Morgan Lewis is definitely a freeze.

schulte did not freeze. atl posted on it. add them.

Winston has not announced a salary decision yet. So no freeze, but no increase either.

How do you have MLB on that list the same day you discuss their freeze in another post? Nice "editing."

I suspect that anyone who feels secure enough to brag about not having their salary frozen is exactly the kind of person who's going to be surprised when the managing partner and a security guard shows up at his office this Friday morning with a cardboard box.

WilmerHale did not freeze. Add them to this list

Wilmer Hale
http://abovethelaw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=12&search=wilmer

holler at texas, suckas.

Kids I went to high school with didn't freeze, it was no big deal.

GIMME GIMME GIMME

-Greedy Associate

Add Schulte.

WilmerHale didn't freeze. Half-Skadden bonuses, too.

Also Ramp Artasses did not freeze

Boo fucking hoo - I ONLY make ~200k dollars...

This list should probably distinguish between lockstep firms and firms that make compensation decisions based on "merit." Baker Hostetler does not give lockstep raises, so in even in normal years there are some associates who do not get raises. The same might be true of other firms on this list.

Federal Judicial Clerks got a 3.9% raise. Holla holla holla!

Hi, I am a 1L seeking a firm that both freezes salaries and lays off associates during down times. Should I focus solely on Latham during OCI or are there other such firms out there?

How do you have MLB on that list the same day you discuss their freeze in another post? Nice "editing."

Fried Frank raised salaries

no freeze for associates at cwt

It's confirmed people -- Milbank is a freezer.

It is extremely vulgar and obscene to discuss your ridiculous salary (and the salaries and bonus structures of all big law firms are ridiculous) when so many are getting laid off. And we wonder why the general public thinks lawyers are such a--holes when we behave this way! You do not deserve a pay raise and/or bonus simply based on the year you graduated law school. That is completely insane. You are not OWED anything because you went to law school. Can we all just grow up?

holler at texas, suckas.

Patton Boggs just announced that it would have a slurpee freeze.

Ha Ha, 23. Good one. Nice to see something funny can still be posted after the change in comment “moderation” policy.

4 - Is there any indication Winston might freeze?

23: Go back to your secretarial work.

Not trying to be funny #26 - you are no doubt "preteen" lawyer with BigLaw Job and massive debt. Congrats to you! On Planet Reality - you are a tool. Actually - even in BigLaw - bragging about your salary in the face of lay-offs is pretty bad. Oh well - I'm sure when your number is up - you will have lots and lots of job opportunities where you can make insane money for being a document-review monkey!

Greenberg Traurig is not lockstep

Has anyone actually confirmed that Milbank has frozen? I haven't seen any coverage indicating that they had, aside from 22's comment. They're half-Skadden, but also the originator of the Milbank promise.

Cleary's numbers seem low. Can someone post the Biglaw market rates?

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has announced that it will not freeze

JD raised. It is confirmed.

JD raised. It is confirmed.

Covington actually bumped our salaries back on October 1, as is its usual practice. It's a nice and generally unreported benefit to being here -- I essentially get paid an above-market base salary for 1/3 of each year.

Freshfields has announced that it will not freeze

the roof
the roof
the roof is on fire

From: Partner
To: Big Law Associates

Dear Monkeys:

I know that most of you will be surprised to know that we occasionally monitor the traffic on ATL. We like to keep our fingers on the pulse of the monkey community, particularly those monkeys that (temporarily) make our firm their home. I must say, I am shocked at some of the attitudes reflected in the salary freeze posts. For example:

"You've got yours; why can't we have ours? Just give back your increases in PPP over the last 5 years and we'll call it even."

"I assume you are talking to the BigLaw partners who wouldn't give up 1% of their salary to increase ours by 7%? You are so right. They really are greedy bastards!"

Monkeys, despite being members of the legal profession it is obvious you are still naive about the way things work, so please allow me to educate you-

First, be advised, I fu*king despise each and every one of you whiny little sh*ts. Every time one of our idiotic competitors raises the already bloated salaries of their monkeys, myself and a handful of others ALWAYS vote against doing the same for our associates. Sadly, we are outnumbered within our firm and thus such raises have, in the past, always been approved.

Now monkeys, do you want to know why I hate you and always vote against raises? Oh, let me count the reasons:

1) YOU ARE EASILY REPLACEABLE. Monkeys, I know with your flashy Top 25 credentials you have a heightened sense of entitlement and had gotten used to being catered to when we were trying to "woo" you (what we in our firm call the "Finger F*ck Phase" of recruitment). But understand this: if I can you today, there will be 50 people lined up outside my door begging or the chance to work with me for the "meager and unfair" salary we are paying you. Think about that the next time you reach for the keyboard to make whiny ATL posts.

2) YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE F*CK YOU ARE DOING. Again, b/c most of you did well at Top 10 law schools (or extremely well at schools outside the Top 10) you are feeling that you are pretty smart and pretty skilled and worth the $160k we are paying you. Know this: you don't know f*cking sh*t about lawyering. I swear, the next time that I have to explain to a first or second year Ivy League associate how to respond to a request for disclosure, I will stab that f*cker in the heart with my letter opener. If you monkeys honestly think you are worth the generous amount of money we already pay you, you are seriously delusional. If anything, you should drop to your knees every time you see me in the hall and kiss my feet and/or blow me out of gratitude for the paycheck I give you. Because, monkeys, that money comes directly out of my pocket. Which leads me to...

3) NONE OF YOU HAVE ANY F*CKING CLIENTS. You understand that all those assignments I give you are for work to be done serving MY clients, right? You do recognize all the hassle, headache, heartache, and sweat I had to go through to sign up that Fortune 100 company, yes? So, please explain to me how it is you are entitled to a bigger slice of my pie. As far as I am concerned that is ALL my money and it makes me ill to have to share a penny of it with associates who Are Easily Replaceable and Don't Know What They Are Doing. (And I don't want to hear any of this "how can I develope my own business when I spend all my time working on your cases?" F*ck you. I am unsympathetic - I went the extra mile to build a book and so will you; or else, you will have no furture at my firm regardless of whatever handjob we give you to keep you happy and docile until it is time to pass you over for partner.)

And speaking of handjobs, the only use I have for associates under five years is entertainment. Remember that summer associate who used to be a Hawaiian Tropic model or whatever the f*ck it was (she might have been a Hooters calendar girl, who knows)? Yes, I sodomized her in the managing partner's poolhouse at Summer Bash 2003 while you idiots were standing outside drinking margaritas 10 feet away, talking about some leg*l bullsh*t. Good times. (BONUS: we didn't give her an offer at the end of the summer, which still cracks me up to this day. F*ck her, she didn't do any work for me so I had nothing to worry about). And don't even get me started about that first year associate my ex-wife and I got drunk and took turns violating (admittedly, I was shocked at what this girl let us do to her but she seemed to enjoy it). Sadly, that episode may have prejudiced her career with the firm as she left about a year later. Oh well. Plenty more where she came from. (As an aside, I am amazed at how many of you are more than willing to try to sleep you way to the top. Alas, that will have to be the subject of another post).

Anyway, back to my point, whch is this: instead of crying about your pay I expect, instead, nothing but gratitude from each of you. In fact, there are plenty of partners just like me prowling the halls of your firm, keeping a close eye on our monkeys. And you will get a Skadden bonus over our dead bodies.

One final thought: how is it that so many of you seem to have a lot of free time to make posts on this board? Obviously, you are not billing, working, and making me money like you should. I will take great pleasure in rooting you out and firing you.

GET BACK TO WORK, MONKEYS. I OWN YOU!

what's this "TOPS accounts" business? Is that something that has to vest? Something you can't actually spend on payday (should you so desire)?

Cleary's numbers seem low. Can someone post the Biglaw market rates?

Kash, it's Gottlieb, not Gottleib.

why didnt you think this was news you monkey?

39- hilarious. i think i know you. matter fact, i think i work for you!

With all this freeze, in my office, we poppin' champagne.

-Pop Bottles

Fried Frank did not freeze. This is the 3rd thread in which I have posted this. Get it right for once.

perkins didn't freeze

lol @ 39.

Where are all the O'Melveny haters at Latham now?

39: My man, you've got some time on your hands. You should replace that stupid justice blogger! Hands down! Back to picking bananas...

49--because the Jones Day retards will insufferably bitch if we don't stroke their huge egos and tiny penises by including them in the list.

Their shameless whining for a non-news bonus story was the December 2008 equivalent of the "any news on layoffs at Cahill" posts. Except that the layoffs at Cahill are actually news.

22--what's with the constant milbank hate?

(just curious, no horse in the race.)

39 read I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell a few to many times

Since Jones Day has "private compensation" where no one knows what anyone else is making (i.e., no lock step progression), how is it possible to know whether they froze salaries or not?

54, for some reason you move from 49. Once again...

because the Jones Day retards will insufferably bitch if we don't stroke their huge egos and tiny penises by including them in the list.

Their shameless whining for a non-news bonus story was the December 2008 equivalent of the "any news on layoffs at Cahill" posts. Except that the layoffs at Cahill are actually news.

does 39 read like anonymous lawyer? I never read the blog/book in the first instance, but I am sure some of you have.

Paul Roth is still my hero! Schulte raised! ATL rapidly losing all cred...oh, it never had any? Never mind then.

Is using th word rump more professional than butt or ass?
Writing a memo to partners and would like the aliterarion effect of roughing tha rump, instead of scratching my butt or thumb up my ass.

Piggybacking on 51, Jones Day is not necessarily conducting "business as usual" The compensation system is confidential, but it is known that the traditional bonus was not given, instead, if the firm felt that a bonus was appropriate, it was included in an associate's next year's pay. There have been SOME that have documented no pay raise OR bonus. Even for those who got the pay raises, it is unclear if the raises were in excess of what a normal bonus would be. If not, you can't call the pay raise both a raise and a bonus. So really, it is unclear whether Jones Day is conducting "business as usual" with raises.

Hughes Hubbard didn't freeze, but they don't pay full market rate at the senior levels.

10 = EPICEST FAIL OF EVERY EPIC FAIL THAT EVER EPICALLY FAILED

23 = Latham Associate

I wonder how 39 how so much time to devote to that massive post when he has so many Fortune 100 clients demanding his attention.

I wonder how 39 has so much time to devote to that massive post when he has so many Fortune 100 clients demanding his attention.

6, 23, 29 -
This thread does not constitute "bragging" about salaries. It's sharing information among comparable employees. I can't begin to understand what's wrong with that. Indeed, free exchange of such information is fairly obviously a good thing.

Sympathy for those who have been laid off -- which I have a great deal of -- in no way supports hiding information about what firms are paying the rest. That's just stupid.

So, if you are offended by the salaries themselves, go get some help, or just go elsewhere. Just don't randomly attack people for discussing what the market pay is. There are too many other things much more worthy of indignation.

"We still don't think Biglaw firms giving out normal raises is news."

This line, more than any of Elie's typos or other stupid crap, goes to show how moronic and asinine the editors of this blog can be. Your readership wants to get paid as much as possible. When law firms start freezing salaries, the only way to get other firms not to follow suit is to show that plenty of firms are not freezing salaries. You do your readers a major disservice if you won't publicize those firms that don't freeze. You want site traffic??? Tell people what they want to hear!!!

So get off of your freaking high horse (raises are not "news?" you're a f**king gossip blog for chrissakes!) and start posting when firms decide not to freeze.

I still don't understand why Lat and Mystal can't be bothered to make this into an official post. I am seriously beginning to think they are being secretly paid by someone to keep the raises quiet.

Vinson Elkins? That's Vinson & Elkins to you, pal

So in a FFF (effing Freeze Firm ) the 1st year associates are making the same salary as 2nd years. How does that work going forward in say 2010? no salary distinction between 08 and 07 class? Or freeze class of 08 for the 2010 year? or lower the salary for incoming 09's? (my guess)

I can confirm 36's comment. Covington increases salaries in October, so you are a 1st-year associate for 1 year, not 1 year + 3 months like most firms.

So in a FFF (effing Freeze Firm ) the 1st year associates are making the same salary as 2nd years. How does that work going forward in say 2010? no salary distinction between 08 and 07 class? Or freeze class of 08 for the 2010 year? or lower the salary for incoming 09's? (my guess)

Why does 39 have so much time? Because he posted this exact same crap years ago here .

He did a whole series of posts, and had quite a little following for a time. It was rather amusing.

