Read 18 comments as:
Filter By
How much of a pay cut would you be fine with if that allowed you to WFH 100% or as much as you liked? Personally, I would be fine to get 15-20% less paid.
Whereas grouchy has-beens would have a stroke thinking about why they couldn't avail of such facilities.
The firm literally saves on paying rent, electricity, internet, office supplies, etc, to a huge extent. Unlike consultancy and IT companies, law firms don't pay anything whatsover to make work from home more convenient. People calling kids entitled for asking equal pay for same work, especially when they are saving money for companies, is just ridiculous.
Well that's because those kids are, as you say, ENTITLED to it.

Why do we fetishise slaving away for corporate overlords so much that asking for the rightful share seems entitled?
I am entitled to extra pay. Due to WFH I'm spending more of my own money on electricity, internet, WFH accessories and desk set up. Good companies had the sense to give allowances for WFH to help employees set up and maintain a home office. My firm has provided me with zilch except crappy laptop despite them saving on office rent moratoriums and lowered utility bills.

You can argue I'm saving on commute cost but my 1st class local train pass was INR 670/month. Meanwhile electricity bill alone has gone up 2k because I'm home 24 hours.

Talk of WFH paycut is absolutely ridiculous and exploitative.
Uncle the point was: paycut to WFH is ridiculous because firm is saving moolah by giving up on office space, not lawyers.
So long as my billing hours are same/more, why on earth should there be any pay cut? If anything, by working from home, I'm saving the firm overhead costs and incurring part of such costs myself, so it should be incentivised.
May be I should rephrase the question. How much premium over your normal salary would you need to give up WFH and come to office? For me it would have to be atleast 15-20% given I’m much happier WFH.
It is very interesting how a different framing of the question changes our perception drastically, isn't it? Maybe it has to do with loss aversion?
Average pre-COVID office space rent in Lower Parel is about INR 200/sqft. Average cubicle is about 50sq ft. That's INR10,000 per month or 1.2lpa.

If you add other overheads (utilities, pantry, non-billable cabs, yada yada), Bombay firms can save 2lpa per fee earner if they switch to WFH.

Why the hell should associates get a paycut rather than a raise for switching to WFH?
Instead of reduced salaries, firms should be offering reduced targets for WFH retainers. As cost of rent, electricity, etc. is considered in calculating CTC (and in turn, targets), WFH retainers would have lower CTC.

Only reason to consider a pay-cut is to accompany a work-cut.
If cost of rent, electricity, etc. was considered for calculating CTC, Bombay peeps should have been paid more than Delhi but don't know a firm that does that. So re work your argument please.
I have a feeling that firms will tell lawyers that its take it or leave it! New recruits won't have much of an option.Firms are ruthless and they only mean business.
Yup, and then they'll cry about attrition and how 'smaller set-ups' are undercutting their exploitative business model.