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 servants told to spend more time in the office - Irish Times - Mod warning #526

  • 31-01-2025 11:14am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭


    What do people think of this?

    I work in a public service organisation where we are obliged to spend 50% of our time in the office - and it is rigidly monitored.

    There have been threats recently from our senior leadership that they will increase this obligation to 60%, unless 100% of staff are adhering to the 50% all the time.

    I do hope that Forsa continue with their strong stance. I mean, one day in the office a week is kind of ridiculous and they should never have started off with that. But they've made their bed now. And I am a strong advocate for hybrid working, with the balance being in favour of WFH as opposed to office time. Less commuting, less environmental effects, more opportunities for people to get on the housing ladder outside of Dublin, regeneration of rural areas, more diverse backgrounds of people working in large government departments etc etc.

    I hope the government see sense, but if they don't, I hope Forsa's members feel strongly enough about this to take this all the way to strike action.

    #526 Mod:

    I'm seeing a lot of low level trolling with generic comments and sweeping statements portrayed as facts; this is the only warning I'll give to up the quality of the discussion and use of actual linked to facts or cards will be handed out.

    Current thread banned users:

    itsacoolday

    Post edited by Nody on


«13456713

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,520 ✭✭✭Xander10


    Covid is gone.

    Time for civil servants to be back in office at least 4 days a week.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭LastApacheInjun


    Covid isn't the issue. Nobody is staying we should stay at home to avoid catching covid.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cute geoge


    They spend most of the day yapping to each other,catching up the day they come into the office they may as well be wfh full time but I would say some share spend the day scratching themselves full time.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 51,520 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    There have been threats recently from our senior leadership that they will increase this obligation to 60%, unless 100% of staff are adhering to the 50% all the time.

    that's clever - punish the staff who are compliant for the behaviour of the non-compliant? and if the non-compliant are not attending 50% of the time, what's that going to do to make them attend 60% of the time?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭LastApacheInjun


    I work with a lad who comes into the office full time, and does absolutely f*ck all during the day. Making people come in to the office doesn't at all mean that underperformers suddenly start doing their job. That's a very common misconception.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭LastApacheInjun


    I think it was more of an excuse to extend office hours, because specific people in our senior leadership don't believe in WFH at all. In fairness they're of a generation where they still think people should have clock cards to clock in and out and people should ask permission to leave the building during office hours. It's difficult to shift that mindset.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 923 ✭✭✭crinkley


    The least productive person on my team is the lad who goes to the office 5 days a week



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 910 ✭✭✭doc22


    But in the office everyone has to put in their time in. No picking up children, shopping etc while on the clock.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47 JobTalkBoards


    I agree that this is a myth.

    I take long walks while in the office. I make sure to take multiple tea breaks. I chat with everyone. I make sure to use the bathroom for as long as possible.

    It's well established at this stage that remote work increases productivity.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47 JobTalkBoards


    Delighted to see Forsa fighting this. We need a standardised approach to WFH across the Civil Service. 2 days a week in the office is enough.

    It's also time to fully roll out Flexi time building from home. I've heard the Officer of the Comptroller and Auditor General even allows this and they are meant to be the goody two shoes of the Civil Service. If they think it's acceptable, it should be acceptable everywhere.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 923 ✭✭✭crinkley


    Odd that they don't appear to be doing anything about it happening in NSSO - this after replacing all completely fine laptops with desktops for people to work at home - another complete waste of public money



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭LastApacheInjun


    You can easily spend your time reading Boards.ie, chatting or making tea while in the office. Being in the office usually means there are way more opportunities to slack off.

    If your team member is not hitting their targets for the week, you need to have that difficult conversation with them, whether they are in the office or not. If your team member is consistently unavailable at their desk when you need them, you need to have that difficult conversation with them, whether they are in the office or not. If you think someone is taking advantage of a WFH protocol, and that they would get more work done in an office setting, then bring them in for more days during the week. Like, as a manager, basically do your job.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47 JobTalkBoards


    Were they informed of this happening in NSSO? They can only fight when they get told of an issue.

    This response from them has been quick and clear. I think they were working on it for a while and waiting for the moment to start the fight.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭LastApacheInjun


    For our lower grades, you can build flexi time when you're working from home. So if its available to us, it should be available across the public/civil sector.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,852 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    WFH isn't covid dependant.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭brokenbad


    As a team leader myself, i have seen first hand a small minority of WFH people who abuse the system for their own benefits and this in turn creates mistrust in the system and disillusionment from those who do turn up to the office. From being non contactable for lengthy periods, these so called WFH individuals give the term a bad name and they have milked the system for almost 5 years now. Had numerous difficult conversations with a handful of direct reports about this. Being asked to go into "work" at least 50% of the time is not unreasonable - Pre Covid, WFH was a rare exception rather than the rule and that's the way it should be….



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 923 ✭✭✭crinkley


    The union are aware of it, its not being implemented until September, you'd imagine there would be some level of coordination but considering they appear to roll over on whatever management want to introduce in NSSO I'm not suprised



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 512 ✭✭✭DayInTheBog


    You see that's the problem. Managers won't do their job and manage. People who don't do a thing , won't be any different at home or work if not managed correctly.

    I'm in the office full time and it doesn't bother me. Worked at home for 2 years full time and loved it. I'm as productive at home as in work



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭LastApacheInjun


    In our place, you are told that if you abuse the system, there'll be one conversation with you in order to give you the chance to amend your hand, and the next step is to require you to attend the office full time. Our union is aware of this and approves of it. It's happened on a handful of occasions (in light of the fact we have close to 2000 employees). Why don't you do that? It increases trust in the system for everyone.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47 JobTalkBoards


    Being asked to go into "work" at least 50% of the time is not unreasonable

    I disagree. As do most Civil Servants.

    Pre Covid, WFH was a rare exception rather than the rule and that's the way it should be….

    Before 1993 being gay was illegal. We don't stifle progress because of the way things used to be.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,118 ✭✭✭✭Calahonda52


    Flexitime prior to Covid was widely abused.

    I spent years visiting 100's of PS building and the abuse was frightening.

    example of one is a customer facing role: staring at 930 to 16:30.

    Drop the kids off at school and get to office at 8:30.

    Clock-in and out for a smoke.

    Then wait in office until kids are ready from creche: 18:00

    Accumulated the FTHs and took 5 weeks FTHs leave, at start of summer.

    came back for a week

    took 4 weeks annual leave.

    I gather now with WFH, you can clock in on the app from the phone, from bed perhaps.

    “I can’t pay my staff or mortgage with instagram likes”.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭brokenbad


    My own brother in law (and a Class A prick to boot!) is a principal officer in the civil service and is WFH 4 days a week - he is always boasting about how he gets his daily jog in, goes in and out of town to run errands during the day and does the school drops/ collections when he is WFH - it's guys like him that have created mistrust in the system 🤬



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,825 ✭✭✭caviardreams


    Because you will quickly find yourself up against a false complaint of bullying and all sorts of other lies to discredit you, cause you endless stress, and HR depts (espec public service) run a mile from disciplinary warnings - don't want to know

    A certain cohort of poor performers never take responsibility for their performance, and the system allows them get away with it - one manager taking a fair but hardline on performance (for the benefit of those who do work hard) will get destroyed if the HR system doesn't back it up. This ruins it for the decent, honest, trustworthy cohort unfortunately.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,852 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    People who doss will do so at home and at the office.

    Presenteeism is not the same as productivity. I went into the office 2 days in Q4, and those were probably my least productive days. I spent half of the day in meetings (at my desk, on zoom), and the other half having people talk at me at my desk or at coffee or at lunch. Got almost nothing done. And a 4 hour round trip to boot.

    I was remote before covid and I'll remain the same. I simply will not take a non full remote job unless there are massive other benefits.

