Decisions like this reduce demand for office space in London. If new employers do not soon move into the spaces vacated, and employ more people, then London rents will fall until they do. And if Freshfields' clients are prepared to keep paying high rates, Freshfields will continue to charge them, and if clients are not, then either they won't, or they will lose clients. That is how market forces work, anon at 4.15pm, and there's nothing wrong with it. David Crawford's concern for his staff is admirable, but redundancy has been a fact of life at least since the agricultural revolution. Everyone knows that it's a Faustian pact with these mega-firms; that is why they pay well.
I think they may even have moved on a lot since I retired, Anon 6.44.
So what happens to the 45 year old who lives in Brighton, has a £250,000 mortgage, a wife and two children aged 15 and 10? (Who is going to take him on? American Express and J P Morgan will also be busily trying to ship its galley slaves up to Salford Quays as well, you know). Home repossessed, wife and kids leave him, he sells ice cream on the pier, or what's left of it?
I was forever cutting costs, but always so as not to have to make any of my employees redundant. And I never did. They, after all, were my most important asset.
And I never made anything like the profits of the senior partners in Freshfields.
But, you never know, they could end up in Fallowfields. What an irony?
And as for redundancy payments? They might just pay the next few months' mortgage repayments if my 45 year old is lucky.
And BTW half of the point of the move to Manchester is so that some employees just refuse to go so no redundancy arises. QED!
@David Crawford - things have moved on a lot since you qualified. Let's have some reality:
1. Although your hypothetical resident in Brighton is made redundant, there is one in Manchester employed. There is no loss / gain.
2. There are redundancy laws in this country. Freshfields need to make the case here. There will be payouts - and if the person is good, they'll find another job.
3. Organisations such as American Express and JP Morgan have operations in Brighton. This is not new to the world - it should be embraced.
4. Clients ultimately pay for all these. If it were your business, I'm sure you'd cut some costs. It's a competitive place - if clients outsource / north-shore etc., why shouldn't their advisers?
Manchester will be delighted to welcome and then contribute to the lives of the lawyers/para-legals from Freshfields. It is a vibrant, go-ahead city with great cultural, sporting and transport links, close enough to beautiful countryside to be able to live in it and with great schools, state and private. You should visit and see it for yourselves before you mock either the decision or the City.
Wonderful, selfless individuals. Stuck for hours on crowded commuter trains, mortgaged to the hilt to find somewhere to live, crippled by their children's school fees - yet have the kindness and decency to arrange jobs for the lowest of their colleagues in The Beautiful North. Restores my faith in the profession
I did a costings exercise for a large firm a year or two ago. Turns out that with a 20 partner firm (130 employees total), it's cheaper to rent a beautiful office with enough meeting room space for the partners in Belgravia, move the entire workforce to Southern India (or any one of a number of beautiful island nations), rent office space there, and fly the partners backwards and forwards as their schedules demand, even when factoring in fees not earned whilst in flight (despite that fees could be earned in flight)... than it is to keep all 125 staff in their Central London office.
A back of envelope calculation suggests that firms that have a few large satellite offices could benefit from doing the same thing (satellite meeting space, outsourced workforce).
Food for thought? The more I look at it the more disgusted I am by modern economics and the increasing tendancy of large firms to behave like MBA-led US PLCs...
Interesting and thoughtful post, Anon 10.29. I think this raises two issues. First, I lived and worked in a small, 14,000, market town. I saw most of my employees at the week-end shopping, in the pub, playing sport and so on. I went skiing every year with the husband of one of my secretaries.I could no more have made one of them redundant than, well, ski competently. They all knew my children, one babysat (is that really a verb?) them for a number of years. Freshfields do not seem troubled by such issues. Why should they be? Their partners will never see their now 'redundant' employees again.
Secondly, my guess is that the majority of Freshfields' clients are large corporations, local authorities, NHS trusts and the like. They all have one feature in common. Those actually instructing them do not earn the money they are spending on them. Almost all of my clients were spending their own, hard earned money. There is a massive difference between the two types of client.
Finally, yes I know I said two, who is going to take up the files part finished by the 'redundant'? I assume it will be the employees who are not made redundant so instead of 60 hours a week they can look forward to 70-80.
May I recommend John Grisham's "Grey Mountain"? It should be compulsory reading for al lawyers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report comment