The Consequences of Ridiculous Ideas (a.k.a. why the LSUC should not force firms to hire Students)

I recently read an article in the Globe & Mail that suggested cutting all men’s wages so they were equal with women’s wages. I won’t delve into the politics of equality in this Blog, but will tell you, as a woman, nothing gets me more annoyed than someone trying to “help me”. I don’t need your help. I’m equal.

I digress.

Many of the comments on the website supported this idea for many reasons. Of course, as a lawyer whose practice includes Employment Law for the Employer, I immediately saw the big problem: cutting wages is constructive dismissal. So, to achieve equality all employers should be sued for wrongful dismissal? Insert golf claps here.

In a similar vein is a motion before the Law Society that, if passed, would require law firms to hire Articling Students at a rate of pay determined by the Law Society.

I can only imagine how great the quality of an Articling experience would be at a Law Firm bitter to be forced to take on a Student and pay them a wage that is not linked to the financial plan of the firm.

The Globe Article, I hope, was just meant to stir up conversation.

The Law Society motion, I fear, was put forward in earnest by lawyers who do not have a sense of business and apparently are content to declare a person a lawyer regardless of the quality of their Articling Experience.

Inga B. Andriessen JD
iandriessen@andriessen.ca

%d bloggers like this: