Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Civil Service - Post Lockdown - Blended Working?

13468956

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,681 ✭✭✭SouthWesterly


    That was just my observation from conversations i had with people.

    Things changed as restrictions eased



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 292 ✭✭BhoyRayzor


    I'm not saying a general rule is what should happen. 2 days in the office is the max that would be acceptable for those of us with a commute IMO, given there appears to be little chance in general of fully WFH roles, despite the evidence they can be done from home.

    I think it will be down to the PO who knows best the roles and the people that are doing them. If their staff want to be in the office full time, at home full time or blended then it makes sense for them to accommodate them where possible. Demonstrate flexibility and they will get it back IMO. If a PO can decide where their staff carry out their job and has a mix of staff who want any of the three options then a one size fits all does not make sense, even if it is encouraged in the guidelines coming.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,205 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    That's the problem though, if the guidelines don't highlight the fact that not everyone wants to WFH, organisations and POs will build their practices around the assumption that everyone wants to be at home but will be dragged in where necessary (or to fill a quota). This really doesn't work for people on either side.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I envison that number of days WFH / WFO will become part of each person's role profile / PMDS, because it allows for performance reviews at mid and end of year on how it is working out for both employee and supervisor.

    Adding a disclaimer - that is wildly speculative on my part, and I haven't heard anything at all about WFH/WFO becoming part of PMDS.

    But I've been thinking about it, and it seems to me to be the most logical time and place for that discussion to happen.

    (And as always, if agreement can't be reached, it goes up the line to the second supervisor).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,573 ✭✭✭✭yabadabado


    2 days is the max that would be acceptable to you to attend the office ?

    If management took the decision in a few weeks or months time that it was all back to 5 day office attendance what would you do?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,159 ✭✭✭✭billyhead


    As alluded to already I don't see the point of sitting at an office desk if the job can be done from home. Unless you work in front line public service ie. DSP or Revenue or theirs a particular business need to be in the office WFH should be offered full time to staff who want it.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Surely if this is to be implemted, there also has to be an easier way agreed with unions of getting rid of useless staff in return. I really hope the Government don't miss this opportunity to approve WFH demands without getting something tangible in return.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,940 ✭✭✭✭Beechwoodspark


    Spoofer Veradka has gone awol over this issue.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,107 ✭✭✭Sarn


    The reality is that 100% WFH will not be offered. Realistically it will be 3 days in the office and 2 at home, unfortunately. That is what has been proposed for us, despite various objections.

    No doubt there will be some flexibility in how it works out over a monthly period, but in order to be equitable, I don’t see sections performing similar functions getting away with 1 or 2 days only in the office (unless it’s something that they already had).

    Then there’s the issue of those who can’t work from home. Will there be complaints and cries for compensation because they don’t get a WFH perk? That will likely lead into new rules around flexileave. I won’t be surprised to see us penalised in some way for WFH, similar to how flexileave is currently suspended unless you work in the office.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28 AP2021


    My understanding also is that the starting position is likely to be 3 days out and 2 days in. I expect that this will be rather formal at the start, with at least one day in required for the team as a whole. As inevitably happens, local arrangements under various POs will begin to diverge as time goes on.


    For those who want full WFH, this is a very good starting position. The key thing to get at this point is more time at home than in the office. The reason for this is that it will necessitate and embed fairly quickly the key requirements to get additional WFH. Once you are out more than in the first thing that Departments will move towards (and this is part of Digital First in any case) is a move away from paper files almost entirely and moving towards electronic files. This is already the case is a lot of areas, but there are still some (especially customer facing) that are paper heavy and digital transformation efforts to move away from this are moving ahead across the civil service.

    An additional reason is that, once people start coming in only for a minority of their time, the futility of this will become fairly immediately apparent - people coming in to the city center to log in to zoom meetings and send emails. Over the next few years I expect you will see lots of sections start to embrace and seek 4 days a week WFH, or more flexible arrangements allowing entire weeks to be WFH with office attendance only expected at certain times. 3 days a week WFH means the end of most face-to-face meetings, which were the main reason that most civil servants were office based in the first place - the amount of jobs which could not be done from home because those we interact with were working in offices is huge - that is now out the door. I've seen this in my area already, where people were called back in and found themselves working pretty much exactly as they were doing from home, with meetings with stakeholders still taking place virtually.

    Managers will also have to get used to the idea of output based management rather than a presenteeism culture. The latter is much easier but much less effective, and any significant degree of WFH will demolish it as a management strategy. Managers will have to set and monitor output now, and while that culture will take some time to change, once it does the main barrier to WFH from the management side will die off. If you're focused entirely on output then you really don't care where or when your staff do the work provided the output hits your targets. We do have too many areas in which people just show up but do very varying levels of work when they're in. WFH will require a change there, and enabling mangers to develop output focused business plans and embed those in structures like PMDS is key to the cultural shift that needs to happen for WFH to be effective in an organisation as complex as the civil service. If you look at large law firms as an example (who culturally are fairly similar to the civil service in may ways) they've had less of an issue in adapting because they are super output focused: how much money are we taking in from fees; are billable hours up in X area; etc.

    The watchword in my area, and as I understand in others, is that it is needed for "better collaboration". That's a fairly paper thin reason, and frequently senior management are using "collaboration" as a buzzword when all they mean in actuality is "information sharing" and in some cases "onboarding". I've worked in the private sector in more creative type work where collaboration was key, especially to new product development and complex problem solving. With a few exceptions this is neither how the civil service, nor most of the traditional professions, work. To develop collaboration in a real sense you do what, for example, the tech firms do - provide a workspace that encourages people, in a fairly flat management structure, to spend their time in common areas with those from different business areas and provide them with the "down time" (80-20) to work on ideas together that mostly go nowhere, but occasionally lead to new and creative products and solutions. The Civil Service doesn't, and probably can't, function that way. I can only imagine the look of horror from A/Secs if you had a handful of EOs, AOs, and APs playing pool and having a beer in the office while discussing some policy or process issue and deciding to send a submission up on the back of it.

    Ultimately the kind of highly structured and constrained collaboration that occurs in the civil service won't be impacted greatly by WFH. A blended policy of 2/3 in/out will show this fairly rapidly. Onboarding is much harder, but it's not clear that the kind of informal training that is generally provided to new people is particularly efficient - there could be great gains in thinking about how we do that and providing a more formal process.

    There's also the fact that, eventually, Government will recognise the profound potential of greater WFH in the civil and public service (who will be following leaders in the private sector). If you look at a lot of the major challenges facing Government over the next decade: housing provision, transport infrastructure, childcare, elder care, rural decline, climate resilience, etc; there is a lot of scope for WFH and the pattern of development it provides to reduce burdens here. Housing is the obvious one and enough has been said about that. In terms of transport infrastructure the challenges all stem from having to move a large number of people daily into a very small geographic area from a very spread out geographic area - WFH reduces that challenge immediately. Childcare expenses and elder care expenses are modern problems that are to a large degree caused by the atomisation of families due to the need to relocate for increasingly specialised work, the closer people can remain to parents the less severe these problems are - you open the possibility which many will take up of the traditional "the grandparents provide free childcare, and eventually kids and grandkids provide free eldercare". The benefits for arresting rural decline are also obvious, country people have been moving to Dublin in their droves reducing the attractiveness and economic health of rural towns at an increasing pace now for decades since services overtook industry here - rural Ireland is already seeing the benefit of WFH in new coffee shops, restaurants, etc., suddenly becoming economically viable. A PO in many rural towns would be among the higher income earners in the area, and also has skills and experience that community organisations (local voluntary boards like credit unions, the tidy towns, Comhaltas, the GAA, etc.) increasingly find it difficult to find. The benefits for climate resilience are also fairly clear - the worst effects of climate change will be when densely populated areas become unlivable, particularly coastal locations like where all of our cities are. Spreading people out, especially when that doesn't mean carbon costly commutes, is a great way to mitigate that risk. The other big climate challenge is likely to be dealing with a large number of climate refugees over the next couple of decades. We will face a huge problem in integrating asylum seekers in a politically acceptable way if rural decline and urban housing shortages remain an issue: we cannot provide housing for them in the cities without being seen to "displace locals" who cannot get housing, and we cannot put them in rural communities that have no work available and are themselves experiencing the depopulation of their own children. Vibrant rural communities that have young and economically successful populations with a wealth of job opportunities will find it much easier to integrate these newcomers, and cities won't face the same degree of pressure on dwellings. That's going to be a divisive issue, and without a way to solve the problem there is a profound risk of political instability.

    Ireland's politics are highly sensitive to rural needs and will remain so for as long as we retain representation solely from multi-seat constituencies. Politicians are highly sensitive to the needs of their heartlands, and the pandemic has shown the potential for rural Ireland of getting back their sons and daughters who've left to work in the likes of Google, PWC, Salesforce, Arthur Cox, and the Civil Service. Political careers live and die over issues like keeping the small school, the post office, the Garda Station, the local hospital, etc. open. The best way to do that is to ensure a mass of people who need the service. Without that you just delay the inevitable.

    That doesn't mean working from bedrooms and garden offices though. Sure, many will go for that solution, but many more will go for rural hubs. There are increasing numbers of these, and more and more towns are looking to establish them at a rapid rate - it's not difficult when they have so many central premises vacant. I think I'd go mad working from my house every day, but I'd have no difficulty walking twenty minutes into the town center to take up a desk in the local remote hub. I might even buy a coffee and a sandwich in town, drop my kids off at my parents place (and maybe in 15 years time check on them in the morning and evening), or go out for pints in the evening with friends from the remote working hub.


    TL;DR: 3 days a week is the sweet spot for further development. It builds a remote culture in the organisation. It shows the benefit to the political system of WFH, which is significant. It also gives the Unions a new front for making demands, and those who want WFH should get active in FORSA and AHCPS to make this a priority in negotiations, because if they are smart they will find themselves pushing an open door.

    Post edited by AP2021 on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,438 ✭✭✭AyeGer


    Some public service and civil service mid level managers hate their staff working from home and will resist it, I think blended work is the future for many jobs though if they can be carried out to the required standards.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,726 ✭✭✭caviardreams


    Everyone is talking about management needing to manage based on outcomes and timelines. Managers desperately want this imo, but aren't allowed by the employees and culture in a lot of cases.

    The number of conversations I have about late timelines (which were agreed with the iniividual or even suggested by the individual, not me as the manager) with no explanation or communication or apology etc. and then I get the response that I am putting people under "pressure" and they go to the union and HR.

    Employees need to realise if they are WFH they need to be accountable and deliver on timelines, and managers need to be able to enforce that and have serious conversations/warnings if they don't. Right now, managers simply can't have those conversations as they will get accused of bullying and there is literally no consequence for employees of missed deadlines and not answering emails from the manager whatsoever - no demotion, no risk of dismissal, and no bonus foregone, so they simply don't care, except for the minority who are driven high performers. What can the manager do if they don't do the work on time? Nothing so there's no incentive to do the work if you are not career-driven and looking for a promotion. That's the power that staff have and it will be impossible in the long term.

    WFH works great if you can fully enforce accountability in a meaningful way - but this isn't possible in a lot of cases in the public service.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Exactly. There is always a minority who take the piss in the office. Allowing WFH needs to go hand-in-hand with stricter and enforced disciplinary actions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28 AP2021


    We have a lot of managers who are unwilling to manage. That's to some extent what you're describing. If one is actually followed their responsibilities as a manager, and set out and agreed realistic outputs with proper timescales, then the next step is clear when those goals aren't being met. There is a very clear policy on dealing with underperformance through the PIP process, but the fact is that mangers don't tend to go down that route as generally they don't feel confident in doing so as they have failed in some area of their own responsibility and they know that a union or legal rep will catch them on it (e.g. goals are unclear, staff have not been treated in a consistent manner, underperformance has been tolerated for an extended period, feedback and training have been lacking).

    If as a manger you've set goals realistically and with agreement, provided feedback, addressed performance issues promptly, and treated people consistently, then there are clear underperformance tools open to you. Threats of bullying and whatnot won't go anywhere.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,159 ✭✭✭✭billyhead


    There is a big problem with poor management in the CS whereby underperforming employees are allowed to fester. Some managers don't want to look weak if a PIP is implemented. It reflects badly on them that they couldn't nip problems in the bud before it got to that stage. Also the last thing a manager wants is a case of bullying on their hands when they have ambitions for promotion. It truly is disfunctional in some areas of the CS when underperformance is not confronted and acted on in comparison to the private sector where the employee would be shown the door. The unions have a lot of power unfortunately in protecting the employee.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,205 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    In return for providing free office space to the employer? You haven't done much negotiation with unions, have you?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Are you saying it is the Government that are demanding their employees work from home on a permanent basis? In order to free up Government office space? Do you have a link for any of this? Were the Government requesting this free work space prior to covid?


    Or is it in fact the employees who are requesting they provide their employer with free work space once it was experienced due to covid how beneficial it is?

    From what I can see in this thread, quite a lot of people are insisting they provide free work spaces within their homes.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,205 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    That's exactly what's happening to me and others today - Government demanding that employees work from home, with no consideration of the feasibility of same.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,726 ✭✭✭caviardreams


    Well, they are often unwilling to manage because it is not worth the heat to them from bullying complaints (trust me I have seen it - attack is the best form of defence for any employee who feels their performance is coming under scrutiny). HR often won't let you put people on a PIP as they are talking a risk of a legal case by the employee for unfair treatment and that's their number one objective - avoid legal issues.

    Once you start asking questions on documented timelines you get "you're pressuring me, you are singling me out" etc and you start getting manipulated and undermined which is very difficult to deal with. Honestly, managing in the PS is not done by a lot of managers because with the culture it's impossible to enforce things with disengaged and non performing employees - the manager will be the one taking all teh risks while the employee continues to get their way.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    On a permanent basis? Or is it just for the duration of the pandemic?

    Surely a chap like you, conscious of health and safety and all, would be glad not to have to mingle with others while a deadly virus is in the air.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,205 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Duration? Who knows, really. People were telling me here two years ago that it was just going to be for a couple of months. You'd be foolish to make plans for the future based on this virus. So what is 'just for the duration of the pandemic' going to be?

    There's no-one in the office to mingle with. There's a lovely, wide, open plan space for about 40 people sitting mostly empty, one other person once a week, lighted and heated, manned for security and cleaning. And I can't use it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,050 ✭✭✭gazzer


    Well I for one certainly don't want a 5 day week back in the office. I am saving a good bit of money (approx 50 euro a week) from no commuting costs and eating lunches I make from home.

    My bedroom is free during the day as I am not in bed so I have no problem using the room as an office. A laptop doesn't take up much room 😁.

    Of course my electricity bill is higher but with the savings I make I am still up around 30 euro a week.

    On top of that I have much more free time. I was spending the guts of 2.5 hours getting to and from work each day.

    I realise some people might cycle to work or live very near to their office but I'd be fairly confident that the majority of people drive or use public transport to get to the office.

    Using my section as an example from 25 people only one lives walking distance to the office. One other cycles. The rest drive and commute.

    If I really need to be in the office for a particular day I just have to let the accommodation unit know the day before.

    When blended working does eventually come in I hope to still be able to wfh 3 days a week



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Initial discussions with management for my role suggests I can expect a good shot at 1 day in office, 2 at most


    Its going to be heavily contingent on dept and role, and its still just too soon to be stirred up about it either way imo



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,050 ✭✭✭gazzer


    The one thing that needs to be clarified when blended working comes in is how will flexi leave work. Can you only work up time when you are physically in the office?

    It doesn't really affect me as I tended not to work up much time but since wfh I'm definitely doing approx an hour a day more due to timings of Zoom meetings etc as I tend to start work around 8.15 and finish around 5.30. There are a lot of people who pre Covid would have worked up flexi leave each month.

    The unions have been extremely quiet about flexi for some strange reason



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,573 ✭✭✭✭yabadabado


    Would you not speak to your manager and ask that meetings are scheduled for core time .

    I don't know why anyone would be giving an extra hour a day for nothing.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,050 ✭✭✭gazzer


    Well meetings are scheduled from 10 to 12.30 and 2 till 4.30 so more or less in core times but still need to do my work around that so tend to get a good bit done from 8.15 to 10 and after 4.30. We have a LOT of meetings 😁



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,573 ✭✭✭✭yabadabado


    5 hours of meetings per day, FFS that's taking the piss.

    Assistant Sec wouldn't be in that many hours of meetings per week.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I think the ability to accrue flexi leave will be lost in the trade off for blended working.

    I think flexi time will remain, and may become even more flexible (eg. changes to core times, staggered working hours, lunches, etc)

    Again, purely speculation on my part.

    But most people I've spoken too about it (including some here) have said they are willing to accept that trade off, to continue working from home.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,159 ✭✭✭✭billyhead


    A lot of meetings are a waste of time. No need for half of them.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    @gazzer -

    I can't seem to quote your post above about lots of meetings, but some of my colleagues have implemented a rule amongst themselves - "zoom free fridays" 🙂

    (I don't work on Fridays, so every Friday is zoom free for me 😉 )



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,050 ✭✭✭gazzer


    Sorry. I should have clarified

    Those are the range of times the meetings are can be scheduled for. Typically I'd spend about 2 to 2.5 hours a day at meetings.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I could be wrong, but I think the point being made was that meetings are scheduled during core times - not that the poster is booked for 5 solid hours of meetings every day?

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,050 ✭✭✭gazzer




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,573 ✭✭✭✭yabadabado


    Right I get you , absolutely no reason to be giving them an hour a day for nothing so.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,573 ✭✭✭✭yabadabado


    I wonder would it be a case of only allowed build up flexi time the days you are in the office,no Flexi WFH ?


    earlier start/later close would be something I'd like to see happen.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Maybe so....

    I don't know about other departments - mine does have physical flexi-clock terminals in our buildings, even though we've been clocking in/out on our computers during the pandemic. They'd have to find a way for the clock software to recognise the employee's location. Maybe if in the office you can only use the physical terminals?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,726 ✭✭✭caviardreams


    If people think a lot of people wouldn't be chancing their arm accruing lots of flexi time when at home (but not actually working) they are being very naive. In the same way that it happened on-site - but there is more potential at home as no chance of being caught looking at facebook or in the canteen etc.

    Flexi accrual when WFH will never be a thing imo - on-site days only if it comes back (but flexi hours/start times, yes)

    I would often have 20 hour of meetings per week - totally depends on your role and size of your team and people management responsibilities. One to ones alone can add up with a large team and unlike on-site where you can have a minute or two check in at the desk and checking people are ok, preventing a meeting as such, it has to be a structured weekly meeting remotely.

    And a 5 min zoom just doesn't happen. 30 mins at a minimum because people miss interaction/talking about their work (even if they don't admit it), so if they are in a role where they only have one or two meetings a week they will chew your ear off for an hour if they can about everything they are working on, instead of just the roadblocks.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 133 ✭✭Cdub


    I recently joined the Public Service with the AGS.

    With the announcement today that weekly hours are likely to revert back to between 35 and 37 hours per week (back to pre 2013 levels), does anyone know what hours were standard for Public Service civilians in AGS or did it vary depending on your grade? (I am an EO)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,573 ✭✭✭✭yabadabado


    A standard day pre 2013 change was 6.57 hour per day.

    34hr45 minutes per week



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 133 ✭✭Cdub


    Thank you. Did that include a lunchbreak of 30 mins or an hour or were breaks on top of the 6.57 hours?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭wench




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Lunch is on top.

    But the tea breaks are included. Disgraceful decision to revert to those hours. Not even 35 hours a week.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 823 ✭✭✭Liberty_Bear


    I despise working from home if the truth be told. I much prefer flexi time. The working from home is great for parents of young kids or those caring for vulnerable people. I would much prefer my flexi so I can breeze off for long weekends.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 332 ✭✭trigger26


    Great news on the hours, that's day a month back



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,386 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Tea breaks? Last time I regularly got a proper tea break (instead of make tea, bring back to desk, continue working) was over 20 years ago

    I think some who pontificate on here about the civil service have no knowledge of it beyond watching Yes Minister or reading whatever tripe the Indo is putting out this week.

    A 35 hour (net, exclusive of lunch) working week is pretty standard for office workers in general. Still arguably too long. The 4 day week will be the next battle 😊

    Post edited by Hotblack Desiato on

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,014 ✭✭✭Gusser09


    Yeh good news re the 27 minutes especially if commuting returns for a few days a week. The fact it was an independent recommendation by Kieran Mulvey means it's going to be extremely difficult for Government not to grant it. I'm not sure if the 4 day week will be anywhere near the radar just yet. More than likely they might go looking for a reduction in the pension levy. If not I'd nearly prefer the option of paying into a private pension instead and getting rid of my civil service pension. It's pathetic really.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,573 ✭✭✭✭yabadabado


    I'm guessing you are on the single pension scheme?

    Is it really that bad ? Isn't it half career average earnings on retirement and 1.5 lump sum?


    Would a private pension be better or come close to matches it ?

    You could top up the pension with a AVC/PRSA .



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I don't need the Indo or Yes Minister to know the culture and work ethic of the civil service. The fact that they want to work less than 35 hours, even less when accounting for tea and smoke breaks, says it all.

    Then they want to compare their salaries to the private sector. Full time salary for part time jobs.


    Hopefully the Government can take a swipe back and remove flexi time in return for WFH.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,014 ✭✭✭Gusser09


    Yeh that's it. The issue being the contributions we make toward it. I think a lot of people think it's just given to us but we are paying a fair whack into it. Already contributing to an AVC. Would be foolish not to.

    • Just to clarify I am also entitled to the contributory state pension at 66 so that takes a bit of sting out of it.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'm neither the parent of young children or caring for anyone vulnerable, but I still prefer working from home over the office. The bonus for me is I don't spend between 2 hours (on a good day) and 3 hours (on a bad day) commuting.

    Hopefully, the option to return to the office full time with the ability to accrue flexi leave will be made available for you. There will be plenty of roles that cannot be done remotely, so I think you'll be accommodated if that is what your preference is.



Advertisement