Funny, I had this exact same thought. The red flags for me were their use of “clock in” and “shift”. Those are not concepts generally in play for IT staff at law firms.
That actually rang fairly true to me as some of the law offices I interacted with (consultant) did so as they did some sort of fractional billing to the clients for internal IT time.
I actually wonder if that's not the bigger scam here, that the firm is re-billing this person's make-work job in some sort of time and materials way that there is financial incentive to keep him doing this unnecessary role.
If the firm was billing his time, he'd have to create a billing log. You generally can't get away with billing for IT. But you can bill for "litigation support" which is the intersection of IT and litigation. Though its much more involved than just uploading files to an FTP.
Firms navigate this by making the employees fill out their own billing entries. If OP is filling out fraudulent billing entries then that would explain why nobody is checking up on him. If he's billed out, his real work output is billed-hours.
No reason (to need, in this situation) for the automated program to run faster than a human. The right hours billed to a human instead of the human's computer is.. not quite so fraudulent?
In Austria (and I think in Germany it's the same), for most jobs, including IT, employees must track their working time for legal reasons, so I had to clock in and out via a device at the entrance like a factory worker, to prove to HR, accounting and the bureaucratic government institutions in charge of taxing me, that I'm indeed at my workplace 8h/day.
One company I interviewed at had a work-time time tracking machine next to the coffee machine as breaks were not included in the working time. I said no thanks to that job but it's quite common in Austria at more traditional companies who insist you're only productive while your butt is in the chair.
Thanks Covid for the disruption but it's a massive shame it took a global tragedy for companies and governments to realize people working in tech and other sectors can be just as productive without needing to commute somewhere else just so they can keep a seat warm for 8h/day.
>all of a sudden unpaid overtime would be so much harder
Austria "solved" this "problem" by introducing the infamous all-in contract, adopted by many companies, where all your potential overtime is already included in your compensation.
Basically it's a fancy way to have you wave your right to paid overtime to what amounts to one of the most exploitative legal employment practices I've seen in Europe.
And the strict time tracking is still there for legal and workplace accident insurance reasons ("you claim you hurt yourself through a work related accident at 14:40, but we need to check your time tracking as proof you were actually at work and not somewhere else")
> Austria "solved" this "problem" by introducing the infamous all-in contract, adopted by many companies, where all your potential overtime is already included in your compensation.
That’s illegal in Germany, luckily. Some unpaid overtime can be included in the contract, but a contract must specify the maximum number of hours.
for companies and governments to realize people working in tech and other sectors can be just as productive
It may seem this way, but the conditions allowing this situation still exist.
I assure you, large swaths of people will be called back to the office ASAP.
And many non-IT/computing types need to be there, to be productive. Which means many managers need to be too. Which means, in non pure tech firms, the call will be stronger, for lots of other employees will be in-office.
Some say, that they'll just refuse. That's fine and dandy now, but when the market crashes, 2 years, 5 years, and jobs become scare?
You, and everyone else will work in office to put food on the table.
I can confirm this is the case in Austria. However, my experience is mostly using a computerised system via the company Intranet. There's an option to use an access card and touch it to a login pad at the office entrance, but I can also work from home, logging the time via the Intranet based system. I don't get paid overtime, but I do receive time off in lieu of excess hours worked.
They didn't cause problems in the way you're implying. We took the time to polish hackathon projects before releasing them. We didn't just shove them out the door as soon as they were done.
That said, one of them was an unmitigated disaster. Leadership loved it, users hated it, you know the drill. The company eventually gave in and turned the feature off three years later.
This is the actual red flag. A mid-size firm simply couldn't function without IT. They could outsource it to a contractor, but, in that case, they'd never then hire someone for 90k to do one small IT task.
If there is any true to this, he's probably on the books as an "Litigation Support Tech" and his job probably involves (or is supposed to involve) more than he's describing--like interfacing with vendors who do the actual data/document processing.
My point was that they may not even be big enough for one. “Plug and play” might be good enough for now (a shared drive means someone is around though, someone had to set it up).
There are definitely small firms that rely on the young paralegal who is a self taught super user. But that sort of firm wouldn't pay someone 90k for doing a small part of all IT.
Slight chance this person was hired as a "case assistant" or "litigation support" and not IT. Firms definitely hire that sort of person--though they usually bill their time--so hopefully the OP isn't submitting fraudulent time entries. But 90k is a lot for that sort of role without expectation that you are performing other tasks.
I knew a chap who left where I used to work to go to a large UK bank at high end contracting rates.
He returned after a few months saying that the team he joined (which was apparently quite large) had been given no work in that time and hadn't even been given any computers - and they weren't allowed to use their own devices for anything. He said he left simply because he couldn't take the boredom - even though, as he freely admitted, the money was fantastic.
Going along with the original story, I could go either way on this. On the one hand, paying someone $40k to do it, probably involves more supervision and turnover, and a chance of someone making a mistake. And then you get to tell your million dollar client: "We lost our case because our semi-skilled clerk misplaced a file and we have no IT department."
On the other hand, what would you pay an outside developer to automate the process and guarantee accuracy, maintenance, and uptime? Could you even do this with no GUI, no dashboard, no management fanfare, and no brainstorming of unnecessary features?
Yeah this is the big red flag for me. I believe that a law firm without a ton of technical knowledge would hire someone to do this work manually, but they'd get an intern or something, this is not skilled work.
It's easy to overstate the technical difficulty of lots of basic IT work, especially if people are tech illiterate.
There might be an element of deliberate fraud if this guy is spelling out the difficulty of the job as justifying his pay to management. I've seen very clever goldbricking similar to this, where management doesn't know enough to understand what good IT looks like, or how to value IT work.
On the other side: the business can clearly afford it, so the value he brings is entirely justified from a commercial perspective. The fact that they can find cheaper alternatives on the IT market is a different issue.
You can buy a new branded car for $$$ and be sure it will work for years with minimal maintenance, or you can shop around and buy a passable 15-year-old car; in both cases it will likely get you from A to B for a while, but the chance of having problems is lower with the new "whip". This guy, to the business, is the equivalent of leasing a new car every year: they can afford it and brings no risk as far as they can see.
The obsession with capital efficiency can often turn into a disease. Why should we drive down our own wages, when the market is willing to pay more?
This is basically why I do not automatically discount the story as fake. I have certainly been a part of groups that had a wide range of technical skills. It is an odd experience, but it forces you to think about your audience ( and document everything like you would for your parent ).
I do have an anecdote in a similar vein from a buddy, but he does sometimes tend to exaggerate sometimes so I won't mention it. I absolutely believe though there are companies are still run in a very traditional way for one reason or another.
I disagree. Yes, 'clocking in' is not a frequent process for IT people but it heavily depends on the company. My first job was for a company that billed its clients based on hours. Even if it was pretty much ridiculous for us (IT crowd) to do so, we did clock in just like everyone else, so that our billing department had a more 'accurate' representation of how much we worked for that client, even if our work was pretty much shared across all clients.
I'm skeptical of these anonymous texts as well, but 'clocking in' is not a red flag. Also, in my current role I still do 'shifts' when I'm on-call, although I don't 'clock in' anymore.
This is how a lot of small businesses operate, and Law Firms are small in terms of staff. Everyone tracks their hours, even if their hours aren't billable.
The same thing happens at engineering firms small or large. Everyone tracks their hours the same way.
Heck, I'm a salaried IT staff at an enterprise level nfp and have to track my hours in two different systems. One of those systems is the same one used by hourly staff and has the concept of clocking in/out.
I had a job that tried to implement a time logging system. Most of IT just didn't. Eventually they explained to us that the payroll guy uses that to cut the checks, and it's a huge pain in their ass if we don't use the system. They compromised by asking us to log in and out at least once each pay period. That was fine, and we did.
But they really did try to get us to go whole hog on it at first.
I actually wonder if that's not the bigger scam here, that the firm is re-billing this person's make-work job in some sort of time and materials way that there is financial incentive to keep him doing this unnecessary role.