On the face of it, the news that mighty City law firm Slaughter and May has scrapped its policy of allowing staff to bring dogs into the office hardly looks earth-shattering. It was, however, reported in the Financial Times, which must say something. Along with the latest company deals, the political fallout from the Peter Mandelson scandal and wars in Iran and Ukraine, a bunch of solicitors deciding they no longer wished to see man’s best friend padding around their desks was deemed worthy of inclusion.
This was, however, Slaughter and May, which is always fascinating. For no legal, professional services outfit is more pukka, more conservative in the way it conducts itself. Not today.
The 137-year old practice still maintains a partners’ dining room, the dress is dark suits, it insists on keeping the “and” rather than opting for an ampersand, it refuses to reveal its financial results — although by consensus they are steadfastly brilliant, making its legion of legal heavy-hitters among the City’s highest-paid — and it hasn’t followed the herd and opened foreign offices. That’s just for starters — there is plenty that makes this partnership venerable but prestigious.
In terms of clients and the level of advice “Slaughter’s” dispenses, it is streets ahead. There is the Magic Circle, in which it is bracketed, but there is a reason, too, why the members of that charmed bunch — A&O Shearman, Freshfields, Linklaters and Clifford Chance — treat Slaughter and May with deference.
Which is why the waggy dog tale is so arresting. There will have been raised eyebrows galore that Slaughter’s was even encouraging its workers to take their mutts to work in the first place, let alone abandoning the perk. For once, the firm is not acting any differently from the pack. In allowing the dogs in, it was on trend; in ditching the benefit now, it is also joining the herd.
Not leaving the dog at home but having it with you has become a staple of corporate life, an acceptable measure, with firms going out of their way to say they welcome workers’ canines.
One small agency I know regularly has four dogs on its cramped premises. At times, it feels like a boarding kennel or vet’s waiting room, there are so many of them — plus their beds, blankets, toys and water and feeding bowls, not to mention the smells and incessant chatter about what each animal is up to. It’s crazy, but having decreed they can be brought in, the consultancy has only got itself to blame.
To be fair, it was copying what became a common practice. It was expected; prospective joiners would raise it at interview. Now, the boss can decree they must stay away.
It’s not just dogs. Employers are ending other add-ons that were similarly de rigueur
It’s not just dogs. Employers are ending other add-ons that were similarly regarded as de rigueur. Also out, or not pushed nearly so hard, are early clocking-off on Fridays in the summer months and unlimited leave. Platforms that specialise in recruitment, in matching bosses needs with workers’ demands in order to secure the brightest and best — and to secure, for the recruits, the right opening — are reporting a drop-off in attractions and, commensurately, in candidates’ wish lists.
Partly, the take-up is low. They sound great on paper, but in reality they make little difference. One such site, Heka, reports that fertility procedures, including sperm testing (yes, really), are accessed by less than one per cent of a workforce. Another, Flexa, says that employers offering dog-friendliness are down by 28 per cent compared with three years ago. Instead, the emphasis is on job security, training and development and flexible (within stricter limits) hours. Flexa co-founder, Molly Johnson-Jones, says: “People are prioritising security, progression and control over their time above perks.”
What is occurring is two-fold. One, the emphasis on work-life balance is changing. It matters, of course, and wellbeing is paramount. That’s widely recognised and accepted. Which is why dogs and similar benefits became more or less standard.
The world of employment has dramatically altered
Second, which explains the shift, is that the power axis has tilted; the world of employment has dramatically altered. Not so long ago, it was a buyer’s market; employers were desperate to find suitable staff, who were in short supply. They would hold out all manner of advantages to woo them and get them to sign.
There are openings for the brilliant, there always will be. But the days of recruits being able to pick and choose have gone. Today’s graduates are struggling to land jobs they would previously have walked straight into, giving them their first steps on the career ladder.
Putting in requests is not a smart idea. In fact, making any sort of demand is probably damaging. Thanks to economic woes, global uncertainty, and increased regulation and taxation, obtaining permanent, gainful, progressive employment is much more difficult than it was. Employers are reluctant to take people on and add to their growing burden. They continue to hire but not in the numbers and not with the alacrity of before.
It’s not only the volatility of the time and the financial pressures. Another factor is AI. Bosses simply do not know or have a solid idea of how the fast-advancing tech will affect their businesses. Giving someone a job, only to turn around soon afterwards and tell them they are no longer needed, thanks to AI, is also something they wish to avoid. So that see-saw has tilted, away from job-seekers and would-be workers, towards those dangling what few, credible opportunities presently exist.
Organisations are finding their workers want to work. Remarkable, really, but a marked change. They used to moan about how Gen Zs and millennials were asking for time off to travel, to work remotely from far-flung places, how they refused to come in on certain days and if they did, to stay late. Not so much, not anymore. These days recruits and joiners wish to impress, to make themselves essential and to cement their position.
Some relaxations are permanent. Formal dress codes are not what they were. Trainers are allowed, along with more casual shirts and jackets and no ties. Jeans may be a step too far. A glance round the carriages on the City Tube lines will confirm the switch. There are a few who cling to the traditional uniform — possibly they are heading to and from Slaughter and May or a hallowed institution such as Lloyd’s of London — but by and large it has gone or disappearing. Private health, gym membership, bike storage, free healthy snacks and drinks — they are all usual. Some, though, are vanishing.
One sticking point is WFH. Businesses struggle with that. Their rules can be variable — three days in and two away, or four or all five in, no questions asked, no ifs and buts. Muscular chiefs — largely American but also some UK — are cracking the whip, others less so.
It is the one, thorny issue that drives many corporate heads mad. They hate seeing empty desks that they are paying for. That’s what they like to say, anyway. Sometimes they let slip that costs associated with maintaining fuller locations have fallen, that expenses are down. Also, do as you preach. They are not averse to being away, to WFH, themselves. They rather like it, that relaxed Friday, the easier into-the-week Monday.
Even so, the would-be entrant who considers WFH to be a pre-requisite may find they receive short-shrift. Things are not what they were; look at Slaughter and May and its dogs.