39 copied and pasted that off of the greedy texas board...its from a 2007 post by herman moore

More layoffs at Loeb.

Guess html doesn't work here. The original 39 post was here: http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/clubs-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0037et.

39 copied and pasted that off of the greedy texas board...its from a 2007 post by herman moore

65 is exactly correct. Are we sympathetic that people are losing their jobs (inside and outside the legal market)? Of course. And news of salary freezes may actually help, because those might be firms in trouble that are trying to reduce everyone's compensation before laying people off. And the firms that haven't frozen may be signalling that they're really healthy right now, because they don't rely too heavily on the most damaged parts of the economy.

We focus a lot on lay-offs, too. But, this is essentially a clearinghouse for firm hiring, firing and pay news. So we talk about it. And if you haven't figured that most of what Biglaw is is a p!ssing contest, then you really shouldn't be on this site.

On the Yankees message boards, people complain about not making the playoffs. Should they not be allowed?

Concur with 77. Listing the non-freezing firms is a helpful way for people to gain a better view of the whole landscape, rather than only focusing on the firms that freeze. The context is valuable, and in an arena where firms do their best to keep associates in the dark about the firms' actions that affect employees, it's critical that associates have an information clearing house to stay current on the market.

68, speaking of Vinson & Elkins, can you (or anyone else) tell me what is going on there? Last summer, it seemed like everyone was hyped up about the firm's planned expansion in NY and international markets, and that associates had been told that the firm was growing so fast that if quality associates from other firms were having trouble finding work, they should be encouraged to interview with V&E. Now I hear that many of the corporate attorneys have no work and have heard rumors about stealth layoffs and many litigation attorneys being asked to leave the firm. Thanks for any information that you can provide.

-Concerned 3L

39's wife sounds hot and really slutty. Any chance we could get some pictures?

My firm is still on the non-freeze list, but if they need to freeze so I keep my job, I'm fine with it. We're getting to a point now where people need to step back and realize that those of us who still have our jobs are a lot better off than some of our peers.

81:
You better take all the money you can get. See Latham "Just because we freeze your salary doesn't me we won't fire you" & Watkins

79,

As you might have heard, the legal market has changed considerably over the past 6 months. As far as I know, V&E still plans to grow NY and abroad, but those expansion plans have been put on hold. Though it is true corporate work is slow, I am unaware of any layoffs, although a few have been "asked" to give bankruptcy a try. And I don't know of any litigators being asked to leave, because they are the ones paying the bills at the moment.

@81 Your freeze-as-a-substitute-for-layoffs theory is bunk. If I have 100 associates and only enough work for 80, I'm not going to keep the other 20 around as long as my salary expense stays the same. If I don't need people, I don't need them at any price. I'm not going to pay people to sit around and do nothing. Not only that, but benefits and variable cost overhead won't change.

Listen to 82 and take what you can get as long as you can get it.

79- any particular thoughts about V&E in NY?

Can anyone confirm no freeze at Foley & Lardner?

I think some of the rumors about V&E layoffs may be related to internal practice group restructuring that went on in 2008. For example, most of the health care lawyers departed for King & Spalding. Most of the restructuring efforts occurred before the economy completely went down the tubes and seems to be the product of V&E focusing on "cash cow" practices and markets in planning its future expansion efforts. To some extent, it seems like the firm communicated to other practices (like labor and employment and health care) that they didn't fall into that category, that the firm was not focused on expanding those practice areas since their billing rates were too low, and to get lost if the attorneys in those practice areas didn't like it.

85, do you mean thoughts about V&E in NY as a place to work or how it is doing economically? I don't know the answer to the latter, but I would be hesitant to go to work for the branch office of a Texas firm that doesn't have much name recognition in NY (unless people remember the Enron debaucle) before having a chance to see whether their expansion efforts are going to work out, particularly when the economy is doing so poorly.

TEXAS FIRMS THAT USE DEFERRED COMPENSATION SCHEMES IN CONJUNCTION WITH MINIMUM HOUR REQUIREMENTS SHOULD NOT BE ON THIS LIST!!!

89- do all offices of those firms use deferred compensation, or only the ones in texas?

V&E IS DOING AWESOME. HERE'S WHY:

there was a great article the other day in amlaw about firm leverage. v&e's leverage is 2.93 (for perspective, wachtell's is 2.68, morgan lewis is 4.95, latham's is 4.3, williamsconnolly is 1.2). the firms that really "levered up" during good times to boost that ppp are screwed now -- just like the morons who levered up on debt to buy houses they couldn't afford.

ironically, consultants apparently told v&e to increase leverage last year, but they fortunately didn't have time to listen to those idiotic 27 yo MBA retards before the economy crashed. this is a perfect example of why high leverage isn't a great idea.

firms w/ low leverage are fine. they have lots of room to maneuver. think about it -- if you only have like 2.9 associates per partner, what are you gonna do -- go down to 1:1 leverage?? no.

Also, the article that has V&E leveraged at 2.93 is wrong. I read that article as well and couldn't figure out where that number came from. V&E is leveraged more like 1.3.

Also, if you look at their New York office I believe there are 33 partners, 4 Of Counsel, and 27 associates. Not a bad ratio by any means in this economy.

92 -- v&e leverage is probably more like 1.9. according to amlaw, 453 associates, 235 equity partners. v&e probably couldn't layoff if they wanted to! if anything, they might be hiring!

i wouldn't be surprised if v&e exploits the recession and starts poaching good partners/associates that are in disarray (and scooping the best ones up that got laid off).

where does Cooley fall? frozen or not?

93- from your mouth to God's ears
-incoming V&E summer

Also, as a V&E associate in NY I can say that I am still quite busy.

I fucked a ton of partners like 39 up the ass, they are usually the ones begging for my load of jizz up their asses.

I'm not sure why folks think low leverage is automatically good. First don't confuse the usage of the word "leverage" in the financial world (debt) with its usage in the legal world (associate to partner ratio). The most profitable firms have the highest leverage. More associates billing means more profits. That said, leverage only tells part of the story. A firm with a 4.0 leverage but with 1000 hours per lawyer will not be very profitable. The path to high profits is high leverage and high hours.

Thus, if a firm is not very busy, high leverage is a sign that the ax is going to fall. If a firm is busy with high leverage, it means the firm is doing well and has greater capacity to promote new partners. A firm (or office) with low leverage is probably not very profitable and is less likely to present opportunities for promotion to partnership. Thus, low leverage can also be a sign that the ax is going to fall.

The bottom line is you need to know more than just what the leverage is.

91: you, sir, are a dumb*ss. funny how you magically go from 2.9:1 ratio to 1:1, as if there's no middle ground between the two. a little elementary arithmetic might tell you that, for example, a firm with 29 associates and 10 partners (keeping the math simple for the arithmetically challenged such as yourself) would have to lay off 19 out of 29 associates (~65%) in order to get down to a 1:1 ratio. have any firms have laid off 65% of their associates? no.

98 -- obviously. My point was that leverage is a good proxy for which firms are most vulnerable, as the amlaw article said. And leverage in terms of associates is very much like debt leverage -- both represent a "fixed commitment" against your cash flows. But unlike w/ debt, you can "default" on your associate leverage by laying off.

By the way, V&E ppp is $1.2mm even with low leverage -- this ppp is higher than covington and hogan. so ppp of $1.2mm combined with low leverage combined with exposure to energy combined with roots in a relatively healthy economy (texas) = pretty damn good position to be in.

can anyone confirm whether Paul Hastings did in fact raise salaries as normal? I don't trust Elie.

Baker & McKenzie is missing from this list.

So, in other words, V&E was about to implement a bad strategy recommended by consultants, and was simply preempted by changes in the economy? I would feel extremely comforted by the other restructuring changes if that's the case!

Actually, V&E has no desire to increase their leverage. They have had around the same leverage for a very very long time.

Their goal before the collapse of the economy was to expand the New York office. Hence, why they moved some big named partners there such as the managing partner. This is certainly still the goal.

I appreciate the updates on salary freezes/bonuses. I am clerking right now and this is the only insight that I have into whether my firm will still exist in the fall. I mean, I could call and ask HR if they are going to rescind my offer, but that may not go over well. LOL!!

101: Paul Hastings confirmed raises in an article in the Fulton County Daily Report.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202427793216

105- I'm not really sure how updates about salary freezes and bonuses gives you "insight" into whether your firm will still exist in the fall. Cite: Cadwalader.

I AM A SALARY FREEZE. I AM VERY COLD. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

100, don't feel so comfortable with the Texas economy. The impact of declining energy prices has yet to be fully felt, and half of 08 enjoyed bubble prices.

Also, I don't think leverage is a particularly good proxy for which firms have been or will be impacted. What matters is the supply of available work for lawyers. That an avg. V&E ptnr need only produce $2m in work to avoid layoffs and a partner at Skadden might have to produce more work to avoid layoffs has nothing to do with whether one is more likely than the other to produce sufficient business to avoid layoffs. (Skadden partners might generate business much more easily, eg.) A better proxy is the type of clients serviced by the firm. I don't think the leverage point is at all persuastive. -- (not 98)

86 - Foley & Lardner holds back associates who don't make the minimum hours requirement. The firm may not be officially freezing, but chances are a lot of associates are not going to get a raise anyway.

Freezing? Hahahaha, this is an f'ing Indian Summer compared to what is coming your way the next 24 months. You will wish you were frozen while instead you are calling the temp service every day praying for a $55/hr project gig.

Baker Botts isn't freezing salaries, but took away the promise of deferred compensation and bonus.

It looks like you need to take Winston & Strawn off the list. They circulated memos today that they are freezing salaries too. It's really uncool that they waited until now, and didn't offer any hint that this would be coming as other firms were freezing. I get the feeling they knew for a while and just waited anyway.

Skadden to 190!

I believe this is an accurate list of the firms that have not frozen salaries as of today (10 Feb):

Baker Botts
Baker Hostetler
Boies Schiller
Bracewell Giuliani
Cadwalader
Cahill
Cleary
Clifford Chance
Covington
Cravath
Crowell & Moring
Davis Polk
Debevoise
Dechert
Dewey
Finnegan
Fitzpatrick Cella
Foley & Lardner
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
Fried Frank
Gibson Dunn
Greenberg Traurig
Holland & Knight
Hughes Hubbard
Irell & Manella
Jenner & Block
Jones Day
Kaye Scholer
Kenyon & Kenyon
King & Spalding
Kirkland
Kramer Levin
Linklaters
Milbank
Munger
O'Melveny
Paul Hastings
Paul Weiss
Proskauer Rose
Quinn Emanuel
Reed Smith
Ropes & Gray
Schulte
Shearman
Simpson Thacher
Skadden
Sullivan
Vinson & Elkins
Weil
White & Case
Williams & Connolly
Willkie Farr
WilmerHale

Lat/Ellie/Kashmir -- would you please update this thread?

I believe this is an accurate list of the firms that have not frozen salaries as of today (10 Feb):

Baker Botts
Baker Hostetler
Boies Schiller
Bracewell Giuliani
Cadwalader
Cahill
Cleary
Clifford Chance
Covington
Cravath
Crowell & Moring
Davis Polk
Debevoise
Dechert
Dewey
Finnegan
Fitzpatrick Cella
Foley & Lardner
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
Fried Frank
Gibson Dunn
Greenberg Traurig
Holland & Knight
Hughes Hubbard
Irell & Manella
Jenner & Block
Jones Day
Kaye Scholer
Kenyon & Kenyon
King & Spalding
Kirkland
Kramer Levin
Linklaters
Milbank
Munger
O'Melveny
Paul Hastings
Paul Weiss
Proskauer Rose
Quinn Emanuel
Reed Smith
Ropes & Gray
Schulte
Shearman
Simpson Thacher
Skadden
Sullivan
Vinson & Elkins
Weil
White & Case
Williams & Connolly
Willkie Farr
WilmerHale

Lat/Ellie/Kashmir -- would you please update this thread?

Wachtell is fine, obviously, and I've never been happier about my choice of firm.

Kaye Scholer = underrated.

Anyone know anything about Brinks Hofer in Chicago?

Holland & Knight does not need to freeze - they are only at market in Chicago for first years - at year three they slip to 175k vs 185k in Chicago

Winston froze salaries... so that is inaccurate.

Drinker Biddle & Reath did not freeze

Does anyone know if Blank Rome or Duane Morris should be on this list?

Holland and Knight did freeze salaries.