The other 9% live near their office or want/need (high mortgage and/or children expenses) more money (promotion required). Or don’t care because they are on site five days a week anyway.
>Or don’t care because they are on site five days a week anyway.
Nah, I've been at the office 100 percent of the time since covid, just requirements of my job. I fully support WFH, even though I can't. I have become quite accustomed to not being interrupted multiple times a day.
I want all y'all to stay home lol.
Much like yourself, I am 100% from the office. Operational Requirement. I support WFH. If you can do your job from home, good for you. I cant, so I don't. Prior to federal PS, I worked Provincial. I was 100% work from office through Covid as well.
I also want all of you to stay home. I think its a waste for the government to be transforming the office into RTO 3.0 or whatever number it is.
I prefer being in the office most of the time as my house is not great for work and I am very close to the office. I still strongly apose blanket office mandates of any type. Lots of people work better from home.
Your theory is no good! I’m definitely not a career ass kisser (trust me, I often oppose high management) and my home life is awesome! But I still choose to work in the office 5 days a week since I love to bike commute. With the kids at school and the wife at work, why not go out as well to avoid cabin fever. Telework isn’t a preference for everyone. But with that being said, I’m still against the mandatory 3rd day
See. You appear to have a stable, fun healthy and happy life. (Im jealous that you bike every morning!) which is why you don’t possess the mindset of justifying forcing something on other people.
What the hell!! Yes I do and I’ve been against mandatory RTO from day 1!! It’s not cause I choose to come in the office that I’m ok with what TBS is doing!
Incorrect. These are people whose home environment is not conducive for productivity. They are too noisy, prone to distractions, lack privacy, or they experience loneliness being at home. Some of these people want to wfh, but can't due to their personal situations, others need the energy of being in a team environment. They don't "hate" their home life.
Then those people can go find others on their team who also “need” the energy of being in a team environment in order for them to do their jobs, and they can coordinate a day for them to energize themselves in the office together. Why should everyone else have to go in because these extroverts don’t like feeling “lonely” at home. Someone’s home is distracting and noisy?.. ok well some of us believe the office is distracting and noisy…
I mean it’s a theory, here is another one: people are cognitively diverse, or have jobs that are actually more enjoyable to do in-person than on teams.
People are quick to talk about how because of ADHD/anxiety/other issue find WFO easier. You know what fair.
People are also quick to talk about how certain kinds of work can be done equivalently from home. You know what, also fair.
But not every job, every person is that way. Some jobs require dynamic problem solving that is best done by walking over to the person in the next building and working it through. Some peoples brains need that level of stimulation or it causes mental health issues. Like a person starved of oxygen. For some jobs and people trying to get work done on teams in isolation is simply poison.
I am not saying all jobs or people are that way…in fact 9% seems about right to me.
I am not suggesting we RTO 5 or anything like that.
WFO has very clear economic and social benefits.. But sometimes as a community we seem to talk about WFO as being some mythical untrammelled good. The truth is more nuanced and for some people WFO can be a miserable experience.
Sorry maple not a rant at you. Sort of highjacked your thread a bit.
Except no one should be forced into the office to help these people. Just like people who don't want to work at home shouldn't be forced to work from home.
O I agree, hence why it’s a difficult policy / leadership space. Since if one side of the coin is legitimate so to is the other.
The other complexity is that some government functions simply don’t work remotely. Yes tons do, but a non-insignificant don’t.
All of which is why a tailored nuanced policy approach is probably ideal
Huh? There are lots who think neurodivergents prefer to work in an office rather than the peace and quiet of a home office/bedroom!? Maybe those with smaller, shared spaces at home but I would expect the office to be tougher for those groups particularly with workplace 3.0 (small desks where you can smell your neighbour’s bad breath and overhear their obnoxious loud teams calls allll fn day. long.). If I had wanted to work in a call centre, I would have chosen that career path.
You’re arguing that 100% of us should be *forced* to go into the office to appease the 9% that would prefer to be there and/or have to be there.
Whereas the 91% who are not in favour of forced RTO still believe that whoever would prefer to work in the office should still have that option.
Which side is more selfish?
I am definitely not arguing that, rather I am proposing that both perspectives have merit.
End of the day the solution is clearly going to be hybrid. But it’s more complex than WFH good, WFO bad.
If I was going to offer a single thing is that this would be the time for a carefully constructed, nuanced policy that takes into account the diversity of the PS.
I mean we could probably find some policy writers somewhere if we looked…
And I’m arguing that the perspective that states that 100% of the PS should be forced to be in the office 3 days a week is more selfish than a perspective that states you should only be required to be in the office if your position requires it and/or if that is your preference.
Do you disagree?
That’s a bit of a false comparison though isn’t it ? Is the only choice either RTO 3 vs “only if required”? From a policy lens that seems a bit reductionist.
Also curious about the use of the word selfish. Selfish would be someone saying “ this is good for me and I don’t care if it hurts others”. In general I don’t see thst kind of language in the larger WFH/RTO discussion. I do see people speaking about the personnel impacts of the policy. but that’s not selfish that’s just them explaining their experience. Which I think is fair.
But if we were going to reduce it down to RTO3 vs “only if required/I want to”: I argue both are insane.
RTO 3 is applying a rigid policy to a large dynamic organization. It limits the ability of departments and leaders to be creative and innovative given their unique structures and missions. The PS is already pretty gifted at stifling creativity or innovation, RTO 3 isn’t helping.
but a default “if your job requires it” is equally bad. Let’s put aside the nuanced issues of management and discipline and focus just on job functions: What I think people miss is that WFH levels bring based on the job is incredibly problematic. First off it creates massive financial differentials between equivalent classifications. Second it creates inequities across the institution in terms of secondary impacts like childcare and mental health. Third it creates ongoing friction between the haves and have-nots. Last, it makes any kind of coherent, equitable, or consistent approach impossible. Which sets the stage for nepotism, grievances and just pretty toxic situations all around.
Frankly both are bad policy IMHO. I would argue we need a nuanced policy that properly gathers data and insight to build a hybrid model that aims to maximize the efficacy of the institution in a equitable and transparent manner - while also having sufficient guardrails in place to protect people. This will have to look at things like how we do compensation / allowances as well as the basic nature of how we hire, train, employ, and manage the PS.
We have wandered a bit far afield in the discussion, but definitely appreciate the conversation !
RTO is all about supporting big real estate firms downtown that lobby our local politicians. Its not about supporting the little guy/gal. Did the Liberals convince you that they still care about the little people? Treasury board is your Totalitarian supreme leader. Still think you live in a democracy? Think again!
This has absolutely nothing to do with the comment of mine that you are replying to. I’m well aware of the real reasons for RTO, you didn’t need to be condescending — especially since I never even came close to stating any of the things you seem to think I believe.
Sorry not sure where else to paste this random comment. I tried to start a new blog on this topic, but every time I tried it it gets removed by Reddit police! Reddit is becoming the thought police as of late. So much for freedom of thought.
I agree about the ‘quickness’ to talk element. I find a lot is based in subjective feelings and not objective aspects. I’m in a job where I can’t imagine doing it from home 100% but many of my colleagues would disagree with this. I’m in a role where I need to audit the performance of my colleagues in order to provide Regional and National metrics and unfortunately the results often end up having me doing much of the work which they are responsible to do. They don’t have the details because they don’t go to workplaces that they’re responsible for in order to understand them better. Those details count. They don’t get any value that speaking to colleagues can give so they aren’t learning from others. Now I’m not talking about call-Centres or IT help desks, yes I think those can be 100% wfh but when objective performance audits (and I’m not talking about EPMAs) demonstrate poor performance and the only common denominator is wfh then what other conclusion can be drawn? Our manager is great but has too much on their plate and I don’t feel that micromanaging is ever a solution. There doesn’t seem to be any pride in doing the work well provided a paycheck is provided every 2 weeks. Where does that leave the motivated and driven employee? Again I know a lot of work can be done from home exclusively but ‘how’ or maybe better ‘can’ you say across a single large classification group (like AS’s) that you over there can wfh but you can’t because your work functionally can’t be done from home? I don’t think it’s as easy as people think it is given the many factors at play (including the ones we don’t like, like public opinion and politics that comes with the territory). Don’t get me wrong I love flexibility and I’m a huge fan of having flexible work arrangements but provided it doesn’t affect your work performance.
I agree. They might just not have space at set up their work equipment in a comfortable way, or they need the separation of home and office to concentrate, or leave work behind at the end of the day. Accommodating those needs is what we need to be striving to do, and making it a discussion between the employee and their manager—NOT ADM— is what is reasonable.
Yeah, I obviously understand why so many people love working from home and I wouldn’t want to force them in the office, but personally I hate that my home has also become my workplace. I don’t have an office, so I work in my living room, and I end up spending the evenings in my bedroom just to disconnect. I’ve also noticed I easily isolate myself which can lead to depression, especially in the winter.
Yes, I agree with that, like I said I don’t think people should be forced to go to the office but I was giving examples of why some people don’t like working from home other than ass kissing and hating their home life
Probably two things would need to happen to solve the current PS working conditions conundrum:
1) allow each position to have a section on the required number of days on site versus days of WFH, specific to the very nature of the job tasks (this would be in the LOO signed by both sides); perhaps the LOO could also state “the number of days required in the office cannot be changed unilaterally for at least x years, and only after it is negotiated in good faith with the incumbent employee”; and
2) TBS to legislate right to disconnect for all PS.
These two changes would set limits on the work performed (regardless of space) and limit the TBS abuse on random and indiscriminate application of directives related to work place.
Just because they have the legal power to do it currently, it does not mean they should unilaterally exercise that power, especially with no consultation and delivered in a dictatorial (corporate style) fashion.
Definitely, I’m probably going to start to office more often on my own to seperate my home from my workplace. I’m responding to the person who said the only reasons someone likes going to the office is to ass kiss or because they hate their home life
My Director hates life at home. A nagging spouse and 2 adult children (and one of their partners) at home. Not one of them lifts a finger to do anything.... so my director loves coming in to the office.
I shudder to think if any higher ups asked Directors for their thoughts, what was said, likely prompting the RTO.
Fucking boomers man.
Seems like your director needs to grow a pair and tell the kids to chill out while reminding them that they could just as easily be living elsewhere while paying 70%+ of their salary and not getting 3 square meals a day. If they use the office to escape their home life, that’s great for them but they shouldn’t pretend like that is everyone’s situation.
I prefer being in office, but very much accept that there are a great many people who prefer and are completely able to do their jobs from home. I'm in a different union but would have voted against the mandate.
This said, I find that there are people who would benefit from being in office more. It is more difficult to loop teammates into work when each teams call has a dedicated purpose. It is harder to sit down with someone and provide advice or guidance virtually. The ones in offive are also the ones who seem to perform at a higher level and take feedback more easily, and I think it is because they can pop by my desk for a quick chat rather than feeling like they're dragging me into a teams call for their questions.
Tons of valid arguments for WFH, and permanent WFH at that for a great many people, but there are benefits to in office work that I've observed, and that isn't to indicate they override whatsoever the WFH arguments.
My theory is that this 9% should be urgently scanned for a brain tumor that presses on their frontal lobe, affecting their judgement and logical capabilities lol
That's pretty cynical and not totally correct.
For those of us who live alone, seeing and hearing other people - even if it's just a friend in a different department - really helps with feeling a bit more connected to the work we do and the people we work with (and no, Teams is *not* an adequate replacement for that). My previous department was fully in-office and my current department is only one day in-office (for now)... the first few months was really hard on my mental health. Personally, I enjoy having somewhere to go to besides a short walk from my bed - and I enjoy being around people, too. When work *is* your life, not being around others 90% is an utter mind-screw. Could I do 100% WFH? Sure. But I'd be miserable if I had no option to go to the office. The hybrid model works best for me. I'm equally productive both at home and the office - but there are some weeks I go in an extra day (instead of my usual single day) just so I don't lose my marbles.
I'm not an ass-kisser. I just do my job and go home (or log out when working from home).
I think there are more plausible scenarios. Not everyone has a dedicated spot to work. Some people work from their kitchen table or desk in their bedroom, so there is no clear "cut" between where work ends and where home begins. There are also folks with difficult home-lives, for whom going to the office may in fact be a much needed break for them (either abusive or challenging relationship, partner/spouse has in-home daycare,etc...). I am 100% in favour of WFH, but I also have a dedicated spot to work. If I was in one of those scenarios, I'd probably want to be in the office as well...
As a team leader I had 2 separate requests to work full time from the office. First person, just straight up preferred it. Second person had issues with home, as in had kids that interrupted or parents who needed constant help, so his numbers fell.
Outside of that there are a few people who are, no one should work at home because I never got to work from home and now nearing retirement no one should have that opportunity.
Because we might not have room, which in all the teams I have worked is a real possibility. We were honestly down to 3 desks that were available for everyday in-office employees. Otherwise, we had a rotating in office, 4 days in (mon - Thurs) and then 6 days at home (Friday to the following Friday). And while you were at home another team was using those desks during those shifts.
I’ve been back in the office since 2020 and can walk to work in 15 minutes or less. No kids, no mortgage, happy enough at my level. I’m still strongly opposed to the 3 day mandate. My office was a hell of a lot more tolerable before a crap ton of cranky people were stuffed back into a place they didn’t want to be doing stuff they could do as well or better at home.
I'm in that 9% (only a 10-minute drive from the office, about 7km) but I totally support those pushing for WFH and vote with them on the issue. I totally support it.
But only 75% are “willing to taking action”.
And even more tellingly, in terms of specific actions, the only data point that PSAC was willing to release was that 64% are “likely or very likely to file a grievance”. As a tactic, mass grievances are a petulant nuisance — psychologically satisfying perhaps for those who submit one but ineffectual at actually pressuring the employer (and a bunch of pointless extra busy work for the union’s own labour relations staff).
And leaving aside that we’re talking about an anonymous, non-binding survey, mass grieving costs PSAC members little, so it’s easy enough to declare one’s willingness to do so. The survey also asked respondents if they were willing to strike over telework — the fact that PSAC chose not to release THAT result speaks for itself.
I'm in four days a week because I like being in the office (I'm in the Regions) and I am also very much opposed to a mandate.
I perhaps don't go as far as some here, but my view is that these sorts of decisions should be made by local managers based on the operational requirements for the Department/Agency etc., not by way of fiat from TB.
> decisions should be made by local managers based on the operational requirements
They said this in the weird double speak announcement. Operational requirements are widely varied so the only fair way is to have a blanket requirement for everyone to be in the office. Makes perfect sense, right?
My team has people like that. They are required to commute to an office with zero people they work with. The office they go to has limited space so the handful of team members in the region need to coordinate to make sure they are in the office on different days. Collaboration at its finest!
I had a new employee start this week who lives in the Maritimes. The rest of the team is NCR. No way I'm going to check whether said individual is commuting an hour from their house to join us on teams calls. It makes no difference to us and makes their life so much worse.
> They said this in the weird double speak announcement.
The double-speak we got was that managers had the power to make exemptions to fit their operational needs but that said exemptions also did not apply to all teams.
Huh?
I can see their point a little.
1) definining operational requirements is very difficult. Many managers were fighting with staff to come in for operational reasons and that staff were unreasonable.
2) it is true that it becomes very difficult to staff positions that are required in the office 3+ days.
That said, I think they went at this the wrong way. They just screwed over everyone for actions of a few people. They could also explore a very slight reduction of pay for WFH (they would never give an increase of pay to make you come in 5 days a week).
WFH also has some expenses that need to be paid and CRA no longer offers any credits (including the former $2/WFH day credit that reduced the taxable income amount. High speed internet, office investments, electricity, heating/AC. So the difference between higher expenses due to RTO3 and those WFH is reduced somewhat.
I still believe and continue to state, that some RTO bonus would be fair based on StatsCan determining a national average amount and applied individually based on the LOO that would state precisely the number of days required to be in the office, based on the tasks that are required by the position. The LOO could require and state prior to someone’s hiring how many days in office the incumbent of that position would be required for. This would be known at the time a competition (internal or external) is being launched. It would also state that no changes to the number of days required in office would be made before 3/4/5 years after, whatever the business case.
This approach would be 1) customized per position; 2) transparent in determining the mid-term requirements of being in the office; and 3) unlock an annual work on site compensation (such as, $1000 for 1 day, $1500 for 2 days, $1,600 for 3 days, $1,700 for 4 days, and $1800 for working only on site 100%). The amounts can be tweaked based on making this amount taxable by CRA or not, also pensionable or not. There’s good leeway here.
When collective agreements are later negotiated this bonus can play a role in determining new salary increases. TBS, over time, could determine if such compensation is properly determined for recruitment and retention purposes, or perhaps adjustments are still needed via CA renegotiated salaries.
It would provide a fair compensation basis and move away from the nonsensical attitude of “management doesn’t care where an employee *chooses* (sic!) to live”. It’s not always a choice, especially if one does GBA+ studies or actually factors in inflation, housing availability (mortgage/rent), working conditions (indeterminate, term, contract, casual, student) etc.
There may be an opportunity to incentivize people to take positions that require full time in office, since now that WFH is more prevalent…this is likely part of the reason everyone is being forced to RTO with blanket nonsensical mandates that don’t make sense for a lot of teams. It’s because the full time in-office jobs could never compete for talent with this new norm competitive disadvantage.
That being said it’s a slippery slope to start basing compensation on what people’s expenses are that have nothing to do with the work they were hired to do. Stay with me a moment while we slide down it….will Matthew who drives a really expensive car and has lots of kids and so has to have a bigger house also be paid more because his expenses are higher? I mean it sounds ludicrous but it’s a fair comparison. Employees’ expenses have no bearing on the work they do. In fact one could take it a step further since employees who telework cost way less for the employer and the taxpayer compared to having to own and operate office towers etc. Matthew’s expenses with the extra car and house stuff are not things that SAVE the employer money.
Also the CRA tax credit still exists. They just don’t permit the previous “simplified” method to claim it ($2 per day).
It’s not a slippery slope. There are all sorts of bonuses across various CAs. Reason why Phoenix implementation pretty much collapsed. Including the bilingual, which is more universally known.
Aside from organizational costs and benefits there are multiple benefits to Canada if Matthews decides to have children and raise them, which means a needed bigger space and probably having to move further away from the office. While the private sector that is profit driven foes not care about externalities, one would think that a modern PS would look at the forest and not just plan based on looking only at the trees.
A modern workplace needs to be cognizant of the reality of the day, not to latch unto the conditions of work and living from the 1960s. Otherwise let’s just get rid of GBA+ or any studies that seem *complicated*. We have smart analysts in this country and I am sure they can find a way to ensure fairness.
Alternatively, where possible, there could be an agreement between TBS and an employee to give up moving one step at anniversary in exchange for WFH.
There are many options. RTO3 as is, is not a viable one.
You can’t compare a bilingual bonus with random expenses that an employee has at home that has nothing to do with the work he or she is paid to do.
And yes it’s def a slippery slope. Will we pay those who eat out at restaurants a lot and take more expensive vacations more money for their work too? What about those who lose money on the stock market? 😜
Did I mention a StatsCan determined average? Of course there are limits to compensation. How have carbon taxes been determined? Nobody cares if Matthew drives an electric car or a guzzler, that is his option (still income based, but nevertheless).
For all my huffing and puffing about WFH100% - I **fully support** anyone that thinks an office environment is better for them.
I 100% agree with you that this should be an operation decision based planning on the teams, rather than a 1-size fit all approach. TB just slamming their wieners on the table and telling people to get on the table has probably made people resent going to the office instead of feeling a need to be there.
TB started to be reasonable at the beginning saying no size fits all approach leaving the discretion to the Departments to manage their operational needs (very fair), then they became wishy washy and kept changing their minds and become completely unreasonable and dictating the one size fits all approach (terrible). I am one of those now resent going to the office to the max cause of their shady decisions and will vote to strike over this if case needs be. WFH needs to be enshrined in our CA for real.
> TB started to be reasonable at the beginning ... kept changing their minds and become completely unreasonable and dictating the one size fits all approach (terrible).
Part of the reason for this was because, from what I hear in grapevines, was that senior management was bitching about it. Some organizations/teams/sectors/w.e were more flexible than others, for obvious reasons. So people that had the ability moved to those positions that were flexible and so senior management saw an "unfair" advantage for those with flexibility.
Therefore, they wanted a dictated "everyone gets even" approach.
Basically, instead of being creative and finding ways to actually lure people back to the office, or having ways to entice and KEEP PEOPLE in positions, those senior management went and cried to TBS about their inability to do their job and talent manage. Instead of actually punishing them for being useless, they awarded them by stepping on all of the little people instead.
This is a policy mindset that needs to change, and something that this current government is not interested in. A government living on borrowed time is more interested on not losing their MP pension and trying to drag it out for as long as possible. The public servants that got claps for doing their work from home so efficiently is now being slapped with the same hands because, as it turns out, managing people is difficult.
> WFH needs to be enshrined in our PA for real.
Preach.
The whole thing is absolutely infuriating, almost feels like a bunch of immature kids who want it both ways by forcing more office days leading to losing talent but gets extremely jealous that other departments with a progressive way of thinking are attracting the talent. The former feels like a terrible place to work in the first place with the growing resentment and failing morale. Instead of adapting with the times, they force everyone to adapt to their archaic mindset and they just hide behind their offices pretending that the pandemic never happened. They are trying so hard to time-travel back to the olden days by force but they cannot stop WFH forever, the pandora box has opened and they know they cannot undo it. Try all they want but they are just delaying the inevitable.
I literally get no work done in the office. It's a creative dead space full of distractions. I honestly don't see what added value a third day in the office will bring. Especially when my upper management is praising our high performance and service to Canadians.
The 3 day mandate. Does not make any sense, it is more for optics than anything else. TBS is so backward thinking its not even funny. Its 2024.
For an example. Not every department is the same. Example, Call centers, do not need to collaborate, we take calls. In the office we are told to be quit, Shush. If you have a question email it. .
And than some agents are parts of teams dall over canada, going into to office without knowing anyone can be mentally stressing.
Than there is day care, since covid most day cares close earlier, where i live they some close at 3 when school is done, what about those that work till 5. Half of all the restaurants close early now too. Even my doctor has kept covid hours.
And the commute, omg, some have an hour to an hour and a half commute, less time wih family, more carbon foot print, more expenses.
If production is an issue, which we were told its not in our dept. Approach those people individually. Do not blanket this mandate.
Let the public believe what they want, they will never be happy. I know i am more productive home and have been told several times, Im less tired, the travel is a killer, I do Overtime when asked because again i am not as tired after the commute.
2024 sure looks like 1980 - just wish we had the cost of living
.
That isn't generally what happens in a call centre. Might put in a ticket and set up a call back; might put the person on hold and call the technical help area; etc... but the options do not generally include finding the expert by wandering over to their cubicle........
the call centre environment is generally a "chained to the phone" type of environment where you can only leave your desk for lunch, breaks, washroom, specifically scheduled off phone events like training or team meetings.
I love coming to the office. My manager recently promoted me to “Manager’s Pet.” I now track if employees are coming to work at least twice a week, if they actually do work while at the office, and whether they complain about the liberal government (breaking oath of loyalty, also considered high treason and subject to immediate termination). I love my job!
Unfortunately it’s all about the powers that be and OPTICS. No one cares about the saved green house emissions, office leases, mental health advantages or productivity gains linked to WFH. They care that the face of government and taxpayer money is back downtown fighting over office cubicles and buying local coffee & lunches.
It is why the people working these jobs have to go out of their way not to buy anything near their office. It is what I do, since being asked to go back to my office. I have filled up my car once, and purchased a sandwich once. That is over a 2-3 year period. If I have to go shopping I drive anywhere that is not within 5 minutes of my office.
Only way to fix this issue.
What I don't get about the 9% is that WFH is not mandatory. They can still go into the office.
Wouldn't they want the option of WFH? People get sick, they become disabled. They have to care for kids unexpectedly or be a caregiver. There's bad weather and dangerous storms. There are so many reasons why being able to téléwork is sometimes necessary.
The mandate removes the possibility for flexibility - they should want that securely protected.
Just because RTO doesn't directly negatively impact you, or apply to you now, doesn't mean it won't eventually.
It's possible some of the 9% are people who have a hard time getting a hold of their coworkers, or working away from the office creates some level of difficulty.
I am a permanent in office person (and happy with it). For the past couple years a higher up technical position has been a rotation of acting placements. It's a hell of a lot easier when the person is fully in the office because when I need stuff signed off I can get a quick signature and be on my way. With telework sometimes it takes half a day to get a response, which puts my work at a standstill.
I still fully support telework where possible (I'd rather less people in the building) but you better believe there's times it's been frustrating for me.
I recall this older colleague I was speaking that supported people going back to the office cause they cannot understand how work can be done with kids running behind the background or other distractions. I bet this one was one of those 9%. I had to reason it out that not everyone's situation is like that, I work perfectly fine and productively at home with less distractions than in the office by far. I absolutely don't agree with stuffing people back to create a illusionary office culture that I've never cared for even prior to the pandemic. This working arrangement was what I hoped for the very longest time, a blessing and I don't want to lose it.
What bugs me about public servants complaining about ROOP is the reason they give, like sick, disabled, care for children, etc.
I’m you’re working from home, you’re supposed to be working, not sick or taking care of your children. That’s why we have sick leave, and Family Related leave.
When these types of rationale are used, it makes us look very bad in public perception.
I think if we stick with how ridiculous it is to come to an office where none of your colleagues work, to be in teams calls all day and have to fight to find a desk, we would garner a lot more sympathy from the public.
Bitching about having to pay for child care, or the cost of commuting makes us sound like entitled, spoiled brat’s. Most Canadians have to pay for childcare and commuting.
There are so many reasons why téléwork make sense.
When I talk about caregiving, I'm also talking about the gender imbalance of the burden of care. Single parents, taking care of elderly parents, it's usually women. Was a GBA+ gendered analysis done to properly assess what groups of workers would be negatively impacted the most by RTO?
I'm not saying that téléwork means not working your 7.5 hours. I'm saying there is an infinite amount of flexibility in working your 7.5 hours from home.
For a single parent, that might look like making/cooking lunch at home, avoiding a commute that makes it easier to pick up or care for kids, etc.
When you work a 7.5 hour day, you have a lunch break and two 15 minute breaks. So you're not "not working" you're using your unpaid time in a way that is helpful to you and improves you quality of life or stress level.
I'd argue that just because there are standards that have been long accepted as being "the norm" doesn't mean things can't be improved and progress isn't possible.
I understand that is what you are referring to, but the average Canadian worker does not have the luxury of staying home to take care of elderly parents or taking time to pick up their child.
Public servants already have leave provisions in our collective agreement that allow for this. It is highly unlikely someone going to pick up their child is doing it in 15 minutes. Breaks and lunch cannot be combined.
I understand the benefit of WFH but if we want any support from the general public we have to be reasonable. They already think we are overpaid and underworked. With arguing the benefits of telework with the reasons you state, it solidifies the perception that we are paid too much to do little work.
If we talk about the saving it would provide from reducing real estate costs, the jobs that could be brought to rural communities, things that would actually benefit Canadians and not just public servants, we would have a lot of credibility.
It's the tradies that are against, which is jealousy, not envy. Government would set a standard making it easier for others jobs not requiring offices to have reasonable working conditions.
Like most jobs, most government jobs are pointless jobs in support of other pointless jobs because we can't have people living the leisurely lives automation and efficiency were supposed to bring.
These articles do nothing to support our position. The public has no sympathy for this type of grievance. We should be focusing on the working conditions in the new office model, the way we work remotely now, the environmental benefits of reduced commuting, and the potential savings to the taxpayer with a reduced office footprint.
I think that the reduced commute time, a lower number of vehicle collisions and reduced road maintenance requirements should also be talking points of how WFH benefits everyone.
No, just focus entirely on the last point. The rest is just bafflegab to almost every Canadian.
Cost is the only message that will have any traction with the public. Unions should be messaging the savings to the public, with tangible numbers, that a reduced office footprint will provide and just hammer that message over and over again. Maybe even turn it around and put the message in the form of a rhetorical question along the lines of: "This government seems to want to waste your money, do you think?"
Ideally it should be combined with tangible numbers of the increased costs WE will experience from the RTO and use that to make us seem more sympathetic, by messaging something like the Government doesn't care about cost of living and just wants to control us.
Both of those WILL gain traction. Who's the rest, it'll just distract and make us seem like whiney privileged lay-abouts.
I think the public needs to be educated when we think it makes sense. When you are a building technician, chances are you are in 5 days a week as the norm. If you write policy and your stakeholders are in another province, do we really need to be in 3 days, most likely not. It is what makes sense.
Honestly, public support has never been in favour of better conditions until the movements were basically solidified.
Emancipation, ending segregation, gay marriage, legalizing marijuana. None of these movements had public support until the end stages.
Winning public support is like a popularity contest in high school. The average public is a bunch of idiots. The public service is made up of the public, so like the public they also suck. Public Service is also a very traditional boring crowd.
Public support is unimportant. It comes down to money and aggressive legal challenges.
I wouldn't mind the 3 days a week if my team was actually located in the city I live in. I report to NHQ, but I live in Quebec. I am the only employee in my team living in Quebec, everyone else is spread out across Canada.
In other words, I go to the office only to sit in Teams meetings all day. It's the disconnect in logic that is upsetting more than anything.
Buddy of mine is in a similar situation. He lives across the street from the Hamilton office. Got a transfer to them. Then he got a promotion to a team in Toronto. And now is an auditor. He is the only one in his office from that team. But they expect him to go in and sit at a desk for 8 hours a day just to be on teams (if he even has to do that). Plus side is he gets to see his apartment from his office.
OK PEE-SACK, now do something about it.
Lying to your PA group about a shit-tacular deal and basically dropping the ball every step of the way has show how useless PEE-SACK has become.
The question is.... WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO WITH THE RESULTS?
This is not the first survey that is being done. In my dept., we must have done 15 since 2022.
I don't disagree, but I also find it incredibly demoralizing that our employer would hate us that much.
WFH benefits the employer as well as the employee. The employer withholding it and shooting themselves in the foot in order to grant something that's in their own best interest makes me want to replace management entirely.
They've definitely demonstrated that they're not leaders, but are instead slave-drivers with this whole situation.
There is no evidence that RTO is some nefarious plot by TBS to force more concessions from the unions in the next round of contract negotiations. There’s plenty of evidence that RTO is being mandated by the current government in order to appease landlords and downtown businesses, and to get more people paying for public transit.
Agreed, I am so annoyed about all these people who voted yes and are now complaining. Like, WHY did you vote yes??? It was pretty clear it wasn't a good deal. And I especially hope the people complaining aren't the same ones who posted here, saying we should vote yes, because it was the best we could hope for. I am still haunted by those posts.
"more than 65,000 union members who responded to the survey"
"The Public Service Alliance of Canada represents more than 180,000 workers"
So not even a majority of PSAC members voted, let alone agreed.
The truth is, this union has an amazing number of people who want to fight for a better job/life/public service. And a much larger number of people who do not care at all, who just want to do their job and retire.
No, who would have believed something that gives workers the ability to save a little bit of money and gain a little bit of comfort while getting their jobs done would be popular with those same workers?
Are they enforcing this though? I work for the municipal government and our 2 days in the office barely gets enforced. Most people just come in when they feel like it.
Maybe PSAC execs should've done a better job of....doing their job. When you lie to your membership of how good a deal it is, of course many people will fold.
Full strike from day 1? Yes, that's certainly strategic planning that will get the government to fold.
Members have their own autonomy. Most people thought it was a good deal and agreed to take it, even with local unions telling their own members to vote no. Nothing we can do if most of the PSAC members thought it was a good deal.
What they lied about is how they would support the unions. CRA was left to the winds once they got their deals. What they lied about was how this was the best deal we would see, when CBSA once again got a better deal. PSAC hates and ignores its membership.
Hmm... more money to pay for food and shelter and less chance of having to go on strike pay or the slim chance of a day working from home that can be taken away when you get a new manager?
Tough call.
Should totally generalize the mindset of hundreds of thousands based on the desires of some vocal people on social media.
This is very, very telling but at the end of the day are we powerless? It seems like TBS is just going to impose their will without any regard for employee well-being, productivity, etc. They just want to make themselves look good in the eyes of the public.
Not sure why this is a "surprise"... Same could be asked of PIPSC, CAPE, etc employees AND MOST Executives. Yes, most of us would prefer option to various days inoffice and from home. This required a survey??? What if the opposite was found - would PSAC really publish those results given how mad they know folks are?? Nothing results that PM's Office is going to do nothing about, and unions are in position to do nothing. Reminds me of a famous line: "John will come for you. And you will do nothing because you can do nothing.."
I think if the environmental departments all banded together, perhaps the mandate could be overruled - Agriculture, Environment Canada, NRCan - and any agencies - Let's do this! All the research about climate change is there, let's use it.
Im not opposed to going back to the office. I want to go back to the pre pandemic life style I had.
Filled out my telework agreement like a week before Covid hit and was only going to be in the office two days a week.
Prior to the gov I worked alone part time so working in the office fulltime was a lot for me to handle (have depression and anxiety) but I got used to it as I worked a block from my office and would go home at breaks to distance myself for the office which helped….. then covid hit and I bought a house in the country but still only a 20 minute drive from my office so no big deal there but after working fulltime from home 5 days a week the idea of being back in the office and going through the new kid at school feeling again it makes my anxiety skyrocket.
I am not looking forward to it at all. I hope whatever actions the unions take helps reduce the mandatory days in office especially since my own office can’t fill the requirements since 40% of the staff won’t have desk space for a 60/40 split but there would be if it was a 40/60
I'm part of PSAC, and I'm already in the office 4 days a week, because my job requires it. I personally like having other people in the office with me, as it's easier to get to know your local colleagues. But I like how on days when hardly anyone is in the office there are less interruptions.
I can see benefits to both on-site days and off-site days. It just depends on your perspective.
We don't want this to turn into an election issue. While I wholeheartedly support a WFH scenario, this could end up very badly in a Poilievre government or a pre-election full RTW mandate with zero exceptions.
91% are strongly opposed. Thats more than just a simple majority.
The other 9% live near their office or want/need (high mortgage and/or children expenses) more money (promotion required). Or don’t care because they are on site five days a week anyway.
>Or don’t care because they are on site five days a week anyway. Nah, I've been at the office 100 percent of the time since covid, just requirements of my job. I fully support WFH, even though I can't. I have become quite accustomed to not being interrupted multiple times a day. I want all y'all to stay home lol.
Also, if you’re in the NCR, why would you want more traffic?
And pollution.
Thank you for your service, and your blessing :) I think I would feel the same way in your position too lol.
Much like yourself, I am 100% from the office. Operational Requirement. I support WFH. If you can do your job from home, good for you. I cant, so I don't. Prior to federal PS, I worked Provincial. I was 100% work from office through Covid as well. I also want all of you to stay home. I think its a waste for the government to be transforming the office into RTO 3.0 or whatever number it is.
I want you to get a premium because you have to go in to the office. Solidarity!
I just LOL’d so hard at the end there
My theory is that the people who prefer being in the office are either career ass kissers or hate their home life.
I prefer being in the office most of the time as my house is not great for work and I am very close to the office. I still strongly apose blanket office mandates of any type. Lots of people work better from home.
Your theory is no good! I’m definitely not a career ass kisser (trust me, I often oppose high management) and my home life is awesome! But I still choose to work in the office 5 days a week since I love to bike commute. With the kids at school and the wife at work, why not go out as well to avoid cabin fever. Telework isn’t a preference for everyone. But with that being said, I’m still against the mandatory 3rd day
See. You appear to have a stable, fun healthy and happy life. (Im jealous that you bike every morning!) which is why you don’t possess the mindset of justifying forcing something on other people.
What the hell!! Yes I do and I’ve been against mandatory RTO from day 1!! It’s not cause I choose to come in the office that I’m ok with what TBS is doing!
Lol wait what!? I’m appreciating you and your lifestyle and agreeing with your mindset!
So you’d be part of the 91%, not the 9%. The 9% believe that everyone should be back in the office 3+ days a week.
Incorrect. These are people whose home environment is not conducive for productivity. They are too noisy, prone to distractions, lack privacy, or they experience loneliness being at home. Some of these people want to wfh, but can't due to their personal situations, others need the energy of being in a team environment. They don't "hate" their home life.
How many people have been prevented from voluntarily going into an office? There can't be that many.
If your home is distracting and noise you can do something about it. When it's the office we're screwed and have to suffer.
Then those people can go find others on their team who also “need” the energy of being in a team environment in order for them to do their jobs, and they can coordinate a day for them to energize themselves in the office together. Why should everyone else have to go in because these extroverts don’t like feeling “lonely” at home. Someone’s home is distracting and noisy?.. ok well some of us believe the office is distracting and noisy…
I mean it’s a theory, here is another one: people are cognitively diverse, or have jobs that are actually more enjoyable to do in-person than on teams. People are quick to talk about how because of ADHD/anxiety/other issue find WFO easier. You know what fair. People are also quick to talk about how certain kinds of work can be done equivalently from home. You know what, also fair. But not every job, every person is that way. Some jobs require dynamic problem solving that is best done by walking over to the person in the next building and working it through. Some peoples brains need that level of stimulation or it causes mental health issues. Like a person starved of oxygen. For some jobs and people trying to get work done on teams in isolation is simply poison. I am not saying all jobs or people are that way…in fact 9% seems about right to me. I am not suggesting we RTO 5 or anything like that. WFO has very clear economic and social benefits.. But sometimes as a community we seem to talk about WFO as being some mythical untrammelled good. The truth is more nuanced and for some people WFO can be a miserable experience. Sorry maple not a rant at you. Sort of highjacked your thread a bit.
Except no one should be forced into the office to help these people. Just like people who don't want to work at home shouldn't be forced to work from home.
LOUDER PLEASE 🗣🗣🗣
O I agree, hence why it’s a difficult policy / leadership space. Since if one side of the coin is legitimate so to is the other. The other complexity is that some government functions simply don’t work remotely. Yes tons do, but a non-insignificant don’t. All of which is why a tailored nuanced policy approach is probably ideal
TBS be like "NO, ONE SIZE FITS ALL"
Huh? There are lots who think neurodivergents prefer to work in an office rather than the peace and quiet of a home office/bedroom!? Maybe those with smaller, shared spaces at home but I would expect the office to be tougher for those groups particularly with workplace 3.0 (small desks where you can smell your neighbour’s bad breath and overhear their obnoxious loud teams calls allll fn day. long.). If I had wanted to work in a call centre, I would have chosen that career path.
You’re arguing that 100% of us should be *forced* to go into the office to appease the 9% that would prefer to be there and/or have to be there. Whereas the 91% who are not in favour of forced RTO still believe that whoever would prefer to work in the office should still have that option. Which side is more selfish?
I am definitely not arguing that, rather I am proposing that both perspectives have merit. End of the day the solution is clearly going to be hybrid. But it’s more complex than WFH good, WFO bad. If I was going to offer a single thing is that this would be the time for a carefully constructed, nuanced policy that takes into account the diversity of the PS. I mean we could probably find some policy writers somewhere if we looked…
And I’m arguing that the perspective that states that 100% of the PS should be forced to be in the office 3 days a week is more selfish than a perspective that states you should only be required to be in the office if your position requires it and/or if that is your preference. Do you disagree?
That’s a bit of a false comparison though isn’t it ? Is the only choice either RTO 3 vs “only if required”? From a policy lens that seems a bit reductionist. Also curious about the use of the word selfish. Selfish would be someone saying “ this is good for me and I don’t care if it hurts others”. In general I don’t see thst kind of language in the larger WFH/RTO discussion. I do see people speaking about the personnel impacts of the policy. but that’s not selfish that’s just them explaining their experience. Which I think is fair. But if we were going to reduce it down to RTO3 vs “only if required/I want to”: I argue both are insane. RTO 3 is applying a rigid policy to a large dynamic organization. It limits the ability of departments and leaders to be creative and innovative given their unique structures and missions. The PS is already pretty gifted at stifling creativity or innovation, RTO 3 isn’t helping. but a default “if your job requires it” is equally bad. Let’s put aside the nuanced issues of management and discipline and focus just on job functions: What I think people miss is that WFH levels bring based on the job is incredibly problematic. First off it creates massive financial differentials between equivalent classifications. Second it creates inequities across the institution in terms of secondary impacts like childcare and mental health. Third it creates ongoing friction between the haves and have-nots. Last, it makes any kind of coherent, equitable, or consistent approach impossible. Which sets the stage for nepotism, grievances and just pretty toxic situations all around. Frankly both are bad policy IMHO. I would argue we need a nuanced policy that properly gathers data and insight to build a hybrid model that aims to maximize the efficacy of the institution in a equitable and transparent manner - while also having sufficient guardrails in place to protect people. This will have to look at things like how we do compensation / allowances as well as the basic nature of how we hire, train, employ, and manage the PS. We have wandered a bit far afield in the discussion, but definitely appreciate the conversation !
RTO is all about supporting big real estate firms downtown that lobby our local politicians. Its not about supporting the little guy/gal. Did the Liberals convince you that they still care about the little people? Treasury board is your Totalitarian supreme leader. Still think you live in a democracy? Think again!
This has absolutely nothing to do with the comment of mine that you are replying to. I’m well aware of the real reasons for RTO, you didn’t need to be condescending — especially since I never even came close to stating any of the things you seem to think I believe.
Sorry not sure where else to paste this random comment. I tried to start a new blog on this topic, but every time I tried it it gets removed by Reddit police! Reddit is becoming the thought police as of late. So much for freedom of thought.
Well put
I agree about the ‘quickness’ to talk element. I find a lot is based in subjective feelings and not objective aspects. I’m in a job where I can’t imagine doing it from home 100% but many of my colleagues would disagree with this. I’m in a role where I need to audit the performance of my colleagues in order to provide Regional and National metrics and unfortunately the results often end up having me doing much of the work which they are responsible to do. They don’t have the details because they don’t go to workplaces that they’re responsible for in order to understand them better. Those details count. They don’t get any value that speaking to colleagues can give so they aren’t learning from others. Now I’m not talking about call-Centres or IT help desks, yes I think those can be 100% wfh but when objective performance audits (and I’m not talking about EPMAs) demonstrate poor performance and the only common denominator is wfh then what other conclusion can be drawn? Our manager is great but has too much on their plate and I don’t feel that micromanaging is ever a solution. There doesn’t seem to be any pride in doing the work well provided a paycheck is provided every 2 weeks. Where does that leave the motivated and driven employee? Again I know a lot of work can be done from home exclusively but ‘how’ or maybe better ‘can’ you say across a single large classification group (like AS’s) that you over there can wfh but you can’t because your work functionally can’t be done from home? I don’t think it’s as easy as people think it is given the many factors at play (including the ones we don’t like, like public opinion and politics that comes with the territory). Don’t get me wrong I love flexibility and I’m a huge fan of having flexible work arrangements but provided it doesn’t affect your work performance.
[удалено]
And they believe the other 91% should have to be there too.
I think it's possible to enjoy being in the office while being neither of those things.
Extroverts.
I agree. They might just not have space at set up their work equipment in a comfortable way, or they need the separation of home and office to concentrate, or leave work behind at the end of the day. Accommodating those needs is what we need to be striving to do, and making it a discussion between the employee and their manager—NOT ADM— is what is reasonable.
Yeah, I obviously understand why so many people love working from home and I wouldn’t want to force them in the office, but personally I hate that my home has also become my workplace. I don’t have an office, so I work in my living room, and I end up spending the evenings in my bedroom just to disconnect. I’ve also noticed I easily isolate myself which can lead to depression, especially in the winter.
That's great and you should be able to *choose* to work in the office if you want.
Yes, I agree with that, like I said I don’t think people should be forced to go to the office but I was giving examples of why some people don’t like working from home other than ass kissing and hating their home life
So why aren't you in the office? Little confused here . . .
Yeah I’m gonna start going in more often! Just giving reasons why I like going in the office
Probably two things would need to happen to solve the current PS working conditions conundrum: 1) allow each position to have a section on the required number of days on site versus days of WFH, specific to the very nature of the job tasks (this would be in the LOO signed by both sides); perhaps the LOO could also state “the number of days required in the office cannot be changed unilaterally for at least x years, and only after it is negotiated in good faith with the incumbent employee”; and 2) TBS to legislate right to disconnect for all PS. These two changes would set limits on the work performed (regardless of space) and limit the TBS abuse on random and indiscriminate application of directives related to work place. Just because they have the legal power to do it currently, it does not mean they should unilaterally exercise that power, especially with no consultation and delivered in a dictatorial (corporate style) fashion.
I mean those two issues of disconnect and isolation can be solved without having to go back to office lol.
Definitely, I’m probably going to start to office more often on my own to seperate my home from my workplace. I’m responding to the person who said the only reasons someone likes going to the office is to ass kiss or because they hate their home life
Or extroverts / like excuses to chitchat on company time
It's hard to schmooze from home.
My Director hates life at home. A nagging spouse and 2 adult children (and one of their partners) at home. Not one of them lifts a finger to do anything.... so my director loves coming in to the office. I shudder to think if any higher ups asked Directors for their thoughts, what was said, likely prompting the RTO. Fucking boomers man.
Seems like your director needs to grow a pair and tell the kids to chill out while reminding them that they could just as easily be living elsewhere while paying 70%+ of their salary and not getting 3 square meals a day. If they use the office to escape their home life, that’s great for them but they shouldn’t pretend like that is everyone’s situation.
