Norton Rose moots four-day week to save jobs
Norton Rose moots four-day week to save jobs" />Norton Rose is to offer staff a four-day working week as part of a year-long contingency plan to cope with the economic downturn.
The firm will ask eligible staff to agree to work part-time on 85 per cent of base salary for a year, or take a sabbatical of four to 12 weeks on 30 per cent of base salary.
The scheme will not be adopted unless the majority of employees agree to take part, the firm said in a statement.
The firm is currently holding a consultation with staff about whether to
take up the initiative on 1 May and would retain the option not to use it if
market conditions improved.
Nearly all employees would be asked to reduce their hours, although it has not yet been decided whether trainees will be included.
Any salary cuts are being capped at a maximum of 80 per cent of base salary.
Norton Rose chief executive Peter Martyr (pictured) said: "In the current economic climate we believe it's prudent to take pre-emptive action to protect our business and our staff in case things get worse next year.
"We see an advantage in maintaining our reputation as good employers and we hope to be able to maintain the strength of the practice so that we can take immediate advantage of the upturn when it arrives."
The firm is proposing a similar scheme in offices outside of London.
National firm Mills & Reeve has also announced a part-time working plan to prevent redundancies (9 February).
Staff in the corporate and private client group organised an initiative that saw six staff accept reductions in their working hours so that no one would need to be made redundant.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (27)
Norton Rose supporter | 13-Mar-2009 3:13 pm
Great place to work
Norton Rose has done it again - as a former employee I know that the firm is a good employer which cares for its people. The plan to protect staff as far as possible from the impact of the current situation is just what I would expect the firm to do. Who cares if it the plan mirrors that of KPMG - better to mirror KPMG than some of the so called magic circle - no longer magic if you happen to work for one of them and be on the list for redundancy!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dilbert | 13-Mar-2009 4:21 pm
Prediction
Judging from the experiences of other 4-day week'ers: - everyone will of course ask for Friday/Mondays off; - NR will then announce they can't accommodate that, and as it's not fair to give some people Friday/Mondays off consistently, everyone will get a different day off every week; - this will make it much harder for those affected to do anything constructive (e.g. other part-time job or volunteering) with their day off; - depending on how NR play it, fee-earners may still be expected to pick up emails/join concalls on their day off; - this in turn will cause a huge amount of resentment since this is actually worse than have to work while you're meant to be on holiday, as at least you're still getting paid while you're on holiday...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-Mar-2009 5:15 pm
Old hand
As a former employee of Norton Rose who left in the early 1980s, in earlier recessions there were culls of middle and senior partners who were clearly being carried. The Firm recognised the commercial advantages in having a private client or trust department which was not effected by the economic situation which brought in good revenue in good times and bad
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
A current NR employee | 14-Mar-2009 1:25 am
Good idea
Just to clarify slightly (from an insider's view) - it has been made very clear that this is only a contingency plan, which means from 1 May 2009, if things continue to be slow (very likely), people will then be asked to work 4 days or go on long breaks, but not before at least 70 to 80% of the staff would sign up and agree to it. I mean honestly, in this current state of affairs, how can anyone complain about this? I just think we're all a bit spoilt - just ask our parents or grandparents and they would have plenty of stories to tell about how they were royally shafted then their employers went through recession. FYI I'm a current employee with NR and I'm not a partner or HR trying to defend the "brand" - I just wish the cynics out there will think a bit harder before they start knocking us or comparing us with other "magic" firms who cut people just to shamelessly keep the PEP.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Mar-2009 11:28 am
Appreciate, not commiserate
I am an employee of the great firm that is Norton Rose, and after seeing what is happening at other firms and businesses globally, I think the level of scepticism and suspicion of NR’s intentions is shameful. Here is a great firm, who true to form, are putting their employees first. They are not finding a way to make you work the same hours for less money, or expect you to take con calls on your day off. The work is simply not there and you’d have to have been on an expedition to the North Pole over the last two years to not understand that. At least the firm has flexibility and are positioning themselves strategically for the up-turn. I understand there are concerns, but surely the alternative cannot be regarded as a better option. All my support and appreciation to the NR way.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
AKA Bernie Madhoff | 15-Mar-2009 3:22 pm
Bright side of life
Workloads will decrease depending on what areas the company has invested. Ie Banking and Real Estate is taking a downturn, aswell as with Corporate (Mergers and Aquisitions).
Decreased workload = Decreased Profit.
NR is just looking at the balance sheets and keeping talent, there will be a brighter outlook in 8 months time , all depends on the turnaround of the banking sector.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Mar-2009 8:18 am
Contrast with Simmons
This looks to be a positive approach balancing the interests of profits and employees. I say well done to NR for taking an imaginative lead. Contrast with Simmons & Simmons as a similar firm. This firm has axed many employees and is reverting to type as one of the more unpleasant city firms. I know which firm I would rather work for once the upturn arrives.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment