Findings follow Stephenson Harwood’s announcement last week that it will reduce salaries by 20% if staff choose to work from home full-time
The overwhelming majority of our readers say they would reject permanent home-working if it meant a reduction in salary.
Of the 3,100 respondents to our LinkedIn poll, a whopping 88% said they wouldn’t be prepared to accept the salary sacrifice, even if it meant no more costly London living and early morning commute.
The findings follow the news last week that staff at City law firm Stephenson Harwood will be allowed to work from home full time, but only if they agree to take a pay cut of 20%. For newly qualified associates at the firm, who have starting salaries of £90,000, this would equate to a cut of £18,000.
Due to come into effect this month, the new agile option made national headlines and generated a lively debate within our comments section.
“Good”, one reader wrote. “More firms, especially London-based firms should be doing the same”. Another, meanwhile, explained how they would be prepared to take up the offer, if the cut was closer to 10% and they had “no intention of making partner”.
Others were less welcoming of the policy. “Are they charging their clients 20% less for their time, or requiring them to do 20% less hours?” one LC reader questioned. “Pretty poor considering how much more work some of us end up with at home to add a pay cut on top,” another added.
But the question remains: will other big legal players follow?
Would you take a pay cut to WFH permanently? Let us know in the comments 👇