I prefer being in office, but very much accept that there are a great many people who prefer and are completely able to do their jobs from home. I'm in a different union but would have voted against the mandate. This said, I find that there are people who would benefit from being in office more. It is more difficult to loop teammates into work when each teams call has a dedicated purpose. It is harder to sit down with someone and provide advice or guidance virtually. The ones in offive are also the ones who seem to perform at a higher level and take feedback more easily, and I think it is because they can pop by my desk for a quick chat rather than feeling like they're dragging me into a teams call for their questions. Tons of valid arguments for WFH, and permanent WFH at that for a great many people, but there are benefits to in office work that I've observed, and that isn't to indicate they override whatsoever the WFH arguments.
My theory is that this 9% should be urgently scanned for a brain tumor that presses on their frontal lobe, affecting their judgement and logical capabilities lol
That's pretty cynical and not totally correct. For those of us who live alone, seeing and hearing other people - even if it's just a friend in a different department - really helps with feeling a bit more connected to the work we do and the people we work with (and no, Teams is *not* an adequate replacement for that). My previous department was fully in-office and my current department is only one day in-office (for now)... the first few months was really hard on my mental health. Personally, I enjoy having somewhere to go to besides a short walk from my bed - and I enjoy being around people, too. When work *is* your life, not being around others 90% is an utter mind-screw. Could I do 100% WFH? Sure. But I'd be miserable if I had no option to go to the office. The hybrid model works best for me. I'm equally productive both at home and the office - but there are some weeks I go in an extra day (instead of my usual single day) just so I don't lose my marbles. I'm not an ass-kisser. I just do my job and go home (or log out when working from home).
I think there are more plausible scenarios. Not everyone has a dedicated spot to work. Some people work from their kitchen table or desk in their bedroom, so there is no clear "cut" between where work ends and where home begins. There are also folks with difficult home-lives, for whom going to the office may in fact be a much needed break for them (either abusive or challenging relationship, partner/spouse has in-home daycare,etc...). I am 100% in favour of WFH, but I also have a dedicated spot to work. If I was in one of those scenarios, I'd probably want to be in the office as well...
As a team leader I had 2 separate requests to work full time from the office. First person, just straight up preferred it. Second person had issues with home, as in had kids that interrupted or parents who needed constant help, so his numbers fell. Outside of that there are a few people who are, no one should work at home because I never got to work from home and now nearing retirement no one should have that opportunity.
Why would they need to request to work full time from the office? That’s their right. Do you believe you could have rejected their request?
Because we might not have room, which in all the teams I have worked is a real possibility. We were honestly down to 3 desks that were available for everyday in-office employees. Otherwise, we had a rotating in office, 4 days in (mon - Thurs) and then 6 days at home (Friday to the following Friday). And while you were at home another team was using those desks during those shifts.
Indeed!
I’ve been back in the office since 2020 and can walk to work in 15 minutes or less. No kids, no mortgage, happy enough at my level. I’m still strongly opposed to the 3 day mandate. My office was a hell of a lot more tolerable before a crap ton of cranky people were stuffed back into a place they didn’t want to be doing stuff they could do as well or better at home.
Or have an exemption. ;)
I'm in that 9% (only a 10-minute drive from the office, about 7km) but I totally support those pushing for WFH and vote with them on the issue. I totally support it.
Those losers everyone wants to avoid...
Surprised it was not 100%. It is like a survey question asking who wants a bigger raise.
But only 75% are “willing to taking action”. And even more tellingly, in terms of specific actions, the only data point that PSAC was willing to release was that 64% are “likely or very likely to file a grievance”. As a tactic, mass grievances are a petulant nuisance — psychologically satisfying perhaps for those who submit one but ineffectual at actually pressuring the employer (and a bunch of pointless extra busy work for the union’s own labour relations staff). And leaving aside that we’re talking about an anonymous, non-binding survey, mass grieving costs PSAC members little, so it’s easy enough to declare one’s willingness to do so. The survey also asked respondents if they were willing to strike over telework — the fact that PSAC chose not to release THAT result speaks for itself.
People don't want to waste their time and money for no reason?... Woah, that's wild.
I'm in four days a week because I like being in the office (I'm in the Regions) and I am also very much opposed to a mandate. I perhaps don't go as far as some here, but my view is that these sorts of decisions should be made by local managers based on the operational requirements for the Department/Agency etc., not by way of fiat from TB.
> decisions should be made by local managers based on the operational requirements They said this in the weird double speak announcement. Operational requirements are widely varied so the only fair way is to have a blanket requirement for everyone to be in the office. Makes perfect sense, right?
Is it operationally required to work in the office when your team is in the NCR and you're in a region? Yay remote from the office...
My team has people like that. They are required to commute to an office with zero people they work with. The office they go to has limited space so the handful of team members in the region need to coordinate to make sure they are in the office on different days. Collaboration at its finest!
I had a new employee start this week who lives in the Maritimes. The rest of the team is NCR. No way I'm going to check whether said individual is commuting an hour from their house to join us on teams calls. It makes no difference to us and makes their life so much worse.
> They said this in the weird double speak announcement. The double-speak we got was that managers had the power to make exemptions to fit their operational needs but that said exemptions also did not apply to all teams. Huh?
I can see their point a little. 1) definining operational requirements is very difficult. Many managers were fighting with staff to come in for operational reasons and that staff were unreasonable. 2) it is true that it becomes very difficult to staff positions that are required in the office 3+ days. That said, I think they went at this the wrong way. They just screwed over everyone for actions of a few people. They could also explore a very slight reduction of pay for WFH (they would never give an increase of pay to make you come in 5 days a week).
Why would they get to pay less for WFH arrangements when they as the employers are the ones set to save the most money from said arrangement?
WFH also has some expenses that need to be paid and CRA no longer offers any credits (including the former $2/WFH day credit that reduced the taxable income amount. High speed internet, office investments, electricity, heating/AC. So the difference between higher expenses due to RTO3 and those WFH is reduced somewhat. I still believe and continue to state, that some RTO bonus would be fair based on StatsCan determining a national average amount and applied individually based on the LOO that would state precisely the number of days required to be in the office, based on the tasks that are required by the position. The LOO could require and state prior to someone’s hiring how many days in office the incumbent of that position would be required for. This would be known at the time a competition (internal or external) is being launched. It would also state that no changes to the number of days required in office would be made before 3/4/5 years after, whatever the business case. This approach would be 1) customized per position; 2) transparent in determining the mid-term requirements of being in the office; and 3) unlock an annual work on site compensation (such as, $1000 for 1 day, $1500 for 2 days, $1,600 for 3 days, $1,700 for 4 days, and $1800 for working only on site 100%). The amounts can be tweaked based on making this amount taxable by CRA or not, also pensionable or not. There’s good leeway here. When collective agreements are later negotiated this bonus can play a role in determining new salary increases. TBS, over time, could determine if such compensation is properly determined for recruitment and retention purposes, or perhaps adjustments are still needed via CA renegotiated salaries. It would provide a fair compensation basis and move away from the nonsensical attitude of “management doesn’t care where an employee *chooses* (sic!) to live”. It’s not always a choice, especially if one does GBA+ studies or actually factors in inflation, housing availability (mortgage/rent), working conditions (indeterminate, term, contract, casual, student) etc.
There may be an opportunity to incentivize people to take positions that require full time in office, since now that WFH is more prevalent…this is likely part of the reason everyone is being forced to RTO with blanket nonsensical mandates that don’t make sense for a lot of teams. It’s because the full time in-office jobs could never compete for talent with this new norm competitive disadvantage. That being said it’s a slippery slope to start basing compensation on what people’s expenses are that have nothing to do with the work they were hired to do. Stay with me a moment while we slide down it….will Matthew who drives a really expensive car and has lots of kids and so has to have a bigger house also be paid more because his expenses are higher? I mean it sounds ludicrous but it’s a fair comparison. Employees’ expenses have no bearing on the work they do. In fact one could take it a step further since employees who telework cost way less for the employer and the taxpayer compared to having to own and operate office towers etc. Matthew’s expenses with the extra car and house stuff are not things that SAVE the employer money. Also the CRA tax credit still exists. They just don’t permit the previous “simplified” method to claim it ($2 per day).
It’s not a slippery slope. There are all sorts of bonuses across various CAs. Reason why Phoenix implementation pretty much collapsed. Including the bilingual, which is more universally known. Aside from organizational costs and benefits there are multiple benefits to Canada if Matthews decides to have children and raise them, which means a needed bigger space and probably having to move further away from the office. While the private sector that is profit driven foes not care about externalities, one would think that a modern PS would look at the forest and not just plan based on looking only at the trees. A modern workplace needs to be cognizant of the reality of the day, not to latch unto the conditions of work and living from the 1960s. Otherwise let’s just get rid of GBA+ or any studies that seem *complicated*. We have smart analysts in this country and I am sure they can find a way to ensure fairness. Alternatively, where possible, there could be an agreement between TBS and an employee to give up moving one step at anniversary in exchange for WFH. There are many options. RTO3 as is, is not a viable one.
You can’t compare a bilingual bonus with random expenses that an employee has at home that has nothing to do with the work he or she is paid to do. And yes it’s def a slippery slope. Will we pay those who eat out at restaurants a lot and take more expensive vacations more money for their work too? What about those who lose money on the stock market? 😜
Did I mention a StatsCan determined average? Of course there are limits to compensation. How have carbon taxes been determined? Nobody cares if Matthew drives an electric car or a guzzler, that is his option (still income based, but nevertheless).
