Gender pay gap reports have revealed how much less women are paid than men in percentage terms at firms including Slaughter and May, Allen & Overy and Ashurst.
Following legislation that came into force in 2017, firms are now obliged to produce annual reports stating the pay gap between male and female employees (partners are excluded on the basis that they are categorised as business owners rather than employees). Many of the results aren't pretty, although firms have been quick to explain that they are skewed because a larger proportion of women occupy lower-paid roles.
Slaughter and May has disclosed that women there are paid 14.3% less on average (on a mean basis*) than men. They also receive 33.3% less for their bonuses. But Slaughters said that its all-female secretarial staff had impacted the results, and that there was a "dramatic change" when secretaries were excluded. Broken down, the results revealed that female associates were actually paid 2.1% more than their male peers, and their bonuses averaged 2.7% higher. Amongst business services staff, too, women (excluding secretaries) were paid more than men on average: by 7.6% in salary terms and 5% in respect of bonuses. Slaughters' executive partner Paul Stacey said that the firm's analysis demonstrated that its "one-firm" culture "remains strong", with "the gender pay gap for associates and business services professionals yielding encouraging results".
Allen & Overy's report revealed that its men were paid 19.8% more than its women, on average, while bonus pay was a whopping 42.1% higher. A&O said that over 25% of its London staff were women in business support roles, and that this had a "significant impact" on its gender pay gap. The firm did, however, acknowledge that women were "less well represented in more senior positions" and said that "this is something that we are actively working to improve".
Unveiling a huge disparity, Ashurst reported that its female staff received bonuses which were, on average, 64.4% lower than men, and were paid 24.8% less than men on average. Like the others, Ashurst said its pay and bonus gaps were "impacted by the structure of the firm and roles that are predominately filled by one gender", with 60% of its female employees occupying business services and secretarial roles. It said that women and men "are paid equally to do the same role" but the "greater proportion of men than women in senior roles creates a gender pay gap". Close behind, Linklaters women were paid 23.2% less on average than men, with bonus pay 57.9% less for women. Linklaters said "we are confident that we pay men and women fairly for equivalent roles", and also pointed to its secretarial and junior business teams being predominately women.
Raising the same justifications, Mishcon de Reya revealed that its men were paid 17% more than its women on average, and 42% more in bonuses. Herbert Smith Freehills' report showed that its female staff were paid 19% less than its male employees, and 30% less in bonuses. It said "we are confident that men and women are paid equally for doing equivalent jobs".
*Dust off your GCSE maths book for the difference between mean and median.
Tip Off ROF
Following legislation that came into force in 2017, firms are now obliged to produce annual reports stating the pay gap between male and female employees (partners are excluded on the basis that they are categorised as business owners rather than employees). Many of the results aren't pretty, although firms have been quick to explain that they are skewed because a larger proportion of women occupy lower-paid roles.
"We should add partner salaries for full transparency." |
Slaughter and May has disclosed that women there are paid 14.3% less on average (on a mean basis*) than men. They also receive 33.3% less for their bonuses. But Slaughters said that its all-female secretarial staff had impacted the results, and that there was a "dramatic change" when secretaries were excluded. Broken down, the results revealed that female associates were actually paid 2.1% more than their male peers, and their bonuses averaged 2.7% higher. Amongst business services staff, too, women (excluding secretaries) were paid more than men on average: by 7.6% in salary terms and 5% in respect of bonuses. Slaughters' executive partner Paul Stacey said that the firm's analysis demonstrated that its "one-firm" culture "remains strong", with "the gender pay gap for associates and business services professionals yielding encouraging results".
Allen & Overy's report revealed that its men were paid 19.8% more than its women, on average, while bonus pay was a whopping 42.1% higher. A&O said that over 25% of its London staff were women in business support roles, and that this had a "significant impact" on its gender pay gap. The firm did, however, acknowledge that women were "less well represented in more senior positions" and said that "this is something that we are actively working to improve".
Unveiling a huge disparity, Ashurst reported that its female staff received bonuses which were, on average, 64.4% lower than men, and were paid 24.8% less than men on average. Like the others, Ashurst said its pay and bonus gaps were "impacted by the structure of the firm and roles that are predominately filled by one gender", with 60% of its female employees occupying business services and secretarial roles. It said that women and men "are paid equally to do the same role" but the "greater proportion of men than women in senior roles creates a gender pay gap". Close behind, Linklaters women were paid 23.2% less on average than men, with bonus pay 57.9% less for women. Linklaters said "we are confident that we pay men and women fairly for equivalent roles", and also pointed to its secretarial and junior business teams being predominately women.
Raising the same justifications, Mishcon de Reya revealed that its men were paid 17% more than its women on average, and 42% more in bonuses. Herbert Smith Freehills' report showed that its female staff were paid 19% less than its male employees, and 30% less in bonuses. It said "we are confident that men and women are paid equally for doing equivalent jobs".
*Dust off your GCSE maths book for the difference between mean and median.
Comments
601
614
Also I suspect these firms will end up with relatively "good" gender pay gaps because they have dared to publish their results before the deadline. If your firm hasn't published a pay gap yet, it's likely because it is worse than the above!
637
609
619
608
Can ROF ask ashursts for the same data (pay/bonus gaps) on (a) the professional pool only; and (b) the support staff only?
615
628
Interesting. Can ROF contact all the firms and ask for that sort of data? the firms are publishing this and hiding behind "oops, but secretaries!!!", drill down in the detail. And shame those who fail to disclose.
607
580
I am concerned generally not just in law that men seem to get higher bonuses than women. Bonuses ca be rather empheral and discretionary and hard to prove as sexist so I do wonder if companies keep basic pay level and then give the big money to men by way of bonus as it can be easier to hide the discrepancy that way.
615
624
600
629
583
658
629
568
660
595
598
577
638
596
586
636
Anonymous - anon 10:20 > you have therefore explained why the gap looks so large on bonuses - if the secretaries aren't eligible for bonuses then their bonus figures will be recorded as 0 and massively drag down the average bonus payments, thus where there is a gender imbalance within the sample pool, they will drag down the women's average but not the men's and therefore contribute to the massive disparity in bonus. So actually this stat is the opposite of what you think it shows, it certainly isn't demonstrating that male associates get way bigger bonuses than fee earners, it merely tells you that a large group of workers, which in this instance are disproportionately women didn't get bonuses at all.
641
580
618
643
625
578
614
616
636
608
606
637
and yes, of course the stats are helped by the vast number of women funnelled into senior counsel/legal director roles whilst their male equivalent make partnership, but are still terrible despite that. The majority of law graduates have been women since the mid1980s, but we are still in this shameful place, with so many people insisting that it is fair, because they don't like to think of their firms as sexist and racist, where white men from the right backgrounds still make nearly all the decisions.
566
652
For example, men are more assertive and aggressive than women and ask for pay rises more frequently and push for promotion. Men are much more likely to move firms because they are not happy with their salary or because they are not progressing where they are. More men than women are prepared to work 60 hour+ weeks and not care about work/life balance. Men statistically take less sick days than women. Men have more mobility of labour and on average are prepared to travel further to find work and also spend more time away from home and their family. Outside of law, men work in more dangerous occupations / lines of work than women and are far more likely to get injured or killed in the workplace.
619
631
619
588
634
604
616
592
603
632
626
627
It has a pernicious effect on women within the law firm, keeping alive the idea that women's role is to serve.
It also keeps male unemployment high which has social problems outside.
573
636
http://crse.co.uk/sites/default/files/Women’s%20Self-Employment%20and%20Freelancers_0.pdf
590
644
621
586
You've given one example of an article that focused entirely on single-person businesses and uses a staggering small sample size of 626 people from a state in Austria. So not remotely relevant to the discussion at hand, and in no way coming close to supporting your claims about self-employed women generally. And, even if it was relevant, hardly counts as well-documented.
Your statements are as ridiculous as me contending that all men must be stupid, biased, and insecure based on your angry rantings. Now, please, help keep the traffic on this story up by making one more frothy-mouthed sexist and irrelevant little pop.
611
594
648
607
614
624
615
602
For that matter do women work shorter hours? Maybe they are more efficient and don’t waste time during the day because they still have to get 7 chargeable hours in before collecting the kids. Perhaps if their men pulled their weight at home they too would have time to travel and generate business at male dominated booze driven events....
640
610
599
616
583
589
Actually I am not - bonus includes "all relevant employees" which amounts to "all employees employed by your organisation on the snapshot date – these are referred to as ‘relevant employees’ "
Sources:
per https://www.gov.uk/guidance/gender-pay-gap-reporting-make-your-calculations#bonus-pay-figures-you-must-calculate
and
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/gender-pay-gap-reporting-data-you-must-gather#relevant-employees-full-pay-relevant-employees-and-their-gender
That seems reasonably clear to me and I'm not sure that there is any suggestion in the ROF article that there was a misapplication of the rules re: bonuses. (P.s. - I hope you haven't been advising clients otherwise).
621
596
591
614
If you were arguing the gap isn't solely down to illegal sexual discrimination, you might have a point, but arguing that a gap in gender pay isn't down to gender is both wrong and delusional.
635
590