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

RGARDINR

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123171357#Comment_123171357

I say it looks like eventually i say will be 2 days in the office 1 week and 3 days the following week. Probably say your 2 weeks at home a month still and 2 wks in the office per month.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123172432#Comment_123172432

Depts can set their policy as a percentage, rather than a set number of days WFO, if they wish.

I know of at least one department that has a 40% attendance pattern as its policy. It still works out at 2 days per week, but the staff don't have to do two days every week (and subject to approval from their line manager, obviously).

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123171826#Comment_123171826

'Hey, I know you've been doing 2 for the past few years but we need to up it to 3, just like we agreed previously, remember?'

Er, the agreement was "driven by business need", IIRC. What's the changed business need, because I've not been told anything else has changed, I'm meeting all my targets, and when I re-applied for blended working for the year last October, 60% WFH agreed and signed off on. Remember?

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123172714#Comment_123172714

No, the agreement was less remote working when required for business needs. Staff had agreed to do "either 2 or 3 days" in the office.

The agreement was that if the "2 or 3" changed to something else, it would require consultation with the staff side. A change in this instance means going from "2 or 3" to '4 or more'.

The new instructions don't mean any less remote working, staff are still doing 2 or 3 days at home.

If you agree to do "2 or 3", and have been doing 2 for ages and it changes to 3………sure, that's a change, but there is no need for a new agreement.

You've already agreed to the new setup. 3 days falls within the category of "either 2 or 3"

The business need doesn't have to change to justify it, in fact, no justification is required……….you're still operating within the parameters of the agreement.

SodiumCooled

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123180202#Comment_123180202

The term "2 or 3" to me would mean 2 is the norm and an occasional 3 if something specific needed on site presence not making 3 mandatory every week.

Ezeoul

Every civil servant has (or should have) a blended working agreement made with their managers that outlines their set number of days for both WFH and their working location. This is recorded on the NSSO.

Such agreements are specific. If set in a number of days, they won't say "2 or 3 days". They will say either "2 days" or "3 days".

I would read it the same as TD and SC, that two is the agreed number, and attendance on an occasional third day can be requested if business needs require it.

If a permanent increase of any kind is being proposed, then the formal agreement on NSSO does have to be revisited.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123180547#Comment_123180547

That's your own bespoke interpretation of it though.

You're literally inventing words that aren't there to change the definition to be one that you want, not the one that is there. Nowhere does it mention anything as a "norm", it specifically says "remote working is available 2 or 3 days a week". My understanding of it is "on any given week you will be asked to work either 2 days in the office, or 3". In practice, this is what pretty much everyone has been doing for 5 years in there, as has been confirmed to me by someone who works there.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123180637#Comment_123180637

The document I was shown said "2 or 3 days per week remote working, maybe less if the business needs dictate it" or words to that effect. I was specifically looking out for the wording used, as that was the crux of the argument being made. I don't have a copy and there's none online that I can see.

Here's a "Houses of the Oireachtas" policy that is almost word-for-word the same as the one I was shown. It too specifically says

"Remote working for 2 or 3 days a week (or less remote working when required for business needs)"

It's on page 4. Again, no mention of norms or set schedules or anything like that. I think you'd be laughed out of any labour court if you tried to claim that "3 days per week" is not covered by "2 or 3 days per week".

Ezeoul

I think you're misinterpreting the document you're reading as a blanket statement.

4. Remote working for 2 or 3 days a week (or less remote working when required for business needs);

Different sections within the same Dept can have different requirements. Where one section may require its staff to attend 2 days a week, another may require theirs to attend 3 days. In my own Dept, the Minister's Office staff are required to attend 3 days a week, while other divisions are only required to attend 2 days.

Not that everyone has to attend "2 or 3 days".

As discussed, every civil servant should have their own individualised agreement (by now), recorded on the NSSO. That is the "document" they should be going by. There should be no ambiguity to it.

A request to attend an occasional extra day is acceptable for all, but if its becoming every week, or even every other week, then the business needs of the Unit need to be re-examined and the agreements revisited.

As for the individual agreements, every civil servant should be able to check theirs on NSSO on the Employee Home Page under:

beachhead

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123130598#Comment_123130598

That will be a first.Will have to be the lead item in news bulletins for days

KaneToad

WFH could be one of the cheapest solutions to many of Ireland's biggest problems:

Housing

Environment

Balanced regional development

But, as an observer, it would seem that having such variability for a WFH scenario renders it slightly redundant.

Surely the benefit of WFH is the ability to structure childcare, elder care, further education, community work, hobbies etc - without having to account for commuting time. Without certainty you can't make regular plans for these activities. With so many WFH caveats it seems that it will suit noone.

Unless I've misunderstood, and the main benefit of WFH is staying in bed until 9am & getting to wear PJs all day?

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123181112#Comment_123181112

Speaking for myself, I'm always presentable enough to take a Teams call! I don't sit around in PJs even when I'm not working! 😏

I find most people are happy enough with reduced commuting, e.g. 1/2 days per week.

We currently have a number of staff commuting quite long distances from other counties, while waiting on mobility to get closer to where they live.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123181079#Comment_123181079

I hear what you're saying, and it's certainly a more credible interpretation than the previous poster.

However, I also still think you're wide of the mark.

I know there are certain units in all Departments that are 4 or 5 days in the office because of the demands of the job. Facilities, Registry, File Management/Archives, Reception etc………none of them can do the (majority of the) job from home, so are on-site almost all of the time. Not like you could (or would want) the DSP customers rocking up to your gaff to get paid.

Bottom line, I think WFH is a godsend and an unbelievable silver lining to have emerged from the Covid sh1tshow. There has to be a bit of give & take on both sides, and choosing this particular hill to die on would be foolish in the long run. I also feel that any workplace mediator would take a dim view of "I agreed to work 2 or 3 days in the office and they want me to do 3, this is not what I agreed to" type griping.

Yeah Right

I meant to add, when I click on that section on Peoplepoint all I get is:

"Request Details

No requests created"

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123181308#Comment_123181308

I was involved in drafting the Framework, and then writing the policy for my own Department. I'm not wide of any mark.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123181311#Comment_123181311

Then you should be discussing this with your HRD and line manager, as this is supposed to be in place for every staff member.

brokenbad

Front page from todays Indo….

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123181352#Comment_123181352

If that's the way it's intended to be interpreted, I think it's very badly worded and leaves a lot of ambiguity. All it takes is an extra word or two to remove that ambiguity…….the sentence below conveys what you're saying here with much less room for incorrect interpretation:

Either 2 days per week or 3 days per week remote working, maybe less if the business needs dictate it

We already have three different interpretations on this page alone, God knows what's happening in reality with each different manager, unit, section, building, Department etc.

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123181311#Comment_123181311

It appears you didn't actually apply officially for blended working, then? The deadline was, I think, 1st October, last year, and it needs to be re-applied for on NSSO, annually.

(Sorry, the above shouldn't be in a quote, but boards interface has gone to ****!)

We already have three different interpretations on this page alone, God knows what's happening in reality with each different manager, unit, section, building, Department etc.

Well, in reality, as you mentioned, some sections can't have blended working, due to the nature of the work (or a really bad manager who just can't bare not micro-managing!) Some can, and it varies, between one and four days WFH per week, officially. In all cases, your WFH percentage should be agreed with your section/line manager, and applied for and approved on the NSSO portal (assuming you're in a line department or somewhere else serviced by the NSSO). #

And there will absolutely be flexibility - my section, everyone has 3 days WFH, agreed, and registered on NSSO, but on occasion, we need more hands on deck, so people have to drop to 2 days or 1 day WFH on occasion. They do so, with no grumbling.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123171826#Comment_123171826

I said it's lousy and it is, for two reasons

• Imposing it without discussion and without demonstrating a business need
• Giving staff no time to make alternative childcare, transport, etc arrangements

Displays an attitude of contempt for their staff tbh

StormForce13

Thank God I'm no longer working in the PS! I genuinely don't believe that I could deal with all of the "my needs must come first or I'm running to me Union" snowflakes who appear to infest the Service nowadays.

A cynic might argue that the good ones haven't got time to be whining on Boards.ie because they're doing an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, but I couldn't possibly comment!

TerrieBootson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123159451#Comment_123159451

Who was surveyed that could attest to these results?

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123238387#Comment_123238387

It was an internal survey and analysis of gathered internal data. Happier workers was by open survey, better retention was by analysis and comparison, improved productivity was from hitting KPIs and percentage completion of targets. They have tracked this for years where I am.

All of that and Senior management basically said, yeah but no, we will close this off with opinion.

Like I said, doesn't affect me, but it's just funny. They got the data, they put it together, it had clear results, they said, yeah but no.

LastApacheInjun

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123239302#Comment_123239302

And basically it's a "yeah but no, because I perceive managing people that WFH the majority of the time as making my job more difficult. I actually don't really care about the company's bottom line, and whether the current way of working is actually more cost effective. I know that even my more senior management won't believe this survey, and will perceive me a stronger manager if I make people come back into the office. So it's a win-win for me. I get an easier life, and I get perceived as a more effective manager. This means, despite the fact that this will cost the company more money, I am more likely to be promoted. This is a no brainer for me".

TerrieBootson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123239302#Comment_123239302

By internal survey, do you mean among the wfh staff in your place of business?

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123239302#Comment_123239302

Our Department did the same survey, same results, and are not making any revisions to our current WFH policies.

All remain the same.

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123241089#Comment_123241089

All staff, many of us can not work from home by the nature of our roles, some of us can for some of the week and others can remain at home all week. It would appear from the survey that the most important thing for staff happiness and correlation wise, retention, was that no one was forced to do something for no good reason.

Group 1 know that WFH with some exceptions is not possible due to sample / data collection or lab work, Group 2 some stay at home when it is possible, some when it is possible and suits, and some don't bother, the third group are mixed similar to group 2, some come in all the time, some stay at home nearly all the time, some come in on set days that suit them.

Nearly all meetings are done over teams, I have meetings with people 15 seconds walk away by Teams because for me it is easier to take notes, share ideas but I also pop around to people if they want but it is not necessary, and while nice, those meetings are always longer because we talk sh1te for a few minutes. None of the options bother me, and it appears that everyone seems happy with the so long as its not necessary, you can make up your own mind so long as the work gets done.

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123241089#Comment_123241089

This said, the survey did separate and lump in together data for work rates and WFH were better than those in work but those who have to be on site, due to the nature of their work, were not going to change in regards improvements in KPI and target percentage hit, unless the methodology changed, which would then be accounted for in those metrics, so not a fair one to look at separately for those on site.

SodiumCooled

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123240102#Comment_123240102

Why is there always the assumption that managers want to be in the office (I am a manager and hate being in the office)? There is no more of a desire to be in the office from any managers I know than non-managers. From my experience and from what I see in general there is a handful or people at the very top of companies (or in the public/civil service) that are obsessed with office through a mix of old fashioned thinking and being absolutely married to work and very little care of anything outside it such as work life balance.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123245625#Comment_123245625

Is it an assumption if they tell you they want to be in the office?

Probably majority for WFH vs against of the managers I talk to. Though a handful of those against are very vocal.

trashcan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123151357#Comment_123151357

Communists, alcoholics and drug addicts. Don’t forget the alcoholics and drug addicts !