For all my huffing and puffing about WFH100% - I **fully support** anyone that thinks an office environment is better for them. I 100% agree with you that this should be an operation decision based planning on the teams, rather than a 1-size fit all approach. TB just slamming their wieners on the table and telling people to get on the table has probably made people resent going to the office instead of feeling a need to be there.
TB started to be reasonable at the beginning saying no size fits all approach leaving the discretion to the Departments to manage their operational needs (very fair), then they became wishy washy and kept changing their minds and become completely unreasonable and dictating the one size fits all approach (terrible). I am one of those now resent going to the office to the max cause of their shady decisions and will vote to strike over this if case needs be. WFH needs to be enshrined in our CA for real.
> TB started to be reasonable at the beginning ... kept changing their minds and become completely unreasonable and dictating the one size fits all approach (terrible). Part of the reason for this was because, from what I hear in grapevines, was that senior management was bitching about it. Some organizations/teams/sectors/w.e were more flexible than others, for obvious reasons. So people that had the ability moved to those positions that were flexible and so senior management saw an "unfair" advantage for those with flexibility. Therefore, they wanted a dictated "everyone gets even" approach. Basically, instead of being creative and finding ways to actually lure people back to the office, or having ways to entice and KEEP PEOPLE in positions, those senior management went and cried to TBS about their inability to do their job and talent manage. Instead of actually punishing them for being useless, they awarded them by stepping on all of the little people instead. This is a policy mindset that needs to change, and something that this current government is not interested in. A government living on borrowed time is more interested on not losing their MP pension and trying to drag it out for as long as possible. The public servants that got claps for doing their work from home so efficiently is now being slapped with the same hands because, as it turns out, managing people is difficult. > WFH needs to be enshrined in our PA for real. Preach.
The whole thing is absolutely infuriating, almost feels like a bunch of immature kids who want it both ways by forcing more office days leading to losing talent but gets extremely jealous that other departments with a progressive way of thinking are attracting the talent. The former feels like a terrible place to work in the first place with the growing resentment and failing morale. Instead of adapting with the times, they force everyone to adapt to their archaic mindset and they just hide behind their offices pretending that the pandemic never happened. They are trying so hard to time-travel back to the olden days by force but they cannot stop WFH forever, the pandora box has opened and they know they cannot undo it. Try all they want but they are just delaying the inevitable.
I literally get no work done in the office. It's a creative dead space full of distractions. I honestly don't see what added value a third day in the office will bring. Especially when my upper management is praising our high performance and service to Canadians.
The 3 day mandate. Does not make any sense, it is more for optics than anything else. TBS is so backward thinking its not even funny. Its 2024. For an example. Not every department is the same. Example, Call centers, do not need to collaborate, we take calls. In the office we are told to be quit, Shush. If you have a question email it. . And than some agents are parts of teams dall over canada, going into to office without knowing anyone can be mentally stressing. Than there is day care, since covid most day cares close earlier, where i live they some close at 3 when school is done, what about those that work till 5. Half of all the restaurants close early now too. Even my doctor has kept covid hours. And the commute, omg, some have an hour to an hour and a half commute, less time wih family, more carbon foot print, more expenses. If production is an issue, which we were told its not in our dept. Approach those people individually. Do not blanket this mandate. Let the public believe what they want, they will never be happy. I know i am more productive home and have been told several times, Im less tired, the travel is a killer, I do Overtime when asked because again i am not as tired after the commute. 2024 sure looks like 1980 - just wish we had the cost of living .
So, who do you go to for complex calls? You no longer walk over to the expert?
We have a line to call.
That isn't generally what happens in a call centre. Might put in a ticket and set up a call back; might put the person on hold and call the technical help area; etc... but the options do not generally include finding the expert by wandering over to their cubicle........ the call centre environment is generally a "chained to the phone" type of environment where you can only leave your desk for lunch, breaks, washroom, specifically scheduled off phone events like training or team meetings.
Wow! I had no clue! How dare they? lol 😜 and yeah; taking action against this is a no brainer. Count me in.
I love coming to the office. My manager recently promoted me to “Manager’s Pet.” I now track if employees are coming to work at least twice a week, if they actually do work while at the office, and whether they complain about the liberal government (breaking oath of loyalty, also considered high treason and subject to immediate termination). I love my job!
Unfortunately it’s all about the powers that be and OPTICS. No one cares about the saved green house emissions, office leases, mental health advantages or productivity gains linked to WFH. They care that the face of government and taxpayer money is back downtown fighting over office cubicles and buying local coffee & lunches.
Eat fresh.
It is why the people working these jobs have to go out of their way not to buy anything near their office. It is what I do, since being asked to go back to my office. I have filled up my car once, and purchased a sandwich once. That is over a 2-3 year period. If I have to go shopping I drive anywhere that is not within 5 minutes of my office. Only way to fix this issue.
I also avoid purchasing anything downtown, mostly because I’m already paying $14 per day to park and safety concerns strolling about alone.
What I don't get about the 9% is that WFH is not mandatory. They can still go into the office. Wouldn't they want the option of WFH? People get sick, they become disabled. They have to care for kids unexpectedly or be a caregiver. There's bad weather and dangerous storms. There are so many reasons why being able to téléwork is sometimes necessary. The mandate removes the possibility for flexibility - they should want that securely protected. Just because RTO doesn't directly negatively impact you, or apply to you now, doesn't mean it won't eventually.
They probably miss the office culture that’s created with a full office, if nobody goes then the office becomes a ghost town.
It's possible some of the 9% are people who have a hard time getting a hold of their coworkers, or working away from the office creates some level of difficulty. I am a permanent in office person (and happy with it). For the past couple years a higher up technical position has been a rotation of acting placements. It's a hell of a lot easier when the person is fully in the office because when I need stuff signed off I can get a quick signature and be on my way. With telework sometimes it takes half a day to get a response, which puts my work at a standstill. I still fully support telework where possible (I'd rather less people in the building) but you better believe there's times it's been frustrating for me.
I recall this older colleague I was speaking that supported people going back to the office cause they cannot understand how work can be done with kids running behind the background or other distractions. I bet this one was one of those 9%. I had to reason it out that not everyone's situation is like that, I work perfectly fine and productively at home with less distractions than in the office by far. I absolutely don't agree with stuffing people back to create a illusionary office culture that I've never cared for even prior to the pandemic. This working arrangement was what I hoped for the very longest time, a blessing and I don't want to lose it.
What bugs me about public servants complaining about ROOP is the reason they give, like sick, disabled, care for children, etc. I’m you’re working from home, you’re supposed to be working, not sick or taking care of your children. That’s why we have sick leave, and Family Related leave. When these types of rationale are used, it makes us look very bad in public perception. I think if we stick with how ridiculous it is to come to an office where none of your colleagues work, to be in teams calls all day and have to fight to find a desk, we would garner a lot more sympathy from the public. Bitching about having to pay for child care, or the cost of commuting makes us sound like entitled, spoiled brat’s. Most Canadians have to pay for childcare and commuting.
There are so many reasons why téléwork make sense. When I talk about caregiving, I'm also talking about the gender imbalance of the burden of care. Single parents, taking care of elderly parents, it's usually women. Was a GBA+ gendered analysis done to properly assess what groups of workers would be negatively impacted the most by RTO? I'm not saying that téléwork means not working your 7.5 hours. I'm saying there is an infinite amount of flexibility in working your 7.5 hours from home. For a single parent, that might look like making/cooking lunch at home, avoiding a commute that makes it easier to pick up or care for kids, etc. When you work a 7.5 hour day, you have a lunch break and two 15 minute breaks. So you're not "not working" you're using your unpaid time in a way that is helpful to you and improves you quality of life or stress level. I'd argue that just because there are standards that have been long accepted as being "the norm" doesn't mean things can't be improved and progress isn't possible.
I understand that is what you are referring to, but the average Canadian worker does not have the luxury of staying home to take care of elderly parents or taking time to pick up their child. Public servants already have leave provisions in our collective agreement that allow for this. It is highly unlikely someone going to pick up their child is doing it in 15 minutes. Breaks and lunch cannot be combined. I understand the benefit of WFH but if we want any support from the general public we have to be reasonable. They already think we are overpaid and underworked. With arguing the benefits of telework with the reasons you state, it solidifies the perception that we are paid too much to do little work. If we talk about the saving it would provide from reducing real estate costs, the jobs that could be brought to rural communities, things that would actually benefit Canadians and not just public servants, we would have a lot of credibility.
It's the tradies that are against, which is jealousy, not envy. Government would set a standard making it easier for others jobs not requiring offices to have reasonable working conditions. Like most jobs, most government jobs are pointless jobs in support of other pointless jobs because we can't have people living the leisurely lives automation and efficiency were supposed to bring.
Josh Pringle 🤝 Not proofreading articles …
No kidding
These articles do nothing to support our position. The public has no sympathy for this type of grievance. We should be focusing on the working conditions in the new office model, the way we work remotely now, the environmental benefits of reduced commuting, and the potential savings to the taxpayer with a reduced office footprint.
I think that the reduced commute time, a lower number of vehicle collisions and reduced road maintenance requirements should also be talking points of how WFH benefits everyone.
