Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas has internally announced that the firm “hoped” that staff would “start coming back to work gradually, in a staggered manner” from 19 October.
The email sent to CAM staffers from its “crisis management team” last month (see below) had stated:
From 19th October onwards, it is hoped that people, especially those staying nearby and using their own vehicle, would start coming back to work gradually, in a staggered manner. This is necessary to start our journey towards some form of normalcy.
We have reached out for comment to managing partner Cyril Shroff, who explained: “It’s entirely voluntary. And it’s for each team to decide what to do.”
When asked what would happen if the head of a team decided to force staff to return to the office against their wishes, Shroff reiterated that it was “entirely voluntary”, adding that “nobody will be forced” to return to the office.
“The firm is also evolving a long term WFH [work from home] policy aligned with the future of work and the needs of the post-Covid world,” he added.
Internal email send to CAM staff
Meanwhile, the Work From Home policy is being extended till 18th October 2020. From 19th October onwards, it is hoped that people, especially those staying nearby and using their own vehicle, would start coming back to work gradually, in a staggered manner. This is necessary to start our journey towards some form of normalcy.
We will send out further updates as the situation evolves.
Please take care of your health and stay safe!
Regards,
Crisis Management Team
Other firms that had attempted to return to ‘normalcy’ had faced internal resistance from staff.
Last month, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan had announced a roll-back of its order for staff to return to the city where their offices are based from their hometowns (where many had chosen to shelter from the pandemic).
Khaitan & Co had announced in July that WFH would be the default until the end of 2020.
Comments
People stayed at home to avoid getting a deadly, infectious disease, and to avoid spreading it to others. They worked just as hard from wherever they were, and so should be rewarded based on billing and recovery, not based on how long they were willing to spend in front of their boss' cabin. The point is not who chose to came to office, the point is why there is any inherent value in working from office over working from elsewhere. Last I checked, law firms don't bill by the office hour, just by the hour worked.
And by your own logic, if it's all about "showing more than normal commitment (read lack of life outside office)" then why the exceptions for children or not having owned cars. Surely if i was truly committed to the office, I would get childcare, or buy a car no? Law firms pay enough for this, so if I haven't, that means i'm prioritizing spending on other things, which shows a lack of commitment. Quite apart from the fact that all studies on quality performance demonstrate that interests outside of work improve (rather than reduce) performance.
Only people who bring absolutely no value to their work except their constant presence and ability to suck up would make a statement link this.
Don't quote me or your studies or use your logic of buying childcare or car or your slow clap or whatever else you are doing/ quoting/ forcing on me. You are free to do whatever you want. I just talk about me (and anyone else who consciously came to office to work). Do I ask for the WFH policy to be withdrawn? No, I have some very close friends and colleagues in office who need the WFH to stay and hence I am in 100% support of WFH (I do have a life in office, and I am not ashamed of it).
If I am asking for an incentive for my conscious choice to support my firm in my way, what's wrong with that? I am not asking it to be paid out of your (empty) pocket.
Is this code for office romance or file cabinet mein daaru?
Law firms (ostensibly) reward performance, in terms of billing, recovery, bringing in clients, etc. Why should they reward you more just for coming to work? Why does it support the firm in any manner that you show up in office, instead of billing and recovering from home?
The assumption you make is that you work better from office than others do from home. If that's true, you will anyway be rewarded for showing up to office as that will lead to increased billing, recovery, etc. If that is false, then there is no reason for you to get an "incentive" for showing up to office.
In short, your entire rant suggests that people are making a choice to not come to office, and just because you're choosing to come to office, you should be rewarded. You need to establish an inherent rewardable value in that choice, which there isn't.
Couple of other points: If the firm didn't have a WFH policy, it would have made no money for the total lockdown months of the year. I know that would have hurt you retainers, but understand that for every rupee you're paid, your boss earns 2. So your boss is hurt more.
Also, if you admit that you're coming to office because you have a life in office, then the firm is doing you a favour by re-opening. Maybe they should give you less bonus, instead of an incentive.
Why should they not deduct for not coming? Because its COVID, its unprecedented. Hence the ask. Why does it looks anything extra? Ask your bosses/ firms management, and maybe they can make you understand.
If you are a managing partner/ equity partner/ chairman/ etc. and declining the ask, fair enough. If not, then let the management consider. Mind you, I dont want anything out of your/ anyone else's cut.
We can see who is ranting. There is value, just like there is value of WFH. Dont get into how or what. You dont see the value, I understand.
No, the lockdown was until June. Firms could have called people back from July. WFH was a choice of the firms (a good one at that, I understand).
Same logic as before - there is no favour of letting you stay back home under WFH either.
Yes, total lockdown was till June in some states (not all).That 3.25 months of revenue. For a Firm like CAM, that's 100 crores or more, half of it being pure profit
There's no inherent value in choosing to WFH (except the lives you save by not infecting people or acting as a carrier). There is no inherent value to the firm from what location you work from, office or elsewhere. There is value in having a WFH policy, like there is one in having an office, but your ask was for a reward for coming to office, not for having a policy.
Fundamentally, with finite resources, when you're asking for additional money for showing up to office, you are asking for that from someone else's share. That money would have gone elsewhere if not given to you for the "showing up in office unnecessarily during pandemic" incentive
My firm management has declared default WFH till the end of the year. They aren't rewarding people for being reckless and showing up to office, so I don't think they can make me understand. So i guess I'm lucky I don't work at CAM, and you're lucky you do.
