c**d
发帖数: 3888 | |
n***e
发帖数: 461 | 2 they are matching the ny offices' pay level because they did not do it
before. this is not "another wave". if you look at the salary structure, a
lot of firms now pay the 1st year and 2nd year the same amount after the
raise. so it's not really as substantial as you think. |
c**d
发帖数: 3888 | 3 No. It's not true that they did not do it before. They did. CA salaries were
raised from 135K to 145K just recently.
Which firm pays their 1st years and 2nd years the same amount? I'd like to
know. Firms usually raise their entire payscale, not just the 1st year
salary.
【在 n***e 的大作中提到】
: they are matching the ny offices' pay level because they did not do it
: before. this is not "another wave". if you look at the salary structure, a
: lot of firms now pay the 1st year and 2nd year the same amount after the
: raise. so it's not really as substantial as you think.
|
n***e
发帖数: 461 | |
c**d
发帖数: 3888 | |
c**d
发帖数: 3888 | 6 对不起，我上面的帖太不客气了。我解释一下，你给我的那个表明显是 data 不全导致
的。也就是说只有 class of 2007 的更新了，其他的年级却没有更新。没有 Biglaw
Firm 会给不同年级发同样薪水的。 |
u***i
发帖数: 128 | |
b******s
发帖数: 33 | 8 but all three are west coast firms. all they are doing is matching nyc pay
so not to lose in the competition merely because of geographic location.
real pay raises are always initiated by giant firms. Orrick, O'Melveny and
MoFo are not there yet. |
n***e
发帖数: 461 | 9 哈哈。确是盲人摸象。偶issue spotting能力很欠缺。
【在 c**d 的大作中提到】
: 对不起，我上面的帖太不客气了。我解释一下，你给我的那个表明显是 data 不全导致
: 的。也就是说只有 class of 2007 的更新了，其他的年级却没有更新。没有 Biglaw
: Firm 会给不同年级发同样薪水的。
|
c**d
发帖数: 3888 | 10 The top partners at the California firms (Latham, Gibson, Wilson etc)
probably had quite a few meetings over this weekend. |