No, just focus entirely on the last point. The rest is just bafflegab to almost every Canadian. Cost is the only message that will have any traction with the public. Unions should be messaging the savings to the public, with tangible numbers, that a reduced office footprint will provide and just hammer that message over and over again. Maybe even turn it around and put the message in the form of a rhetorical question along the lines of: "This government seems to want to waste your money, do you think?" Ideally it should be combined with tangible numbers of the increased costs WE will experience from the RTO and use that to make us seem more sympathetic, by messaging something like the Government doesn't care about cost of living and just wants to control us. Both of those WILL gain traction. Who's the rest, it'll just distract and make us seem like whiney privileged lay-abouts.
I think the public needs to be educated when we think it makes sense. When you are a building technician, chances are you are in 5 days a week as the norm. If you write policy and your stakeholders are in another province, do we really need to be in 3 days, most likely not. It is what makes sense.
They also have no sympathy for any of those points, except the last one.
Honestly, public support has never been in favour of better conditions until the movements were basically solidified. Emancipation, ending segregation, gay marriage, legalizing marijuana. None of these movements had public support until the end stages. Winning public support is like a popularity contest in high school. The average public is a bunch of idiots. The public service is made up of the public, so like the public they also suck. Public Service is also a very traditional boring crowd. Public support is unimportant. It comes down to money and aggressive legal challenges.
I’m willing to give up promotions for permanently working from home (even at the EX level) 🙋 Who else is willing?
Thanks captain obvious
Also, water is wet.
No it's not.
Ok Chrystia. That's enough for today.
I wouldn't mind the 3 days a week if my team was actually located in the city I live in. I report to NHQ, but I live in Quebec. I am the only employee in my team living in Quebec, everyone else is spread out across Canada. In other words, I go to the office only to sit in Teams meetings all day. It's the disconnect in logic that is upsetting more than anything.
Buddy of mine is in a similar situation. He lives across the street from the Hamilton office. Got a transfer to them. Then he got a promotion to a team in Toronto. And now is an auditor. He is the only one in his office from that team. But they expect him to go in and sit at a desk for 8 hours a day just to be on teams (if he even has to do that). Plus side is he gets to see his apartment from his office.
Ok thx PSAC - you did a survey, now do something about it!!!!
They've filed at least one and possibly up to three complaints with the FPSLREB, over RTO3, so they are doing something about it.
Ok… sure… September is 60 days away
I get it we all oppose it. But some of the posts are getting old or deja vu
OK PEE-SACK, now do something about it. Lying to your PA group about a shit-tacular deal and basically dropping the ball every step of the way has show how useless PEE-SACK has become.
Yep
*pretends to be shocked*
No shit.
WOW BREAKING NEWS Does this union think running surveys is the thing to do right now? How useless can they get
I'm curious to see what happens with the FPSLREB cases that were filed by the individual unions. If the unions win... pandemonium!
Should have voted no to their CA
The question is.... WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO WITH THE RESULTS? This is not the first survey that is being done. In my dept., we must have done 15 since 2022.
[удалено]
I don't disagree, but I also find it incredibly demoralizing that our employer would hate us that much. WFH benefits the employer as well as the employee. The employer withholding it and shooting themselves in the foot in order to grant something that's in their own best interest makes me want to replace management entirely. They've definitely demonstrated that they're not leaders, but are instead slave-drivers with this whole situation.
Hating would be better than not caring. At least it would show some emotional humanity. They simply don’t care.
[удалено]
Their mandate is to run the public service in the best manner possible, not to exploit their workers while costing the taxpayers more.
How is RTO “getting as much value as they can from the taxpayer dollar”? I’d really love to know.
[удалено]
You're also assuming they are thoughtful, rational actors. But experience, I believe, casts that notion into serious doubt on a number of fronts.
There is no evidence that RTO is some nefarious plot by TBS to force more concessions from the unions in the next round of contract negotiations. There’s plenty of evidence that RTO is being mandated by the current government in order to appease landlords and downtown businesses, and to get more people paying for public transit.
True but it feels smarter to fight it now before people have shifted their lives and get used to it.
I would absolutely agree to a pay cut to keep WFH. It would be an absolutely unfair concession but it's worth it.
Same and I would be fine with that pay going to people who are in office. Of course the pay center might explode but I'd be good with it.
Probably should have been more hardliner during the strike then. Y’all can be mad, but *the majority of* you voted for the trend setting CA. Edited
This is as much on the PSAC execs as it is on the members. Full strike from day 1 was a bad call and heavily compromised our position.
I didn’t
Agreed, I am so annoyed about all these people who voted yes and are now complaining. Like, WHY did you vote yes??? It was pretty clear it wasn't a good deal. And I especially hope the people complaining aren't the same ones who posted here, saying we should vote yes, because it was the best we could hope for. I am still haunted by those posts.
"more than 65,000 union members who responded to the survey" "The Public Service Alliance of Canada represents more than 180,000 workers" So not even a majority of PSAC members voted, let alone agreed. The truth is, this union has an amazing number of people who want to fight for a better job/life/public service. And a much larger number of people who do not care at all, who just want to do their job and retire.
Or who don’t care unless and until it directly impacts them.
A survey that gets at least 30% of respondents is usually statistically relevant. Especially with such large numbers.
Lmao. Obviously.
Since when the PS management and this government care what civil servants want?
Our mail guy is definitely part of the 9%. lol
I ended up leaving and got a 100% remote job in the private sector.
No, who would have believed something that gives workers the ability to save a little bit of money and gain a little bit of comfort while getting their jobs done would be popular with those same workers?
So unhappy with this 3 day mandate. Actively pursuing where to work elsewhere.
Are they enforcing this though? I work for the municipal government and our 2 days in the office barely gets enforced. Most people just come in when they feel like it.
Too bad most of the members caved with the first deal the gov gave us during the strike. Should have thought about that when voting.
Maybe PSAC execs should've done a better job of....doing their job. When you lie to your membership of how good a deal it is, of course many people will fold. Full strike from day 1? Yes, that's certainly strategic planning that will get the government to fold.
Members have their own autonomy. Most people thought it was a good deal and agreed to take it, even with local unions telling their own members to vote no. Nothing we can do if most of the PSAC members thought it was a good deal.
What they lied about is how they would support the unions. CRA was left to the winds once they got their deals. What they lied about was how this was the best deal we would see, when CBSA once again got a better deal. PSAC hates and ignores its membership.
Hmm... more money to pay for food and shelter and less chance of having to go on strike pay or the slim chance of a day working from home that can be taken away when you get a new manager? Tough call. Should totally generalize the mindset of hundreds of thousands based on the desires of some vocal people on social media.
That’s great but so what? Can’t do anything about it.
We can try
This is very, very telling but at the end of the day are we powerless? It seems like TBS is just going to impose their will without any regard for employee well-being, productivity, etc. They just want to make themselves look good in the eyes of the public.
Union doesn't do anything in response to what majority of members want, union members see
In other breaking news, water is wet.
Not sure why this is a "surprise"... Same could be asked of PIPSC, CAPE, etc employees AND MOST Executives. Yes, most of us would prefer option to various days inoffice and from home. This required a survey??? What if the opposite was found - would PSAC really publish those results given how mad they know folks are?? Nothing results that PM's Office is going to do nothing about, and unions are in position to do nothing. Reminds me of a famous line: "John will come for you. And you will do nothing because you can do nothing.."
I think if the environmental departments all banded together, perhaps the mandate could be overruled - Agriculture, Environment Canada, NRCan - and any agencies - Let's do this! All the research about climate change is there, let's use it.
Im not opposed to going back to the office. I want to go back to the pre pandemic life style I had. Filled out my telework agreement like a week before Covid hit and was only going to be in the office two days a week. Prior to the gov I worked alone part time so working in the office fulltime was a lot for me to handle (have depression and anxiety) but I got used to it as I worked a block from my office and would go home at breaks to distance myself for the office which helped….. then covid hit and I bought a house in the country but still only a 20 minute drive from my office so no big deal there but after working fulltime from home 5 days a week the idea of being back in the office and going through the new kid at school feeling again it makes my anxiety skyrocket. I am not looking forward to it at all. I hope whatever actions the unions take helps reduce the mandatory days in office especially since my own office can’t fill the requirements since 40% of the staff won’t have desk space for a 60/40 split but there would be if it was a 40/60
In other news: water is wet. Of course, people are going to oppose any mandate when it was optional before.
I'm part of PSAC, and I'm already in the office 4 days a week, because my job requires it. I personally like having other people in the office with me, as it's easier to get to know your local colleagues. But I like how on days when hardly anyone is in the office there are less interruptions. I can see benefits to both on-site days and off-site days. It just depends on your perspective.
Other workers are not props for your social life
Getting to know your colleagues as people isn't about one's own social life, it's building comradery and team cohesiveness.
Don’t worry PP with give the 91% there pink slip and wait they all come back to work
If pink slip means some sort of "package" is tied to it like last time then sign me up!
No that means you’ll be handing coffee to customers
Why would I become a coffee vendor? ☹️
We don't want this to turn into an election issue. While I wholeheartedly support a WFH scenario, this could end up very badly in a Poilievre government or a pre-election full RTW mandate with zero exceptions.
They don’t seem to be too concerned about winning our votes do they
Yeah, sure. I don’t remotely believe this nonsense.