    Can't see why sending civil servants into office more does anything except justify the existence of too many middle managers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,132 ✭✭✭Allinall


    Why do you do this?

    Are you just lazy and don’t want to work?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 500 ✭✭✭NattyO


    I'm VERY dubious about claims that WFH increases productivity. We discourage it for most staff, mainly because most of the work we do is collaborative, and we find that we just don't get the same quality of work when staff are not in the same place. We have overseas teams, but the key word is teams - they work in the same place as each other, just not the same place as us.

    In terms of quantity of work, as opposed to quality, I find that the people who are diligent and hard working in the office, are diligent and hard working when working from home, and the reverse also applies - the people who are workshy, who miss days, and who rarely meet deadlines don't suddenly improve because they are at home - in fact, the good ones seem to stay good, but the bad ones get worse. I've no problem with people picking up kids from school, going for a walk, etc. when WFH, as long as they do these things at times that suits their work commitments. I've met employees in shops and cafes who are WFH during the work day, and have no issue at all as long as I know they're not missing a Teams call or whatever.

    On the civil service thing, I suspect, perhaps because I'm a filthy capitalist, that there is a far higher amount of work-dodging going on there than in the private sector. I know a few civil servants that WFH, and what I hear and see from them makes me think that WFH is treated more as a holiday by many than it is work.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭LastApacheInjun


    Surely that is the case with every unproductive employee, whether they are at home or in the office? I agree that disciplining underperformers in the public service is an absolute pain in the a*se, but that was the same before covid. Our HR department are quite supportive of managers trying to fix underperforming employees.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 910 ✭✭✭doc22


    If they do this in the office you can only imagine him WFH



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47 JobTalkBoards


    Obviously I don't want to work, what sort of question is that? I work because they pay me.

    But the reason I do this is because I can be 5x more efficient at home. What's the point in me trying hard in the office for minimal returns and then being wrecked when I get home and not being able to enjoy life?

    When I work hard at home I get a lot done and can do what I want the second I clock out. By the time I get into the office I'm already annoyed, probably cold or wet, tired. My output is limited and I have to make my way home afterwards. It's crap.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47 JobTalkBoards


    Him?

    I find it very easy to get stuff done at home. It's proven that WFH is more productive.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭LastApacheInjun


    I suppose it depends where you work. I cannot speak for other civil service departments.

    I have had underperformers pre-covid and post-covid. While they weren't the same people, I didn't find that the underperformers were worse at home. In fact, I found it a little easier to focus on outcomes, rather than on how late they were working or whatever.

    I had someone abuse the flexi-time system in the past. He would clock in at 8am, go for a shower, breakfast and a walk, and then arrive at his desk at 9.55. He'd block out 8-10am in his diary for the next day, every day, so people wouldn't put a meeting in. Then he'd delete the diary entry after it had past every day. So for four weeks I came in every day at 8am. I took screenshots of his diary and photos of his desk every day. After two weeks I put in a daily catch up at 8.15. When he objected, I showed him the screenshots and told him that he was not at his desk for those two hours. He's still a workshy f&ck, but he doesn't abuse the system anymore. Every subsequent line manager has been warned about him.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,852 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    What is wrong with doing errands or kids drop off or whatever during day time? Once you're doing your job (or booking your hours, if hourly paid) accordingly there isnt an issue.

    I do this above, sometimes twice per day. I sometimes take a nap on my office couch. I post on boards when I'm thinking about a problem. None of this affects my ability to do my job. Now I also sometimes start early and or stay late for projects or calls or proposals etc.

    If I were in office I'd be doing my core hours only. No errands during the day, so no start early and no finish late or after hours stuff. Enforce monkey rules get peanuts. Treat people like adults and (unless and until proven wrong) you foster morale and increase productivity.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,953 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    The problem with these guys is that they wouldn't be 'that' much more productive if they were forced into the office. A dosser is a dosser no matter what. Arguably, this might be be more of a problem with recruitment and selection ; if total skivers are being hired, perhaps the recruitment system itself is not working as effectively as it should.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 64 ✭✭dazzler101


    I WFM and I have double the output as when I'm in the office. the office has too much politics, and people gossiping about the smallest things.

    I currently do one day a week, but moving to three days soon a week in a new department. one of my colleagues does half the work I do, and in the office full time yapping away all day. and not aloud to work from home.

    Its very subjective on the person, it should be aloud if you can prove your hitting your targets, obviously offers better work life balance and isn't that the reason people join the civil service.

    Done right, in specific roles, WFM is ideal. and now we have the technology to make it happen. parking is a massive problem in gov buildings, so is emissions, public transport etc, traffic.

    Most of my mates that work in private sector can work from full time, bar maybe a odd day in the office.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,250 ✭✭✭SuperBowserWorld


    I would say the tendency to doss in a job where you can't be fired is a lot higher than a job where you can be fired and where you job can be easily transferred to India and/or machine learning (avoiding use of term AI here).

    And nobody cares because you didn't get an amazing severance deal from a large multi national. So, lose your job at Facebook + huge severance deal, national news story and fake drama, Lose your job at a small company. Nobody cares. Lose your job in the Civil Service ... ahhh doesn't happen.

    Which I guess my point is ... why is the Civil Service more special than anywhere else ?

    Answer: because they can "shut down the country".



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cute geoge


    Surely the biggest problem some of these jokers are in the cs with donkey's years with their self entitlement and are untouchable to boot.

    To make matters more difficult for managers they now have an entitlement to work until they are 70 and you can be sure that it will be these jokers that will hang on mostly.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭LastApacheInjun


    Whatever you might think about whether WFH is of benefit to a company or not, it is a benefit to the employee, as part of your overall benefits package. Amending the terms of a WFH arrangement, e.g. changing the requirement from 10% to 30%, is a change in your terms and conditions. Terms and conditions are not just your written contract, they are widespread ways of working as well. It is exactly the same as deciding to reverse a pay increase. In the civil service, changes like that have to be negotiated with a union, which they have decided not to do in the Department of Social Protection. Perhaps emboldened by the recent WRC decision on hybrid working - which, they should understand was very much decided on the facts of that particular case.

    I'd be willing to strike over this, and I'd imagine the majority of civil service workers would feel the same. And I wouldn't be striking just for myself. Letting the government start to wind down WFH for civil service staff - the largest cohort of employees in the country - will automatically have an effect across the private sector too. It'd be for all employees to try and protect the WFH gains.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    This is not work, it's work avoidance. Working from home could not be less productive than this

    If you are being honest about your daily office routine, I wonder what your role and work load is, and question where the managers are.

    Edit; Just seen your last post. The explanation does not excuse your avoidance but explains it. You really need to consider if that job is really for you. Life is too short and your working day too long to be in a job that makes you feel that way. Your work avoidance strategy is also not fair on your colleagues. Most workplaces are team environments.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 943 ✭✭✭Get Real


    They should leave the option of WFH imo.

    But, equally as the entire civil and public sector pay agreements etc are now done on a "one fits all" basis, or another example post 2012 it's a one pension system. I think they need to change that.

    Split it into two. Those who WFH and those that can't. Vast majority of civil servants benefitted form WFH. And that's a good thing. But equally, for many, nothing changed. And those people didn't get a pay increase to reflect same.

    Clearly, WFH is worth something. If in 2019 you had two civil servants, both HE0s on 60k. One gained the benefit of WFH and the other didn't. Now the one that benefitted the last 5years is understandably annoyed they might have it taken away.

    However there was no consideration given to the heo who's had to come in the past 5.

    Or staff who gained WFH but nurses or prison officers can't.

    So I'd propose some calculation, a 45min bus commute each way. 1.5hrs a day free time lost. Approx 8 hours a week. So WFH, keep it, keep the pay scales. And naturally any pay agreements that come in for the CS and PS as a whole apply to everyone.

    But immediately, there should be a 20% increase for non WFH pay scales where attendance is mandatory.

    There is a value to an employee in working from home. Whether they're private or public sector. Be it cooking dinners, saving commute time, dropping kids off/picking kids up, even having a nap. You can't hire two people on the same money, give one a role that's WFH and one that isn't, and say that's grand. If WFH wasn't a clear benefit to people, they wouldn't mind moving back to the office. So pay should reflect accordingly those who can't WFH.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭LastApacheInjun


    I'm not sure they'll ever do that. I mean, it's clear to most people that frontline workers should be paid more than civil service office staff, but unions have always resisted a two tier system. It's ridiculous.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47 JobTalkBoards


    we have regular deadlines and targets to hit. What should they do when we all hit these targets and deadlines? Tell us they don't like how we did it?

    Some of us are trusted with payroll data, legal data, health data, budgets. If they don't trust us to get the work done our own way, they shouldn't trust us with that data to begin with.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭Quitelife


    Hopefully someone tells them to do some work and not squander tax payers money as well !



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 595 ✭✭✭StormForce13


    And you know this for a fact because you overheard two auld ones chatting about it at the bus stop while you were on the way to the post office to pick up your jobseekers allowance.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 51,520 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    my wife is public service rather than civil service, but they've had a policy of three days per week in the office for quite a while now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,407 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    It's difficult to see why there are many civil servants who are not public facing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 595 ✭✭✭StormForce13


    1. Employer-Union agreements should be honoured by both sides.
    2. If there is a firm agreement about WFH then it should only be changed by negotiation. And, if the agreement was subject to conditions then we need to know what these conditions are and whether both sides are abiding by them.
    3. Are there agreed sanctions for employees who can be shown to be abusing the WFH privilege? Are they enforced?

    FWIW, I'm an ex public servant who isn't keen on PS Unions, but on an issue like this I would have no problem whatsoever in taking industrial action if it turns out that the employer is in clear breach of the agreement.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,605 Mod ✭✭✭✭dory


    So….I take it you've never worked in the civil service?

    As for WFH, they need to make it the same for all Depts. Annoying if some are one day , some are three etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,407 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    I have extensive civil service experience. Mostly in organisations of 1000+ staff. Typically 50-80 of us in non customer facing roles. The rest, is over 90% in customer facing public offices of field work.

    Pre automation ( think like PMOD), huge clerical officer workforce were needed. They aren't now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,607 ✭✭✭con___manx1


    Why ? People should work from home as much as possible. It's better for the environment and work life balance. Look at what's happening with the weather in Ireland and around the world. Can only see it getting worse.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Foggy Jew


    A couple of observations.

    1. There have always been malingerers in the Civil Service since its inception. Malingerers will malinger whether in an office environment or working from home.

    2. When Covid hit first, those non-malingering civil servants stepped up to the plate and they continued with the business of keeping the country going. For the vast majority of civil servants, working from home was a new experience, which I'm sure brought its own challenges, yet they put their heads down, and all services continued to be provided. They did not exercise their power to 'shut down the country' as alleged by @SuperBowserWorld (what a ludicrous statement that was).

    Working from home became the norm and people adjusted their lives around the concept. When the Covid crisis was over, people were happy to come back into the office, but in a hybrid way. There have been huge differences in the way WFH is being managed by different Departments. Some allow flexi-time to be accrued whilst working from home. Others don't. Some Departments insisted on 60% in-office days, others didn't specify a minimum number of in-office days. So I could be one of the lucky ones, being able to work from home 4 days a week and working up flexi-hours from home. Or I could be not so lucky, and work in a place where I was required to come into the office 3 days a week, and not have the ability to work up flexi on my two working from home days.

    I see Fórsa have instructed civil servants in Finance and Social Welfare to continue working the pattern they have been working, and to disregard the instruction that they should come into the office for at least 2 days a week. Fórsa should also address the inequities between different Departments.

    It's the bally ballyness of it that makes it all seem so bally bally.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement