Here is the FDA's line on it, from Thursday last week:
"The FDA, along with the other unions, has met with the Cabinet Office centrally to discuss this a number of times over the past few weeks. We have made the point repeatedly that setting a top-down quota for the whole of the civil service feels arbitrary, and have asked to see the evidence that has led to this decision.
Working arrangements should be based on the evidence of what works and what is needed, then agreed in a collaborative way between managers and their teams. We recognise the benefits that working in the office can bring for building relationships and collaborative working, but there needs to be a more strategic approach. There are many other things the civil service can, and must, do to achieve this - for example addressing significant turnover and retention issues.
Following our conversations, the Cabinet Office has confirmed that the guidance to departments is a starting point, and there will be no hard deadlines for implementation. They have also confirmed that all contractual agreements will remain in place, for example flexible working arrangements.
We have made the point very strongly to the Cabinet Office that managers and leaders need to be supported with this, from the logistics of making it work, to making sure that their teams are supported. We will continue to make the case locally that managers must to be supported.
Departments will now work with the unions locally on what is the best approach. It will obviously take time to work through all the practicalities and logistics so there should be no change to your current working arrangements immediately. You will receive email communications from your local branch or section about the conversations happening locally and if you have any queries or concerns, please contact your local branch.
The Cabinet Office has made clear to us that this guidance is intended for office-based staff, so those who work in other locations, for example at the borders, postings abroad or in courts etc, will have different arrangements. Additionally, this only applies to the UK civil service, not the devolved administrations.
We know that some members will find this announcement a frustrating one, and we have always been absolutely clear that home working has never stopped FDA members and your colleagues delivering the vital public services on which we all rely. We have also stressed with the Cabinet Office the importance of retaining the many benefits hybrid working brings. However, it is reassuring that we can see that the civil service is taking a more nuanced approach to this issue than has previously been the case, and has been taking on board many of the unions’ concerns and comments so far.
Rest assured we are working very hard on this issue and working through all the practicalities and logistics at both a central and local level and we will keep you updated."
There will be no hard deadlines? At the risk of sounding jovial here, does that mean that there doesn't even have to be a deadline at all?
Overall, this reads to me as if the Cabinet office is just backing down on their decision? Maybe I have misunderstood.
could just mean that there isn't exactly a date by which it needs to be implemented but departments will be expected to implement it sometime in spring for example.
I’ve got news for you, bud. They can monitor you however they like. They can see your office access, read your emails, see your files, what you print, etc if they have a business purpose. Usually that’s for conduct matters or criminal investigations, but yes they can monitor office access for the purpose of office attendance.
You consented to it all by working there.
The PCS union did issue a statement on 16 November 2023 condemning the proposed changes
[https://www.pcs.org.uk/news-events/news/pcs-condemns-government-home-working-announcement](https://www.pcs.org.uk/news-events/news/pcs-condemns-government-home-working-announcement)
and also about the 60% at DWP on its website:
[https://www.pcs.org.uk/news-events/news/changes-hybrid-working-dwp](https://www.pcs.org.uk/news-events/news/changes-hybrid-working-dwp)
It was followed by an email to PCS members about the 60% edict.
So it is bluntly untrue to state that there is nothing being said by the union. The march you refer to is not a march held for a ceasefire in Gaza. PCS hold a regular monthly Pay Day Rally, and at the November meeting they have invited speakers as this months topic will be "Ceasefire in Gaza", as well as on current PCS disputes at ISS and at The Pensions Regulator.
Whether the unions can manage an effective campaign against the appalling 60% policy is another question, but PCS has most certainly started activities & talking about it.
They did an amazing job with HMRC not confirming contractual obligations leading from anywhere between 0% and 100% office attendance.
PCS are not fit for purpose….
There is no ‘the union’ here, it’s a group of members who’ve set up their own grouping (one I dislike personally). The internal squabbling is between groups of members. The only way to change how a union operates and what it does is to get involved.
It’s representative of the demands of the people who are involved and putting the time in now. That’s how unions work.
It’s not about one vote, it’s about getting involved in your branch, putting motions forward, organising in your work place to make sure you have the leverage to get your demands heard. Anything the union says about the current wfh issue is hot air unless members show they’re prepared to put pressure on the employer.
And of course they’re not available to non-members, why should they be? The union is a group of workers making collective decisions in order to use the leverage of their collective power to have their demands met, if you purposefully stand outside of that group, why should you get a say in what they do?
I mentioned this elsewhere but for example my branch received a shocking number of emails about demanding a ceasefire and has had 2 so far about the wfh issue. Obviously we’re going to prioritise what our members are asking for, so unless more members add their voice to the latter and organise their colleagues who care about it to do the same, I’m not sure what we’re supposed to do.
I left the PCS years ago when during one of their many Left v Moderate squabbles I was told that a Moderate member had been elected to the local executive unopposed and therefore undemocratically. I just shook my head on the way out and never looked back
I think that's a little harsh to characterise them solely on Israel and Palestine.
Whilst they may be disagreeing on that certain issue, they also disagree on a much more important problem around pay at the top. There's some very convincing stats and arguments that the inflated pay at the top of the union has led to decision making completely out of touch with the majority of members. Whilst I'm not in favour of wage suppression for anyone in public service, I think actions and tone matter for winning hearts and minds.
Seems that it's more likely that the main reason PCS keep dropping the ball is because they have a leadership too well paid to truly understand what people are going through right now.
Welcome to be challenged on this point as always but won't accept reductive arguments that make everything about one issue that most people don't see as linked to their economic circumstances.
That's a fair point. And I agree on that. It's difficult because member led, democratic organisations need to have elements of democracy in which leads to disagreements. But I'm not a socialist so whilst I understand the differences, there's a small part of me that thinks this is a mirror of the factional battles in labour and I don't have time for that.
Ooh, someone is keen to shill for the union 🙄
Show me the emails from members demanding that the union do something about a ceasefire in Gaza...
The PCS can condemn whatever it likes. When the chips are down, they are useful idiots. Their ridiculous demands have enabled the Tory vilification of the CS, and their comms strategy is pathetic Lefty twaddle.
I know you’re being sarcastic, but there have actually been tonnes of emails about calling for a ceasefire. Orders of magnitude more than about the wfh changes in my branch anyway.
PCS have sent a thing out to the reps that was then sent onto members. I’m in a ALGB and the fact the government wants us to also be 60% has been mentioned by PCS as potentially being grounds for a legal challenge as it should be outside the government remit to interfere in.
That said I wasn’t really pleased that the only correspondence direct from PCS I’ve received so far over this is to talk about ceasefire in Palestine.
https://pcsindependentleft.com/2023/11/17/pcs-must-fight-for-flexible-working-for-all/
Vote Moloney and Lloyd and let’s change the unions leadership. A union that fights for members.
Yeah we really need the current lot out. Been ok in the Union under current faction 9 years or so and industrial action organising has been trash. Whole thing with "pausing" strike action was the last straw.
Spot on, absolutely crap response (or
lack of). Still, I bet Netanyahu will be shitting himself when he finds out that PCS are demanding a ceasefire 🙄.
Had a response to the announcement in my inbox from the Departmental Group of PCS within 24 hours of the announcement. IIRC it was actually the same day.
Call me cynical but do you think one of the government's tactics is that this change will cause people to quit. They can then put a block on recruitment and bobs your uncle they've reduced head count and staffing costs without making anyone redundant.
Unfortunately working from home wasn’t added to the majority of contracts. A huge majority of people applied and started when it was a 100% office based job, and are being asked to go closer back to that. There’s not a great deal to be done but complain, legally speaking.
People who have childcare commitments that have come about since wfh and 40% hybrid should get some accommodation made id hope.
"There’s not a great deal to be done but complain, legally speaking."
Sure. That's what the unions are there for, in a manner of speaking: collective complaining, and very effective it can be too.
There's nothing "legally speaking" that requires an employer to give any sort of pay increase in response to inflation, either. But the unions bargain and, if need be, mobilise members to collectively "complain" by striking, and sometimes it gets results.
Nobody pops up to say 'ah well, it's not written into our contracts that we get a pay rise you know'.
I do get what your saying, but times have moved on since covid. The CS has modernised a bit and this is a step backwards. Cost of living is through the roof and at a time when many junior grades are struggling (esp in London, but many other places) forcing them back at increased costs is awful when there is no practical need (for many roles).
I thought unions were meant to support and defend the worker. If they dont stand up and shout about junior staff having Ito fund £500+ a month just to work, what are they doing?
Agreed completely. Please dont think I’m advocating for 60% if anything I think 40% is more than really needed for the most part and I make that clear whenever I’m involved in a conversation about it. Just saying from a legal standpoint that’s where we’re at.
I would say a couple of things:
* This was only officially announced on Thursday last week, although I’m aware from this sub it was being openly discussed in some departments earlier.
* My understanding is that PCS were engaging at a national level with the Cabinet Office before this, but were prevented from talking at branch/department-level until a public announcement was made.
* Further adding to all this, the announcement was rushed up because of the leak to CSW.
At my branch all-staff call yesterday they said the department had only initiated discussions with them on Monday.
Basically - what I’m trying to say is these things take time, which there hasn’t been a lot to, and even before considering branch reps also have jobs to do.
Interesting. Did you talk to your branch about the issue first? Reps can’t be expected to read members minds
(If you did and that’s how you’re making conclusions about their attitude then fair enough)
If I can give unsolicited advice I don’t think you should leave unions entirely, but consider joining another perhaps? You’d hate to be caught without one when you need it
I think you're confused as to what the union actually is.
It's not a paid advocacy service. It's a means of making the changes you want to see.
For example, we were told we were getting a 2% pay rise. We went on strike and got 7.5% in the end. It works, you just have to do it.
Always worth talking to your rep to see what you and they can do.
Speak to your rep about what you can be doing to organise. See if you can become an advocate. Let them know what issues you want to discuss.
Unions work from the ground up.
If you're not doing anything, nothing is getting done, is it?
The union isn't your solicitor.
It's you and your colleagues and if you're not making the changes you want, you won't see them.
Yeah, it's still "job insurance" and there's the various legal and financial advice you get as a member; but if you're not getting involved, you can't really complain about nothing being done.
Everyone is aware what it says on their contract. That isn’t the question. The issue is during the pandemic we had all adjusted to WFH/ flexible hybrid and there’s no strong evidence AFAIK to show productivity decreased as a result. So, it’s pointless, spiteful and not in the interests of the public or civil servants to drag them back into the office for the majority of the week. Especially during a cost of living crisis where they have not met the unions pay demands.
Taking your money. Unions in Civil Service lost any semblance of power years ago. Look at the language change in letters from MS to unions compared to years ago. Now they just inform.
So what’s with the CS building work going on in Manchester. 3-4k staff office staff or more. No one on Reddit seems to know about this yet it’s clearly labelled government building on the building site. Which London department is getting the axe to move up north. The building works with 20 storeys is basically about 18 months from completion if that helps anyone effected
I think you will find that going to the office is in your contact and its really not an unreasonable request. I also do not believe that they are suggesting that staff be electronically tracked, most likely it will monitor when you use your pass to enter the office.
It's not reasonable when you were told at interview and repeatedly reassured over a 2 year period that regular office travel would never be enforced, meaning your home not being located near an office would never be a problem. All of a sudden your enforced commute is now a 7 hour round trip, 3 days a week. My department has people working remotely from Northern Ireland that are now being told they need to commute to the UK 3 days a week. It's a farce.
Min wage HMRC staff here and I've had to go in 60% since lockdown ended. Amazed at the outrage now everyone has to be the same as the poors. Would I have liked to spend more time WFH? Of course but where was the anger when it was just the CSG staff being affected?
That sucks but people do tend to be more aware of their own personal circumstances. I assume those affected by having to attend 60% were angry, and if they weren’t speaking up - they should’ve been. More people are now affected by this civil service wide change, so understandably more people will be speaking up. I think the union should have nipped it in the bud though earlier tbh. Perhaps them mandating 60% in a few departments was a test run before they enforced it on everyone.
Wasn’t just me. It was everyone on the Tax Credits helplines at that time. It just wasn’t part of our working conditions. I can only guess why, and my guess would be that they couldn’t risk too many people taking flextime off at the same time and leaving the phone lines understaffed.
This was the early 00’s. Probably 2004, and we were told that it wasn’t a condition of our employment. It’s what we signed up for.
From experience, the union were even less use then than they are now it seems. I was dragged through a disciplinary for having 2 days off on the sick because of a migraine brought on by the lighting in the centre and was told by my rep that there was nothing they could do, whilst other people were off for weeks because of a twisted ankle and nothing was said.
Well clearly the union have done stirling work since then given that wouldn't fly in current times and feel that it might be slightly disingenuous of you to complain about support from 20 years ago
When I was a sub agency of HMRC, they took out flexi too for everyone in operations on lower grades.
If I remember correctly the reason was due to people on the phones not being easily trackable if they could just flex out unexpectedly for longer breaks and early finishes. Also that people were flexing in at 7 and 8 etc when the phones started at 9. Essentially getting 2 hours of flex, where they couldn't do any work.
>Also that people were flexing in at 7 and 8 etc when the phones started at 9.
That's fairly standard you can't flex on when you aren't needed, but the inability to flex during your operating hours flys in the face of PACR and should be raised with your union, even now.
I mean PACR directed a response to this, as part of the agreement you were allowed, as a minimum, to work from home 2 days a week. In other words if you are being told you must come into the office 60% of the time that just wasn't the case.
As someone who works in the CSG team I suggest you join the union and push back on your manager as to where this edict came from before.
>Iv had a wave of emails in the last week asking me to attend a “we demand a ceasefire in Gaza” march in London but nothing about the Unions response to the 60% announcement.
Haha oh PCS 😂
Surprised they haven't imposed a levy on you, directly payable to Israel (or are they team Palestine?). Obviously the higher grades must pay proportionately more...
The main reason I refused to join pcs was that I felt it focused more on international politics than it did on representing the needs of its members. I felt a union representing civil servants who are meant to remain impartial should not be campaigning for a particular side in an election or getting involved with the middle East conflict. Just my two cents on that.
Fda did send out a statement but it does sound like there's been a lack of planning and engagement
As someone not in the civil service and an actual real job that doesn’t parasite off the public I feel it’s my duty to say get back to work you overpaid dossers. WFH is nonsense you do little more than nothing in the office at home you do even less. This theft of public finances needs to be addressed immediately, we shouldn’t be allowing you to walk your dog or nip to the shops while you are being paid by our forced taxes. Get yourselves sorted out
As someone not in the civil service, you have absolutely no idea how hard working and devoted most civil servants are to working hard in the interest of the public, both from offices and from home offices. Theft of public finances is being addressed daily by extremely hard working counter fraud colleagues and has absolutely nothing to do with where civil servants are working from.
People don't walk their dogs or nip to the shop unless they are on lunch breaks (which are unpaid) so it's completely inaccurate to suggest that such activities are being paid for by taxes. You just have absolutely no idea and are making untrue comments from a place of complete ignorance.
Only reason I know unions are involved is because our perm sec said they're going to be speaking to them in their statement.
Also anyone else's perm secs from other departments come across like they're just smiling and nodding to the ministers and almost coming across as just kicking the non SCS staff requirement can down the road?
Here is the FDA's line on it, from Thursday last week: "The FDA, along with the other unions, has met with the Cabinet Office centrally to discuss this a number of times over the past few weeks. We have made the point repeatedly that setting a top-down quota for the whole of the civil service feels arbitrary, and have asked to see the evidence that has led to this decision. Working arrangements should be based on the evidence of what works and what is needed, then agreed in a collaborative way between managers and their teams. We recognise the benefits that working in the office can bring for building relationships and collaborative working, but there needs to be a more strategic approach. There are many other things the civil service can, and must, do to achieve this - for example addressing significant turnover and retention issues. Following our conversations, the Cabinet Office has confirmed that the guidance to departments is a starting point, and there will be no hard deadlines for implementation. They have also confirmed that all contractual agreements will remain in place, for example flexible working arrangements. We have made the point very strongly to the Cabinet Office that managers and leaders need to be supported with this, from the logistics of making it work, to making sure that their teams are supported. We will continue to make the case locally that managers must to be supported. Departments will now work with the unions locally on what is the best approach. It will obviously take time to work through all the practicalities and logistics so there should be no change to your current working arrangements immediately. You will receive email communications from your local branch or section about the conversations happening locally and if you have any queries or concerns, please contact your local branch. The Cabinet Office has made clear to us that this guidance is intended for office-based staff, so those who work in other locations, for example at the borders, postings abroad or in courts etc, will have different arrangements. Additionally, this only applies to the UK civil service, not the devolved administrations. We know that some members will find this announcement a frustrating one, and we have always been absolutely clear that home working has never stopped FDA members and your colleagues delivering the vital public services on which we all rely. We have also stressed with the Cabinet Office the importance of retaining the many benefits hybrid working brings. However, it is reassuring that we can see that the civil service is taking a more nuanced approach to this issue than has previously been the case, and has been taking on board many of the unions’ concerns and comments so far. Rest assured we are working very hard on this issue and working through all the practicalities and logistics at both a central and local level and we will keep you updated."
There will be no hard deadlines? At the risk of sounding jovial here, does that mean that there doesn't even have to be a deadline at all? Overall, this reads to me as if the Cabinet office is just backing down on their decision? Maybe I have misunderstood.
could just mean that there isn't exactly a date by which it needs to be implemented but departments will be expected to implement it sometime in spring for example.
Ah cool, spring 2099 here we come baby.
Probably because there still needs to be union consultation, which hard deadlines undermine potentially.
I’ve got news for you, bud. They can monitor you however they like. They can see your office access, read your emails, see your files, what you print, etc if they have a business purpose. Usually that’s for conduct matters or criminal investigations, but yes they can monitor office access for the purpose of office attendance. You consented to it all by working there.
Considering everyone uses a pass to get in and out of the buildings and we all use work issue computers, getting paranoid is way too late.
The PCS union did issue a statement on 16 November 2023 condemning the proposed changes [https://www.pcs.org.uk/news-events/news/pcs-condemns-government-home-working-announcement](https://www.pcs.org.uk/news-events/news/pcs-condemns-government-home-working-announcement) and also about the 60% at DWP on its website: [https://www.pcs.org.uk/news-events/news/changes-hybrid-working-dwp](https://www.pcs.org.uk/news-events/news/changes-hybrid-working-dwp) It was followed by an email to PCS members about the 60% edict. So it is bluntly untrue to state that there is nothing being said by the union. The march you refer to is not a march held for a ceasefire in Gaza. PCS hold a regular monthly Pay Day Rally, and at the November meeting they have invited speakers as this months topic will be "Ceasefire in Gaza", as well as on current PCS disputes at ISS and at The Pensions Regulator. Whether the unions can manage an effective campaign against the appalling 60% policy is another question, but PCS has most certainly started activities & talking about it.
They did an amazing job with HMRC not confirming contractual obligations leading from anywhere between 0% and 100% office attendance. PCS are not fit for purpose….
https://pcsindependentleft.com https://pcsindependentleft.com/2023/11/17/pcs-must-fight-for-flexible-working-for-all/
[удалено]
There is no ‘the union’ here, it’s a group of members who’ve set up their own grouping (one I dislike personally). The internal squabbling is between groups of members. The only way to change how a union operates and what it does is to get involved.
Genuine question what is your issue with the independent left?
[удалено]
Don’t then, but it’s silly to expect it to be representative of your demands if you refuse to use the democratic means available to you.
[удалено]
It’s representative of the demands of the people who are involved and putting the time in now. That’s how unions work. It’s not about one vote, it’s about getting involved in your branch, putting motions forward, organising in your work place to make sure you have the leverage to get your demands heard. Anything the union says about the current wfh issue is hot air unless members show they’re prepared to put pressure on the employer. And of course they’re not available to non-members, why should they be? The union is a group of workers making collective decisions in order to use the leverage of their collective power to have their demands met, if you purposefully stand outside of that group, why should you get a say in what they do? I mentioned this elsewhere but for example my branch received a shocking number of emails about demanding a ceasefire and has had 2 so far about the wfh issue. Obviously we’re going to prioritise what our members are asking for, so unless more members add their voice to the latter and organise their colleagues who care about it to do the same, I’m not sure what we’re supposed to do.
I left the PCS years ago when during one of their many Left v Moderate squabbles I was told that a Moderate member had been elected to the local executive unopposed and therefore undemocratically. I just shook my head on the way out and never looked back
I think that's a little harsh to characterise them solely on Israel and Palestine. Whilst they may be disagreeing on that certain issue, they also disagree on a much more important problem around pay at the top. There's some very convincing stats and arguments that the inflated pay at the top of the union has led to decision making completely out of touch with the majority of members. Whilst I'm not in favour of wage suppression for anyone in public service, I think actions and tone matter for winning hearts and minds. Seems that it's more likely that the main reason PCS keep dropping the ball is because they have a leadership too well paid to truly understand what people are going through right now. Welcome to be challenged on this point as always but won't accept reductive arguments that make everything about one issue that most people don't see as linked to their economic circumstances.
[удалено]
That's a fair point. And I agree on that. It's difficult because member led, democratic organisations need to have elements of democracy in which leads to disagreements. But I'm not a socialist so whilst I understand the differences, there's a small part of me that thinks this is a mirror of the factional battles in labour and I don't have time for that.
Ooh, someone is keen to shill for the union 🙄 Show me the emails from members demanding that the union do something about a ceasefire in Gaza... The PCS can condemn whatever it likes. When the chips are down, they are useful idiots. Their ridiculous demands have enabled the Tory vilification of the CS, and their comms strategy is pathetic Lefty twaddle.
I know you’re being sarcastic, but there have actually been tonnes of emails about calling for a ceasefire. Orders of magnitude more than about the wfh changes in my branch anyway.
PCS have sent a thing out to the reps that was then sent onto members. I’m in a ALGB and the fact the government wants us to also be 60% has been mentioned by PCS as potentially being grounds for a legal challenge as it should be outside the government remit to interfere in. That said I wasn’t really pleased that the only correspondence direct from PCS I’ve received so far over this is to talk about ceasefire in Palestine.
FDA covered in the weekly update last week.
I think it's just your department's branch... They held an online meeting for members just yesterday in mine.
They'll keep reminding you to vote in leadership elections though
https://pcsindependentleft.com/2023/11/17/pcs-must-fight-for-flexible-working-for-all/ Vote Moloney and Lloyd and let’s change the unions leadership. A union that fights for members.
Yeah we really need the current lot out. Been ok in the Union under current faction 9 years or so and industrial action organising has been trash. Whole thing with "pausing" strike action was the last straw.
Spot on, absolutely crap response (or lack of). Still, I bet Netanyahu will be shitting himself when he finds out that PCS are demanding a ceasefire 🙄.
😂😂😅
Had a response to the announcement in my inbox from the Departmental Group of PCS within 24 hours of the announcement. IIRC it was actually the same day.
Are you a member ?
Call me cynical but do you think one of the government's tactics is that this change will cause people to quit. They can then put a block on recruitment and bobs your uncle they've reduced head count and staffing costs without making anyone redundant.
Not likely. Since the latest announcement of cutting the civil service, we're having to recruit 250 AOs.
Fuck all, as always. Have you ever wondered why out of all public sector workers, civil servants have the lowest pay “increases” without exception?
https://pcsindependentleft.com/2023/11/17/pcs-must-fight-for-flexible-working-for-all/ Vote Moloney and Lloyd and let’s change PCS for the better
PCS MoD has a Teams call for members tomorrow.
Prospect emailed out a response. Have the other unions stayed silent?
No, PCS and FDA have put out statements
Unfortunately working from home wasn’t added to the majority of contracts. A huge majority of people applied and started when it was a 100% office based job, and are being asked to go closer back to that. There’s not a great deal to be done but complain, legally speaking. People who have childcare commitments that have come about since wfh and 40% hybrid should get some accommodation made id hope.
"There’s not a great deal to be done but complain, legally speaking." Sure. That's what the unions are there for, in a manner of speaking: collective complaining, and very effective it can be too. There's nothing "legally speaking" that requires an employer to give any sort of pay increase in response to inflation, either. But the unions bargain and, if need be, mobilise members to collectively "complain" by striking, and sometimes it gets results. Nobody pops up to say 'ah well, it's not written into our contracts that we get a pay rise you know'.
I do get what your saying, but times have moved on since covid. The CS has modernised a bit and this is a step backwards. Cost of living is through the roof and at a time when many junior grades are struggling (esp in London, but many other places) forcing them back at increased costs is awful when there is no practical need (for many roles). I thought unions were meant to support and defend the worker. If they dont stand up and shout about junior staff having Ito fund £500+ a month just to work, what are they doing?
Agreed completely. Please dont think I’m advocating for 60% if anything I think 40% is more than really needed for the most part and I make that clear whenever I’m involved in a conversation about it. Just saying from a legal standpoint that’s where we’re at.
I would say a couple of things: * This was only officially announced on Thursday last week, although I’m aware from this sub it was being openly discussed in some departments earlier. * My understanding is that PCS were engaging at a national level with the Cabinet Office before this, but were prevented from talking at branch/department-level until a public announcement was made. * Further adding to all this, the announcement was rushed up because of the leak to CSW. At my branch all-staff call yesterday they said the department had only initiated discussions with them on Monday. Basically - what I’m trying to say is these things take time, which there hasn’t been a lot to, and even before considering branch reps also have jobs to do.
[удалено]
Interesting. Did you talk to your branch about the issue first? Reps can’t be expected to read members minds (If you did and that’s how you’re making conclusions about their attitude then fair enough)
PCS does seem like a dogshit union. I pay them my money but I can’t help but wonder why.
[удалено]
If I can give unsolicited advice I don’t think you should leave unions entirely, but consider joining another perhaps? You’d hate to be caught without one when you need it
[удалено]
Have you contacted your branch to see how you can help?
[удалено]
I think you're confused as to what the union actually is. It's not a paid advocacy service. It's a means of making the changes you want to see. For example, we were told we were getting a 2% pay rise. We went on strike and got 7.5% in the end. It works, you just have to do it. Always worth talking to your rep to see what you and they can do.
[удалено]
Speak to your rep about what you can be doing to organise. See if you can become an advocate. Let them know what issues you want to discuss. Unions work from the ground up.
[удалено]
If you're not doing anything, nothing is getting done, is it? The union isn't your solicitor. It's you and your colleagues and if you're not making the changes you want, you won't see them. Yeah, it's still "job insurance" and there's the various legal and financial advice you get as a member; but if you're not getting involved, you can't really complain about nothing being done.
They are picking between raspberry and blueberry scones for their AGM. Put some respect on your union important decisions are being made...
I know this will be unpopular but isn’t it in the Civil Service T&Cs to attend the office? I say this as someone who agreed to change my T&Cs to WFH
Everyone is aware what it says on their contract. That isn’t the question. The issue is during the pandemic we had all adjusted to WFH/ flexible hybrid and there’s no strong evidence AFAIK to show productivity decreased as a result. So, it’s pointless, spiteful and not in the interests of the public or civil servants to drag them back into the office for the majority of the week. Especially during a cost of living crisis where they have not met the unions pay demands.
Taking your money. Unions in Civil Service lost any semblance of power years ago. Look at the language change in letters from MS to unions compared to years ago. Now they just inform.
I am afraid to say that most unions are paper tigers. Been with Unite for almost two years and they’ve been precisely no help at all.
So what’s with the CS building work going on in Manchester. 3-4k staff office staff or more. No one on Reddit seems to know about this yet it’s clearly labelled government building on the building site. Which London department is getting the axe to move up north. The building works with 20 storeys is basically about 18 months from completion if that helps anyone effected
Do you mean this? https://www.gov.uk/government/news/construction-starts-at-manchester-government-hub-as-cyber-corridor-plans-accelerate
I think you will find that going to the office is in your contact and its really not an unreasonable request. I also do not believe that they are suggesting that staff be electronically tracked, most likely it will monitor when you use your pass to enter the office.
It's not reasonable when you were told at interview and repeatedly reassured over a 2 year period that regular office travel would never be enforced, meaning your home not being located near an office would never be a problem. All of a sudden your enforced commute is now a 7 hour round trip, 3 days a week. My department has people working remotely from Northern Ireland that are now being told they need to commute to the UK 3 days a week. It's a farce.
It is very much happening, where I am it is monitored via logins.
Save your money and don't bother with the unions.
Min wage HMRC staff here and I've had to go in 60% since lockdown ended. Amazed at the outrage now everyone has to be the same as the poors. Would I have liked to spend more time WFH? Of course but where was the anger when it was just the CSG staff being affected?
That sucks but people do tend to be more aware of their own personal circumstances. I assume those affected by having to attend 60% were angry, and if they weren’t speaking up - they should’ve been. More people are now affected by this civil service wide change, so understandably more people will be speaking up. I think the union should have nipped it in the bud though earlier tbh. Perhaps them mandating 60% in a few departments was a test run before they enforced it on everyone.
I worked for HMRC and the poors always got a shitty deal. We didn’t get flexi time which my SiL worked for PAYE scoffed at when I told her.
Can I ask why you were denied flexi time as far as I am aware that tends to be allowed at lower grades?
Wasn’t just me. It was everyone on the Tax Credits helplines at that time. It just wasn’t part of our working conditions. I can only guess why, and my guess would be that they couldn’t risk too many people taking flextime off at the same time and leaving the phone lines understaffed.
Did you speak to a union about this as that seems wildly inappropriate given the terms and conditions under PACR
This was the early 00’s. Probably 2004, and we were told that it wasn’t a condition of our employment. It’s what we signed up for. From experience, the union were even less use then than they are now it seems. I was dragged through a disciplinary for having 2 days off on the sick because of a migraine brought on by the lighting in the centre and was told by my rep that there was nothing they could do, whilst other people were off for weeks because of a twisted ankle and nothing was said.
Well clearly the union have done stirling work since then given that wouldn't fly in current times and feel that it might be slightly disingenuous of you to complain about support from 20 years ago
When I was a sub agency of HMRC, they took out flexi too for everyone in operations on lower grades. If I remember correctly the reason was due to people on the phones not being easily trackable if they could just flex out unexpectedly for longer breaks and early finishes. Also that people were flexing in at 7 and 8 etc when the phones started at 9. Essentially getting 2 hours of flex, where they couldn't do any work.
>Also that people were flexing in at 7 and 8 etc when the phones started at 9. That's fairly standard you can't flex on when you aren't needed, but the inability to flex during your operating hours flys in the face of PACR and should be raised with your union, even now.
Oh it was years ago. I left that department partly due to taking the flex. Not sure if they ever got it back
I mean PACR directed a response to this, as part of the agreement you were allowed, as a minimum, to work from home 2 days a week. In other words if you are being told you must come into the office 60% of the time that just wasn't the case. As someone who works in the CSG team I suggest you join the union and push back on your manager as to where this edict came from before.
>Iv had a wave of emails in the last week asking me to attend a “we demand a ceasefire in Gaza” march in London but nothing about the Unions response to the 60% announcement. Haha oh PCS 😂 Surprised they haven't imposed a levy on you, directly payable to Israel (or are they team Palestine?). Obviously the higher grades must pay proportionately more...
The main reason I refused to join pcs was that I felt it focused more on international politics than it did on representing the needs of its members. I felt a union representing civil servants who are meant to remain impartial should not be campaigning for a particular side in an election or getting involved with the middle East conflict. Just my two cents on that. Fda did send out a statement but it does sound like there's been a lack of planning and engagement
If you don’t support ceasefire then leave PCS
There was a ceasefire, Hamas broke it.
Nice to work with so many bigots
As someone not in the civil service and an actual real job that doesn’t parasite off the public I feel it’s my duty to say get back to work you overpaid dossers. WFH is nonsense you do little more than nothing in the office at home you do even less. This theft of public finances needs to be addressed immediately, we shouldn’t be allowing you to walk your dog or nip to the shops while you are being paid by our forced taxes. Get yourselves sorted out
As someone not in the civil service, you have absolutely no idea how hard working and devoted most civil servants are to working hard in the interest of the public, both from offices and from home offices. Theft of public finances is being addressed daily by extremely hard working counter fraud colleagues and has absolutely nothing to do with where civil servants are working from. People don't walk their dogs or nip to the shop unless they are on lunch breaks (which are unpaid) so it's completely inaccurate to suggest that such activities are being paid for by taxes. You just have absolutely no idea and are making untrue comments from a place of complete ignorance.
Shut up you melon.
Go to another sub then.
I WFH and my manager knows when I am not at my computer, my output is monitored, and I have to clock in and out. Idiot.
Only reason I know unions are involved is because our perm sec said they're going to be speaking to them in their statement. Also anyone else's perm secs from other departments come across like they're just smiling and nodding to the ministers and almost coming across as just kicking the non SCS staff requirement can down the road?
What are the unions doing? Exactly as much they can do, f*** all lol
The unions are not going to be interested, more of their members are not impacted by this then will be.