Report this comment to a moderator

Slaughter and May to cut 28 secretarial jobs

I don't have a problem with a firm deciding that it is overstaffed in a particular function and then eliminating jobs to correct that. However, given that there is no economic necessity for the roles to be culled IMMEDIATELY - we're not talking about a firm that will go to the wall unless it cuts costs - I would have thought it made much more sense for them to be eliminated through natural wastage (i.e. non-replacement of people who leave of their own volition or reach retirement age) or through a programme of voluntary redundancy. Of course it would have cost more this way, but not a VAST amount more - and in any case, profit is NOT the only legitimate objective a business can pursue. As the firm itself says: "The atmosphere here is friendly and supportive - everyone's contribution is valued and we believe strongly in the importance of personal respect." I would argue that those values would have been better upheld with a less precipitate approach to downsizing the secretarial team - and what's more, the firm could have generated positive coverage from the story instead of a piece to which the response seems to have been largely negative.

15-Oct-2012

1:31 pm