Regional variation in pay is nothing new. For some organisations, it’s a simple distinction between London and the rest of the UK; for others, it’s become far more nuanced. But since the Covid-19 pandemic, the rise of remote working has added an extra layer of complexity: how should pay be managed for individuals whose salary is linked to a specific office when they rarely, if ever, attend that location?
This question surfaced repeatedly at the recent People in Law Forum. Many HR and Reward professionals noted that requiring employees to be in the office at least three days a week is now common practice. What varies, however, is the level of pushback. Some organisations feel this expectation is embedded in their culture and generates little resistance. Others are experiencing the opposite - heightened challenges, scepticism, and increasing negotiation from employees.
Where firms have begun to monitor attendance more closely, some have seen a rise in formal flexible working requests - often used as a mechanism to avoid mandatory office days. This trend raises concerns about losing the benefits of shared workspaces, including collaboration, informal learning, and development opportunities.
For firms facing pushback, responses are often tailored case by case. The overriding priority? Retaining key talent, especially where individuals hold scarce skills or business‑critical roles.
The Transparency Gap in Regional Pay
Layered on top of this is a broader issue: the inconsistent articulation - and sometimes complete absence - of formal regional pay policies. While some firms operate clear regional pay ranges or apply formulaic uplifts and discounts based on a primary office location, many do not.
Innecto’s Regional Pay in the Legal Sector survey highlights this gap starkly:
- Only 5% of firms have a formal written policy on regional pay.
- Over 71% report that their pay philosophy is not transparent to employees.
Lack of clarity creates real risks. Inconsistent decision‑making can allow bias to creep in and, over time, generate equal pay concerns. It can also fuel assumptions among employees, making conversations about pay more difficult. While some managers handle these conversations confidently, others shy away from them - opting for the least contentious path and inadvertently increasing inconsistency. A well‑defined policy can’t solve every challenge, but it does provide structure and transparency for both managers and employees, particularly when someone chooses to relocate.
What Approaches Are Firms Taking?
The forum discussion revealed a general reluctance to reduce pay when employees move away from their primary office location. Decisions tend to depend on individual circumstances and levels of office attendance, with most firms keeping employees on their higher salaries - at least initially.
That said, some organisations are beginning to address the issue more proactively. Recognising both equal pay risks and the potential morale impact on office‑based employees, these firms are choosing to slow down salary progression over time rather than reduce pay at the point of relocation. Many are also finding middle ground by allowing flexibility on office attendance while maintaining a baseline expectation.
Looking for Deeper Insight? Request the Regional Pay Survey Summary
Regional pay remains a complex and evolving challenge - one where clarity, consistency, and strategic decision‑making can make all the difference.
If you’d like a summary of Innecto’s Regional Pay in the Legal Sector survey, message me directly or email me at Cathryn.edmondson@innecto.com. I’d be happy to share the findings and discuss what they mean for your organisation.
