so common…hopefully) mistakes that can ruin your chances.

1. Canceling/Rescheduling/Showing up late. Shit happens. Life gets in the way. It happens once in a while to everyone. But short of an emergency, there is no excuse for a last-minute interview bailout. If you do have to change things around, give as much notice as possible. If you’re a no-show or cancel at the last minute, then you need to make that choice with the understanding that you are probably not going to be in the running for the position. 

2. Not bringing your resume. This one won’t necessarily put a nail in your coffin, but it won’t show that you’re prepared. Even if they don’t need it, bringing a copy of your resume shows that you took the extra time, thought ahead, and are serious about the position.

3. Not being prepared. You will be asked what you know about the company. Prepare for that. You’ll hurt yourself right out of the gate if you don’t.

4. Talking about money too soon. I know that everyone has a bottom line and a salary requirement. Making sure you know your worth is an important part of selecting a career, but don’t bring this up until you’re far along in the process. Make sure to keep the interview about how you’ll benefit the position and the company. A salary offer isn’t usually presented until the position is offered, or close to that point, so don’t jump the gun on this.

5. Not looking appropriate. Business casual, people. Just be safe.

6. Having no questions or comments to offer. There’s a part of every interview when you’ll be asked if you have any questions. Make sure you have them — at least one. It further drives home the point that you’ve done your homework.

7. Offering unsolicited advice on how the company could do better. If you see a flaw on the company’s website or in their social media presence, keep it to yourself. Unless expressly asked, your criticism, no matter how well-meaning, won’t leave a good impression.

8. Being hungover. I saved the best for last. When I did some research, this was actually common advice. This is surprising because it wouldn’t seem like this would be necessary given how incredibly stupid you would have to be to do this. But yes, don’t show up hungover. Or worse, still drunk.

Happy hunting.

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post Top 8 Interview Mistakes to Avoid appeared first on Law Street.

Once you’ve made the decision to look for a new career, you’re halfway there. Well, not really…but it is a pretty big step. Once you’ve made the decision what do you do? Immediately start applying? Probably not. Take some time and follow a few steps before you dive into the deep end.

1.     Think about why you’re looking for a new job. Unless you’re straight out of the dorm rooms, you’re probably making the switch because you aren’t fully satisfied at your current position. Think about the things that aren’t fitting, how you can improve, and what you need from an employer in order to do so.

2.     What came first? Is it the company you’re working for or the industry that you’re in that’s the problem? A lot of people get so stuck on the hamster wheel of doing whatever is closest to their college degree or in the same field as their first job. Maybe it’s time to shake it up.

3.     Think about the next five, ten, fifteen years. Think about further than that. What do you want it to say on your business card when you retire? What skills will help you with that? Even if you take a job that isn’t 100% what you want, consider whether it might provide you with the tools for later.

4.     What are the most important things? This isn’t the same for everyone. For some people it’s the salary, for some the commute matters the most, the hours, the work environment, etc. Give some thought to which one or two aspects are your top priorities. Even if you don’t get everything, it will make the search easier if you know where your priorities are.

5.     Take breaks. Searching the countless job sites is exhausting and frustrating. Don’t just sit at your computer hitting the refresh key after you’ve applied for hours. Dedicate time to this, but take some time away and take a step back.

Happy hunting!

xo, The Capitalista

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

Featured image courtesy of [kate hiscock via Flickr]

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post Beginning the Search appeared first on Law Street.

Beggars still can’t be choosers.

My first job after 1L year was for the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. I accepted the position knowing little to nothing about the role of the U.S. Attorney or the city of New York. All I knew was that, after two months of applying, I had the all-important first year internship. I had decided before law school that Washington, D.C. was where I would practice law after graduation, and this job in New York threw a wrench in my plans. The legal economy then, in the spring of 2011, was as tough as it is now. In light of that fact, I took the best job that I could get and accepted the USAO’s offer.

At the beginning of the summer, I moved all of my suits and summer clothes to a small studio in midtown east on 45th & Lexington. I arrived on a Sunday, and my first day with the USAO was the following week. In my eight days of downtime, I decided to explore New York City.

At first I didn’t really feel a need to take myself on a walking tour of a city that I already knew very well.  My mother is from Brooklyn, and I’ve been visiting my family members there and in the Bronx forever.  Additionally, friends from college and high school had all settled there.  I’d spent many drunken weekends causing a scene on side streets of the Lower East Side and Greenwich Village, but always as the annoying weekend visitor.  Now, as a resident, I felt I owed myself a different city experience.

And experience the city I did.  I walked across town via 45^th Street from Lexington to 8^th Avenue, and then I walked down 8^th Avenue to 12^th street before making my way back East.  In between, I probably said “I’ve got to check this place out,” over one hundred times.  That’s the thing about New York: it’s a city begging to be explored.  I spent three months exploring its sights and sounds, and I was hooked.  I knew that after law school I wanted to move there.

I took steps to further that goal.  During my 2L summer, I worked there again, this time in a different government office but one that furthered the legal goals I endeavored to achieve. Finally, in the first semester of my 3L year, through channels of networking and “people who know people who know people,” I was offered a full-time position with a small company.

“This,” I thought, “is it.”  I had my dream job in my dream city, which I knew I’d earned after the three-year circus of indignities that is law school.  I don’t need to get in to the specifics here, but it didn’t work out.  The job fell through, and I immediately redoubled my efforts to get back to New York.  I applied for countless jobs (chronicled here…it’s depressing) and nothing.

In the mean time, I took up side jobs of both the legal and non-legal varieties.  I was fortunate enough to find this blog, and I began to volunteer with a legal organization.  I was also a host at a restaurant and did temp work.  I went on a ton of interviews, but the “perfect New York City” job consistently evaded me.

And then the unthinkable happened.  A close friend referred me to an open position in D.C., and I was offered an interview.  I prepared for the interview, and it went really well.

And then they offered me the job.

The job I was offered is not a job that one declines.  After discussing my options with my parents and a few friends, I decided to accept the position.  My acceptance effectively derails my New York City dreams for the foreseeable future.  Initially I didn’t want to end my pursuit of a big city job, but I considered both the economy and the markets in which I looked for work, and both are difficult.  It would have been much more imprudent to turn down a position and assume that another one is going to come.

And so, in October 2013, I made the same decision that I made in February 2011.  Accept the best job that comes to you, even if it’s in a city that you weren’t planning to live, and make it work.

To everybody out there with a J.D. and a dream: the job is coming!  As Ted Kennedy said, “the dream will never die.”  He was obviously talking about searching for work in a down legal economy, right?

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [Jason Taellious via Flickr]

As always, all .gifs provided by T. Kyle MacMahon of RealityTVGifs!

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beggars (Still) Can’t be Choosers in Today’s Job Market appeared first on Law Street.

On September 30, I logged into Facebook and saw the most peculiar post.  A friend of mine works for the federal government, and his status read: “I really hope I can go to work tomorrow.”

On a normal Monday, that would be the weirdest sentiment.  I’m used to seeing complaints about how the week is off to a slow start, or how the weekend is too long. Those statements are expected (and usually true).  This post, though, was different.

While there was an air of lightheartedness in the post, there also was a sense of concern about the uncertain future.

As I type this, the U.S. government is in the midst of a shutdown.  Approximately 800,000 people find themselves out of work due to a government-mandated furlough (leave without pay).

Here’s a quick and dirty recap of the past week: the marketplace for providers to offer their services to the hundreds of thousands of people now eligible for healthcare under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) opened on October 1, 2013.  The Democrat-controlled Senate approved a version of the appropriations bill that would fund the government.  On Friday, September 27, the Republican-led House responded with their own version of the bill, which also funded the government if key provisions of the Affordable Care Act were cut.  In a move to signal that he is playing hardball, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent the Senate home for the weekend, meaning the House’s version wouldn’t even be considered until Monday.  Monday was the last available day for compromise to be reached without a government shutdown.  This meant that the House would not receive the Senate’s revisions until later on Monday, and would have little time to vote before the shutdown took effect at 11:59 p.m.

Speaker of the House John Boehner accused the Senate and the Obama Administration of putting partisan politics before the needs of the public.  The Democrats responded with the exact same accusation.  A stalemate occurred, and that is where we presently find ourselves.

Instead of attempting to compromise, various members of both parties are speaking to the press to posture themselves in a favorable light to their constituents.  These members of Congress are failing to realize that while they offer sound bites to various media outlets, their positive spin will never outweigh forcing almost one million Americans out of work.

It’s going to be hard to be reelected when sentiments like this one from the Washington Post: “We’re very hardworking people- we do a lot for people across the country.  And I feel that we’re obviously being used as a political pawn, but we’re also not being valued for what we do.”

It sucks when Congress can’t get their stuff together for the hardworking people they’re supposed to serve.

What does the shutting down of the government entail?  It’s essentially commandeering the Titanic, post-iceberg.  You’re in control of a sinking ship, but you’re coasting along until it sinks.  To slow down the sinking process, various items are being thrown overboard.  How does the government cruise?  By cutting the hours, and thus the payment, of your friends, neighbors, parents, siblings, and possibly you.

“Isn’t a shutdown the equivalent of a snow day?”

Yes it is- at least for the first few days (I know much about unemployment, and the first two or three days are actually kind of sweet: catching up on TV, sleeping in, and going to the gym in the middle of the day are great).  As time wears on, reality rears its ugly head via the accumulation of bills.

In fact, this shutdown really puts things in perspective.  For the past few months, I’ve been complaining about being an unemployed JD.  My complaints have been numerous, considering I really have nothing to worry about: I have no bills, a free roof over my head (thanks mom and dad!), and the luxury of looking for work full-time.

Furloughed government employees are adults with families, tuition, mortgages, car payments, and future plans, all of which are funded by their salaries.  Salaries that, for now, they no longer receive. Most importantly, they want to work!

So, let’s just hope that Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Reid stop this stick-measuring test and make the best decision for the 800,000 people without income right now.

—

Featured image courtesy of [NoHoDamon via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When the Government Won’t Let Its Employees Work appeared first on Law Street.