McGrigors cries off from maternity shift
Share
McGrigors has scrapped proposed changes to its maternity leave package following an outcry from staff.
After an extended consultation period the firm has decided to keep its existing maternity leave offering while proposed changes to sick pay will go through, but not as initially planned.
Management at the firm sent a memo to staff last month (The Lawyer, 15 September) announcing a 10-day consultation after drawing up revised maternity leave and sick pay offerings, but following a chorus of protest extended that period. Staff were informed of the outcome last week.
“The result of the consultation was pretty clear - people felt strongly,” said a spokesperson for the firm.
The ditched proposals included paying bonuses to mothers who return to work and reducing pay for women who take a second maternity leave within 18 months.
Under the existing policy staff who have been at the firm for up to two years get six weeks’ pay while on maternity leave; those who have been there between two and five years get 12 weeks’ pay; and those who have been at the firm for more than five years receive 18 weeks’ pay.
Readers' comments (4)
Anonymous | 21-Nov-2011 2:08 pm
I am now sick with worry that as a consequence of not being being able to implement these unilateral changes the equity partners may now struggle witht the upkeep of second holiday homes, the payment of private school fees etc.
Surely it is not beyond the wit of the profession to organise a "An equity partners in need" type event to enable the profession to assist them at this difficult time.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Nov-2011 2:25 pm
that's why you won't ever be an equity partner anywhere, chip on the shoulder and lots of attitude, not normally attributes possessed by successul ambitious types
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bertram | 23-Nov-2011 1:59 pm
'Successul' ambitious types usually know how to spell.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24-Nov-2011 12:34 pm
1-0 to Bertram there, methinks.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment