This article from the New York Post raises some interesting points from an HR point of view.

Some might think it’s a bit harsh, others may think it’s absolutely right. Whichever side of the discussion you think is correct, it is indeed something our friends in HR are going to have to give some serious consideration to.

Morgan Stanley chief to bankers: If you want NYC salary, you need to be in NYC

Morgan Stanley’s top boss issued a stern warning to his staff Monday — come back to the office by Labor Day, or face a pay cut.

“Make no mistake about it. We do our work inside Morgan Stanley offices, and that’s where we teach, that’s where our interns learn, that’s how we develop people,” Chief Executive James Gorman said during the firm’s annual U.S. Financials, Payments & CRE conference from the bank’s Midtown office, which was held virtually this year.

“If you can go into a restaurant in New York City, you can come into the office.”

Since the pandemic first started, the banking giant permitted its 70,000 employees to work from home, but with 70 percent of Big Apple adults vaccinated and an infection rate that’s not even half a percent, Gorman said it’s time for workers to get off their couches and back to their desks.

“On Labor Day, I’ll be very disappointed if people haven’t found their way into the office. Then, we’ll have a different kind of conversation,” the head honcho warned.

Gorman has been schlepping into the office four days a week ever since last July, the Daily Mail reported — even though he contracted COVID-19 himself last year.

Full article here

Hmm, so what do we think?

I have had this discussion with a few of my HR network recently and the general consensus seems to be that we should look at people for their contribution and reward on outputs.  That being said, if you have been offering an enhanced salary to compensate for working/travelling into a high priced area like London or NY, and now people are not doing that, should reward reflect this?

It is clearly very difficult to reduce someones pay and keep them engaged, however moving forwards should the choice be given to employees as to how they want to work and the remuneration that comes with each option.  If for example, you are 5 days in London it’s 70k, but if you’re remote it’s 60k?

I suppose to me, it really comes down to whether or not an employee is less effective in a home-based role.  If you can work from home and 100% contribute the same as going into the office, then there is no real justification for a difference in reward.

If however, it is not as effective, then the question becomes more valid.

How you work it all out is going to be tricky, to say the least!

What are your thoughts on this?


Written by The HR Guys