McGrigors moots cuts in maternity and sick benefits
Share
A storm is brewing at McGrigors over proposed changes to the firm’s maternity leave package.
A storm is brewing at McGrigors over proposed changes to the firm’s maternity leave package.
In a firm-wide memo sent Tuesday 13 September, McGrigors announced that it was launching a consultation to change its maternity leave offering. The proposed changes include paying bonuses to mothers who return to work and reducing pay for women who take a second maternity within 18 months of the last one.
The firm is also looking at changing its sick-pay policy, where those with long-term, persistent illnesses will lose out.
The consultation will close on 23 September, after firm-wide presentations and the option for staff to submit feedback anonymously. The firm aims to introduce the changes on 1 October, the start of the firm’s financial year.
The final decision will be made by the firm’s board, which comprises 10 men and two women.
At present, staff who have been at the firm up to two years past probation get six weeks full pay while on maternity leave; those who have been there between two and five years get 12 weeks full pay; those who have been with the firm more than five years get 18 weeks full pay.
Under the proposed new regime, staff who have been at the firm up to two years after probation will get three weeks full pay and six weeks half pay during maternity, plus a bonus of six weeks full pay if they come back to work. The bonus will be paid in two instalments: one when they first come back, and one after six months work.
Similarly anyone who has been at the firm more than two years will get six weeks full pay and six weeks half pay during maternity, and 12 weeks full pay when they return to work, again paid in two instalments.
Most controversially, however, the firm is considering instituting a rule that states women who go on take a second maternity leave less than 18 months after the previous one, will receive only the statutory minimum.
“I am not entirely clear how paying someone money six to nine months after they need it could be viewed as ‘family friendly’, said one source close to the firm.
“More alarmingly the maternity offering does not apply to any employee who goes on maternity leave within 18 months of having returned from maternity leave. Given in my experience families tend to have children that are relatively close in age it’s clear this is intended to ensure that the firm only ever has to pay out for maternity leave once per employee.”
In a statement, a spokesperson from McGrigors said: “We’re in discussions with staff about proposed changes to existing HR policies. Many changes are to simplify existing policies, but we’re suggesting more substantive changes to maternity leave and sick pay policies.
“We value our female staff and are proposing to structure our maternity pay to incentivise them to stay in the business…The vast majority of our people would not be worse off under the proposed changes – in fact, in many instances they would be significantly better off. However, we’re running a consultation to ensure everyone understands what is being proposed. We stress that this is a genuine consultation, we have built in extensive scope for feedback and will listen to the views and ideas of staff.”
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (28)
Jo Martin - @joemplawyer on Twitter | 15-Sep-2011 5:38 pm
This raises plenty of potential discrimination questions, not least disability discrimination for those with long-term sicknesses that qualify for discrimination protection.
It also brings to mind possible indirect age discrimination, given the proven greater difficulty for older women to conceive, thus the likelihood that women who have taken time to qualify as lawyers might wish to have their families in quick succession - but will suffer a penalty for doing so under this plan. The older you are, the more likely you will feel you have to "go again" quickly if you would like more than one child, and this will be the group who are most penalised over time.
I wonder if second instances of paternity leave within 18 months have been similarly mooted for reduction in pay? (Perhaps paternity pay at McGrigors is only statutory anyway.)
It is already hard for female lawyers to reach their potential whilst also having a family at the right biological time, so much so that many feel they need to "get it done" in a hurry so they can focus on their career again/partnership aspirations afterwards, but this policy makes that a very difficult option.
This will surely lead to even more women leaving the profession after one child, many before achieving partnership, meaning the make-up of equity partner boards is unlikely to reflect the profession for years more to come. It is hard to understand McGrigors' statement that they believe this will incentivise female staff.
A genuine commitment to supporting the full arc of a female lawyer's career by making family life a real possibility is not consistent with this policy, in my opinion.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Esther Rantin' | 15-Sep-2011 5:54 pm
On the face of it this is another example of lawyers showing scant regard for the employment laws/policies they advise clients to observe. The policy change clearly disincentivises women from having children - the supposed "bonus" is received well after the period during women would presumably need it most, so from a financial perspective the incentive is more NOT to have a child (or 2nd child) than it was before the change.
It also looks to be rushing women back into work - hardly commensurate with supporting the family. Doubtless there will also be an additional catch in relation to women coming back with much-reduced family-friendly hours, where they feel they want to spend time at home (or simply have to because they can't afford child-care costs).
Given the large proportion of women who now make up the profession this proposed change of policy will hardly to make McGrigors a female-friendly or family-friendly firm to work for.
McGrigors have had a good year and don't need to be resorting to this sort of stuff. A PR disaster for any firm surely.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Sep-2011 6:42 pm
Obviously going for the 'there's no such thing as bad publicity' approach to spreading the firm's good name.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Sep-2011 8:39 pm
DISGUSTING. Playing God. There are also issues around those who, for religious or health reasons, practice natural family planning.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Sep-2011 9:21 am
The scary question is, who is advising them on this? Aside from the obvious discrimination issues and the Malthusian dystopia element, the publicity is going to be dire!
As an employment lawyer myself, if anyone working for me took the decision to advise our clients that this was a preferred course of action to slightly reduce overheads, there would be serious questions asked.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Clergham | 16-Sep-2011 9:48 am
What is wrong with youse/!? Law firms aren't charities for the advancement of toxic overpopulation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Sep-2011 9:50 am
1. @ Jo Martin: McGs don't seem to put too much empasis on age discrimination (see http://www.mcgrigors.com/careers/) - "It is against our policies and against the law to discriminate either directly or indirectly on the grounds of race, colour, religion or belief or political opinion, disability, nationality, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, sex or marital status at any stage of the recruitment process, or during the course of employment."
2. Salaries at McGs have been frozen for years and the review is in a month or two. Is this the board looking to shave some costs because it know it cannot get away with another freeze.
3. "We stress that this is a genuine consultation, we have built in extensive scope for feedback and will listen to the views and ideas of staff" - what feedback are they hoping for? It is staggering (but true to form) that the board hopes that the illusion of transparency will in some way temper the (obvious) negative reaction or make the decision (I mean consultation) any less odious.
4. Nobody can blame a business from wanting to link "enhanced" (i.e. market) maternity benefits with retention, but how does encouraging your staff from delaying having a second child help retain people in the long term?
5. This not only strays into the realm of indirect age discrimination, but also financially encourages (or forces) women to delay having a second child. The risks of downs syndrome etc etc are well documented and dramatically increase with each year waited (see http://downsyndrome.about.com/od/diagnosingdownsyndrome/a/Matagechart.htm). Career focussed women may already have waited well into their 30s before having children.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Disappointed | 16-Sep-2011 10:14 am
Is anyone really surprised by this? Has anyone worked out the ratio of men to women in the partnership?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Sep-2011 10:39 am
what about us poor men? I fancy 9 months off to lie on a beach, how much do I get for that? Last time I checked people make a decision to have kids, it's not inflicted upon anyone
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Sep-2011 10:59 am
Presumably no one sat back for a moment and thought about how this would play out in the market and took some sensible PR advice before coming out with this sort of harebrained scheme. One can only hope that a forthright response to the consultation process enables the management to claim to have taken feedback and disown, enabling it to quietly row back from what is a bonkers suggestion.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment