Well now PricewaterhouseCoopers is getting on this action, as a source tells us that assurance and advisory needs bodies ASAP and Bob Moritz is encouraging you to get out there and start tricking telling people that they should join the 24/7 disco dance party that is the P. Dubs experience. And just in case your pure unadulterated love for PwC isn’t enough, TPTB are bumping up the referral bonuses:
Bring a friend to the firm
I want you to know that your leadership team recognizes how this phenomena is affecting many of you, and we’re working on ways to help better distribute that workload. One way is by increasing our efforts around talent acquisition, both in terms of getting it done faster and finding new and improved ways of sourcing talent. By increasing our staffing levels, we hope to lighten up the pressure you’re feeling and better spread the work around. We already know one of the best ways to attract new talent is to tap into your personal and professional networks, and we want to make it worth your while. That’s why we’re increasing our employee referral bonuses for client service positions between now and September 30th.
Click here to go to our career site, see our open positions and read more about how our enhanced referral bonus program works. We also want to increase the level of excitement, fun and passion around the firm. You’ll be hearing from me soon about some interesting ideas we plan to implement, as well as from your market leaders and/or functional and vertical leaders about local Pulse results and ways we plan to address them.
Whoa! “Increase the level of excitement, fun and passion around the firm”? Any ideas on what this could possibly be? We’ll get things rolling:
~ Update below with link to audio of the proceedings
Last month we caught you up on Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, the wage and hour lawsuit filed by employees of the firm, claiming to be non-exempt and thus available for overtime. Oral arguments were heard today at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and it marks the most recent step in a case that could have wide repercussions in California. Francine McKenna has a good rundown over at Forbes, including sta��������������������rshaw, the plaintiffs’ attorney. PwC and their lead counsel, Dan Thomasch of Orrick, have declined to comment at this time.
In today’s proceedings, both sides were allowed to make their arguments and answered questions from a three-judge panel. We’ve obtained the briefs for both sides and we’ll give you a taste of each. First, from the plaintiffs:
PwC argues that Attest Associates satisfy the Professional Exemption because—notwithstanding the routine and nondiscretionary nature of their work—PwC claims that they are functionally indistinguishable from fully licensed accountants, doctors, lawyers, and engineers. As a matter of law, however, the text, structure, and drafting history of the Professional Exemption limit its application to licensed accountants, and Associates are not licensed. Second, PwC argues that Attest Associates satisfy the Wage Order’s Administrative Exemption because they work “under only general supervision” despite up to six layers of managers who are responsible for Associates’ work. That argument fails, however, because PwC has not pointed to sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact that Associates “work along specialized or technical lines”—much less that they do so “under only general supervision”—as required by the Administrative Exemption.
The argument goes into detail from there addressing three key arguments: 1) The Professional Exemption Does Not Apply to Attest Associates; 2) The Administrative Exemption Does Not Apply to Attest Associates; 3) The Rules Governing Professions Other Than Accounting Do Not Help PwC. You can see the brief in its entirety on the next pages.
PwC addresses all three arguments in their brief; this is a portion from the brief’s introduction:
Put simply, nothing in the Wage Order precludes unlicensed accountants from being shown to be exempt under subsection (b) of the Professional Exemption. Plaintiffs’ argument that the “drafting history” of the wage order at issue shows an intention on the part of the [Industrial Welfare Commission] to prohibit unlicensed accountants from being professionally exempt should be rejected, because the language and structure of the Professional Exemption are not ambiguous, and contain no such prohibition. Even the District Court did not accept Plaintiffs’ tortured reading of the text of the Professional Exemption, or claim to find unambiguous intent on the part of the [Industrial Welfare Commission] to exclude from eligibility for the Professional Exemption all unlicensed members of the accounting profession — and inevitably by extension, all unlicensed lawyers, doctors, dentists, optometrists, architects, engineers, and teachers. Doing so is flatly contrary to the overriding principle governing application of exemptions from overtime provisions, which is to consider individual employees’ work duties.
And their brief outlines a direct counter to the plaintiffs’ brief: 1) Plaintiffs’ Argument That Accountants Can Only Qualify for a Professional Exemption Under Subsection (a) Is Unsupportable 2) PwC Is Entitled to Show That Its Attest Associates Satisfy the “General Supervision” Requirement of the Administrative Exemption; 3) The Impact of the District Court’s Order Is Not Limited to the Profession of Accounting.
So what we’ve got here is…failure to agree on how the ambiguous (or not) California law is and how it applies specifically to unlicensed audit associates. Are they really just cogs in the wheel, bowing to their superiors as the plaintiffs argue? Or are they responsible professionals who are engaged in a challenging occupation that warrants exemption? The 9th Circuit will have transcripts and audio from the proceedings available on its website at some point tomorrow and we’ll update this post with them when they’re available. As for a resolution, it will be several months before we find out what the 9th Circuit rules and then, there’s still a trial to be had. Stay tuned.
It’s raining bonuses and raises over at PricewaterhouseCoopers these days. Unfortunately, all I’m seeing are news tips (monetary tips or buybacks at the bar are always appreciated). All of my sources are from the NYC office, so if you’re elsewhere in the country, please share your numbers in the comments below. Here’s what we know so far:
• Advisory/Consulting senior associate received a raise north of 18.5%. No, that is not a typo. So in the advisory practice it’s safe to assume the spread is 0% to 19% for raises this year, with the average being about 6% as reported by Caleb earlier.
• A recently promoted associate to senior associate in advisory received a 10.5% raise and a $3,000 bonus.
• Tax bonuses are being handed out now as well. Size matters in this instance, people. Cough up the details below.
This indicates that resources are being spent on what is being determined to be the right people in the right practices. Average performers should expect to receive 4-6% and take it to the bank.
Audit people, what are your numbers looking like? Email us or post your comments below. Practice/office/level are always appreciated
Thanks to everyone that is sharing information. Enjoy the weekend.
Namely, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Pamela Olson will head up PwC’s Washington National Tax Services practice when she leaves her position as Skadden’s Washington office tax group on January 1st. From the sounds of it, everyone is pretty giddy about this, mostly because Ms. Olson is kind of a big deal. “Everyone in the tax community knows Pam,” said Mark Mendola, PwC’s U.S. Tax leader. “Now our clients will be able to gain from her wisdom. In the current uncertain economic environment, the counsel she will provide to PwC clients is certain to be more invaluable than ever before.”
Why does everyone know her? Well she’s pretty good at what she does and she’s been around. She’s been an assistant secretary of tax policy with the Treasury department, chair of the American Bar Association’s Section of Taxation, a senior economic adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign (we won’t hold that against her), a tax adviser to the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform and “repeatedly in Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business and The Best Lawyers in America for tax law.”
So not exactly a lightweight. All this and she never worked a day at KPMG. Amazing.