Here goes:
Because WFH is an exception. Bosses want you to come back as soon as COVID is over. I am back already, without waiting for the diktat.
Don’t care about the numbers. I think you got my point – post lockdown, it was not Govt. mandated.
I have answered this one, you are twisting / squeezing it again. Once again - managements want the attorneys to come back and work. COVID has resulted in the WFH becoming the norm. But management is still making effort to bring everyone back, but without making it sound mandatory. I am already back without having to drag me down by a mandatory notice. Period.
What BS argument is this? Firm does not have money! Not my firm.
Kudos to your firm and congratulations to you. For the record, I don’t work at CAM.
I sincerely suggest you sell all your worldly belongings, cut your self off from your family and friends (though it would be surprising if you actually had any friends) and move in full time into your office. Only then can you be considered as being truly devoted to your job.
P.S. - I liked your comment. That one dislike is not me!
So:
I'm eager to return to office.
So long as Mr Shroff & his family "volunteer" the exact same way.
It's not just CAM. It's all law firms in India who are functioning on such lack of reasoning.
[img]https://www.pngitem.com/pimgs/m/3-33633_laughter-face-with-tears-of-joy-emoji-emoticon.png[/img]
[img]https://media.gq.com/photos/596cc8b705b12609907480d7/master/w_1600%2Cc_limit/emoji_update_2017_10.png[/img]
Mature organisations with mature people don’t need every policy to be written down. Large parts of normal office working life is based on the unwritten credo of “don’t be a dick” rather than a HR manual.
A partner who issues a diktat along the lines of what you’ve said will know that associates and respect are likely to disappear, a complaint will likely be made and escalated and if for no reason other than self interest, will know they should avoid being a dick.
You jump to so many conclusions in one comment, it deserves an 'Assumptions' section of its own.
And yes, compared to the rich making the policies, I am poor.
Stop being so belligerent.
[img]https://media4.giphy.com/media/kH78ASiw737uGac1JX/200.gif[/img]
Whats more astonishing is that the email says precious little about what the firm is planning to do to assure safety at the work place beyond expecting people to just start showing up. If it has to be voluntary, its fine, but its not a suicide mission you are sourcing volunteers for. Cam has set the bar so low with their email, rightly so, they are getting bashed up here.
It is appalling that a crisis management team, which probably has one or more equity partners (aka accomplished lawyers) didnt think this email through.
I wont be surprised if overseas clients start calling up these very equity partners to question this hare brained email.
We are not so medieval that we have to be absolute in our thinking.
If he is getting bored sitting in home looking at the same face for the last 6 months, he should travel using the travel agency he owns.
I have exactly two "LOLs" to give. Requesting seniors to guide on the below options.
Option A: Give both LOLs to the Luthra story.
Option B: Give both LOLs to this story.
Option C (Mezzanine Option): Give one LOL to this story and one LOL to the Luthra story.
Option D: Exchange my two LOLs for some ROFLMAOs and distribute them equally.
Any help will be sincerely appreciated.
If course, anyone needing immediate office support could always go. I'm sure they have a skeleton staff.
No need to take a chance. Their management should have foresight.
#WhatCAMDoesTodayKCODoesTomorrow
We recommend that all associates who have been slacking at home and inflating their timesheets apply their proofing skills and see whether a global pandemic is covered under the policy when they inevitably fall unwell. Please do something productive rather than maligning the firm's image all the time on this tabloid.
/s in all seriousness though, my heart goes out to those of us affected by this asinine decision.
emergency for sure. atleast there is some necessity to demonitization.
Will the real Sambit Patra please stand up?
We are well informed about the precautionary measures taken by the firm. I am ready to go back to work. And if you are not comfortable stop crying. No body is forcing you to come back.
Thanks
A1: do waqt ki daal roti
A2: above + murga (only if you are non bhez)/ paneer (ab agar vegan bhi ho toh soya khaa lo)
A3: 2.6 crore (including bonus)
SA1: dene vaala jab bhi deta, deta chhapar faad ke
SA2: above + health bills
How can random people in LI comments tell you what to do
Stop this man
V irritating and off topic
And ultra counterproductive for you
Thnaks!
But is firm pay anywhere close to lit pay in the long term?
@Student:
A0: 16-20
A1: 18-22
A2: 22-26
A3: 24-30
SA1: 25-32
SA2: 30-38
These are ball park ranges per my knowledge/ network's knowledge. You should look at the articles that Kian does on law firm salaries, that should give you a very good idea. Though the last article might be dated.
@Kian - Survey karo na fir se!!
No bonus in first year
Pre-tax
Confirmed for Sam
Cam is also this only I think
While all of us (at any law firms or even at smaller consulting firms) have been subject to the unwarranted harrassment of the firm / management / partners on this issue, is there anything that we can do about this ? I would rather think that at a company (read MNC ideally) an escalation would have been at least an option.
Many of us (or all of us) have been experiencing this for a very long time, or at least me from my days of joining a law firm (and being an AP today) and it still continues without a solution (be it at a top tier or a smaller law firm). Perhaps, would continue for the next generations to come (say the associates joining today).
Yes, our retainers are at stake for the money that we get paid, but does being a lawyer mandatorily require all of us to go through this ??? Isnt there an end to this hardship ?
-SA at a Big 6
@CAM
Kaisi baat kar di?
If rents to promoter owned units are suspended, then won't the heavens fall?
These are not commercial rent deals between parties at arms length. The promoter unit will NEVER let go of rent since there is no counter force at the 'tenant' side.
Please send them cyril and pay out of your rent pocket. We need to live our lives too !