Civil Service - Post Lockdown - Blended Working?

No.

Sorry Wench just rereading some of the posts. Im not single scheme. I'm post 2004 but pre 2013. My bad.

I'm amazed that the unions have been so quiet about the pension levy. There seems to be no real talk of getting this back, but it is certainly a good target to go after.

How would removal of flexitime help you? You know it doesn't affect the total hours worked by staff, right?

Most sensible employers have moved on from the macho presenteeism BS that you seem to be pushing.

In complete agreeance here and apologies I should have had the foresight to mention that. The only reason I mentioned childcare and caring duties was it was the two most cited to myself. Yes the commute if its shorter is a lot better than when it does not have to be done. Gives you more time to yourself to spend doing whatever you wish. That quality of life is priceless nowdays. I do welcome the bringing back of flexi. Hope it is sometime soon.

I would think so, maybe something like 1 day in February and up to two in March.

I'd guess that there are some people working furiously on some urgent updates to guidance as we speak.

I dont want to work a full 5 days in the office. The last 2 years have showed that I dont need to be in the office to do the work I do. I really hope we dont end up in a situation where we HAVE to go back just to have bodies on seats. I honestly only want to do 2 days a week in the office max and a lot of my colleagues are the same. We have taken on a lot of new staff in my area over the last 2 years and a good number of them are living in places where a daily commute would not be of interest to them due to the long travel time involved. The Civil Service is going to have to move with the times and incorporate wfh into any competitions they advertise if they want to get good quality staff. I totally get that wfh isnt for everybody but the vast majority would like to continue it in some form.

Id seriously considering leaving the CS and going for another job if they start to want to bring us in 3/4 days a week.

I don't know about the talent management argument here. If I was a slacker who did as little as possible, and knew I would have to work 3-4 days a week in the office versus another role where I can work 3-4 days at home, I would go for the home option every time as it's far easier to do. So lower "talent" would not be attracted by significant time on-site. A lot of people choose the C because they are committed to the nature of the work regardless, so some high performers will still choose the CS (though I agree, a lot less probably) even if it was full time in the office.

I do think full time or 4 days a week remote will be the career choice of less hard working individuals, as it's easier to get away with things remotely. That's absolutely not to say lots of people working fully remote don't work just as hard as (or even harder than) in the office - I am just pointing out that low performers will definitely gravitate towards as much remote as possible imo

That's the problem with having a manager who doesn't know how to manage and deal remotely with people who aren't doing the work.

Manager has now decided we all need to be micromanaged and timed.

I heard 3 days aswell of which 1 of those has to be all members of you're unit/section.

This is measuring productivity solely by time in seat. Which implies a lack of meaningful real productivity metrics, output etc. More over no desire to have any. Also a desire to waste lots of time commuting. It's using time as inefficiently as possible.

It's painting a picture but not the one you think it is.

Oh I totally agree. I just mean in the CS, what do you do with the remote worker who isn't doing anything? It's impossible to actually do anything with unions, weak HR, and legals issues, the manager will be the one in the firing line for pressurising the employee - not the other way round - so if you want to save your own job as a manager you just have to turn a blind eye. At least in the office, it's easier to keep a closer eye on these workers and stop by the desk to ask/follow up on late work, and even the potential of being door-stopped about late work can keep people a bit more tuned in.

I think some people here have never managed staff whose default communication style is radio silence and who never deliver on deadlines. If you have, you will know that it's not an easy situation, and there's no fix, as often these workers are "protected" for various reasons.

If a manager can veto it. Then its toast.

I'm not sure you're right.

It's not as attractive as once was with changes in pensions, slow promotion and at least in technical roles salary is uncompetitive with the private sector. It's just not attracting young people into it.

I think the 3/2 day split is the reasonable compromse here and I can't see the WRC over-ruling a manager / employer who offers it - it;s the fully remote question that's the test case here. IMO if an employer offers 3 days in office and 2 days remote, I think the WRC would not be jumping to over rule it as it's a reasonable compromise - lots of employees will want fully remote though.

Local management wont block blended working or force staff in for 5 days a week for no good reason. At the same time local management have to be able to veto blended working for staff who arent productive. That's the contract in reality.