Law firm says staff can work from home - for 20% less pay
Discussion
Law firm says staff can work from home - for 20% less pay
An interesting tactic. Solicitors seem to be in demand - this can't help with staff retention!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61298394
An interesting tactic. Solicitors seem to be in demand - this can't help with staff retention!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61298394
I think it’s permanent WFH with a 20% reduction. In other words it’s the stick to get them back to hybrid working.
The problem with law firms (there are many - I remember my days in private practice all too clearly) is that team working is a bit of an alien concept vs the norm in other businesses.
And given the challenges around recruitment, I suspect they have just signalled that anyone who won’t come back to the office at all is now feee to find a new employer.
All the firms I instruct are back to hybrid working. Though interestingly I noticed no difference in output when everyone was permanently WFH.
The problem with law firms (there are many - I remember my days in private practice all too clearly) is that team working is a bit of an alien concept vs the norm in other businesses.
And given the challenges around recruitment, I suspect they have just signalled that anyone who won’t come back to the office at all is now feee to find a new employer.
All the firms I instruct are back to hybrid working. Though interestingly I noticed no difference in output when everyone was permanently WFH.
If people on that kind of salary we’re offered WFH at a 20% gross reduction (so about 12% net)
I reckon 95% would take it.
On a £100,000 a year you’d take home £5500
On £80,000 it’d be £4600.
So £900 a month less.
No train fares, no Costa, no lunch, no suits, less stress, more time at home.
It’s a no brainier.
I reckon 95% would take it.
On a £100,000 a year you’d take home £5500
On £80,000 it’d be £4600.
So £900 a month less.
No train fares, no Costa, no lunch, no suits, less stress, more time at home.
It’s a no brainier.
Edited by Thankyou4calling on Monday 2nd May 21:29
ZedLeg said:
I’d be curious to see how they justify why people should take a 20% pay cut to do the same job.
I think it's to reflect the savings in commuting costs and the lower cost of living outside of London. AIUI this is for NQ solicitors on £90k/£72k starting salaries. Like everything else the free market will decide whether it's a good or bad idea. With those kinds of starting salaries they will still get loads of decent applicants.
Countdown said:
ZedLeg said:
I’d be curious to see how they justify why people should take a 20% pay cut to do the same job.
I think it's to reflect the savings in commuting costs and the lower cost of living outside of London. AIUI this is for NQ solicitors on £90k/£72k starting salaries. Like everything else the free market will decide whether it's a good or bad idea. With those kinds of starting salaries they will still get loads of decent applicants.
ZedLeg said:
Yeah I figure that’s the reason they give but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny imo. I’d be pissed if my work offered this choice to me.
(Assuming you are mainly or 100% WFH) Then you joined the company to work in the office HQ regional etc but in the office. Those terms have not changed if you are electing to WFH as you can do it in shorts zero commuting cost & when the time permits have the F1 practice on in the background or music or radio etc.
{note I do the same / though not the TV don’t think I’ve had that on at all when working from home}.
As for £960 a month net - well if I was in the office 5 days a week I’d be spending (given fuel price rises) at least £500 on petrol a month. I’d rate see the kids in the week - kids would have to give up some clubs in the week too as I’d not be able to take them.
2 suits min a year one pair of shoes 5-10 new work shirts every year. Wear and tear on car too tyres higher depreciation + the buying s
t not needed when on commute or when popping out for a stroll. Yeah, but unless specifically broken down in a contract your salary is for services rendered. It’s not a stipend to cover work related expenses.
Like I say, I’ve worked from home for the last two years and I was still pissed that my raise this year wasn’t as good as I’d expected. If they’d tried to cut it I would have had some pretty strong words for them at my review
.
Like I say, I’ve worked from home for the last two years and I was still pissed that my raise this year wasn’t as good as I’d expected. If they’d tried to cut it I would have had some pretty strong words for them at my review
.Countdown said:
ZedLeg said:
I’d be curious to see how they justify why people should take a 20% pay cut to do the same job.
I think it's to reflect the savings in commuting costs and the lower cost of living outside of London. AIUI this is for NQ solicitors on £90k/£72k starting salaries. Like everything else the free market will decide whether it's a good or bad idea. With those kinds of starting salaries they will still get loads of decent applicants.
ZedLeg said:
Yeah, but unless specifically broken down in a contract your salary is for services rendered. It’s not a stipend to cover work related expenses.
Like I say, I’ve worked from home for the last two years and I was still pissed that my raise this year wasn’t as good as I’d expected. If they’d tried to cut it I would have had some pretty strong words for them at my review.
Car allowance Like I say, I’ve worked from home for the last two years and I was still pissed that my raise this year wasn’t as good as I’d expected. If they’d tried to cut it I would have had some pretty strong words for them at my review
.But “your normal place of work is x” is most certainly contained in your contract.
We specifically didn’t change anyones contract to state hybrid or home working instead mgrs discretion (after govt rules expired) and this is an ever evolving thing.
Example - a few weeks ago meeting held at a site total on the 4 hour meeting 14. Of which 3 zoomed in the rest of us were in the room. This particular meeting absolutely didn’t suit a zoom/team meeting. In fact as more and more go to the office those who don’t are missing out.
The networking side too when others are in starts to take effect.
Food certainly for thought.
Note personally I’ve been into our offices in 2022 probably 5 or 6 days in total. Last year it was 5 days in total.
Pre covid most of the month / usually 5 days a month WFH
Car allowance is something that is specifically stated in contracts. Same for if they said the salary is £72k but we’ll pay an extra 20% if you’re based in our London office. Assuming that neither of these things are the case, it just looks like the company are just looking to gain a little free bump to their bottom line.
dibbers006 said:
gazapc said:
As per the photo on the BBC article, who the hell after 2 years is working from their sofa with a laptop sat on a cushion?
Yeaah... huh huh. Weirdos.Who would live like that.
<pushes spent After Eights under Tv tray>
El stovey said:
ZedLeg said:
I’d be curious to see how they justify why people should take a 20% pay cut to do the same job.
Possibly because their catchment area for employees has now just grown to include all the people who previously weren’t willing to commute to a London (or wherever) firm. London firm now paying 20% less on the London scale but now has the entire U.K. as a talent pool and someone working in, say, Wales or Grimsby (other wage depressed areas are available) could see this as a great opportunity.
Pushing it further, do you even need to be in-country?
ZedLeg said:
dibbers006 said:
gazapc said:
As per the photo on the BBC article, who the hell after 2 years is working from their sofa with a laptop sat on a cushion?
Yeaah... huh huh. Weirdos.Who would live like that.
<pushes spent After Eights under Tv tray>
gazapc said:
As per the photo on the BBC article, who the hell after 2 years is working from their sofa with a laptop sat on a cushion? I guess a photo of somebody sat at a desk doesn't quite fit the narrative some people want to push of what home working looks like.
You answered your own question. BBC article. They’re a shameful organisation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff