Wouldn't that be nice? I'm not sure if any do as far as I'm aware. Revenue I've heard are the most flexible, but maybe that's for Dublin only...
Every department was supposed to have union "Lead Worker Representatives" involved in the drafting of the Blended Working policy with DPER.
I never found out who our LWRs were, and they remained invisible throughout the whole process.
I mean... negotiating better terms and conditions for their members is literally their job description, so I'd hope so!
Though the absolute silence from both Fórsa and AHCPS lately on blended working, and the lack of knowledge people in October's survey had about if unions were involved in negotiating their employer's blended working policies, would both lead me to believe they haven't been as active as they should have been...
Do the union generally get involved in the blended working policy?
I believe DFHERIS deal has been done for 2 days in the office and The DOE the offer stands at 5 days in the office over 2 weeks but the union have rejected this.They are sticking to their guns wanting 2 days a week which they are confident of getting sooner or later. Has anyone heard anything else over the developments this week?
I have to be honest and say that is not my experience.
I'm aware of a few local arrangements made over the years, but they are few and far between. Not somethng I've seen other's try to use to their own advantage.
Well if people have a pattern and stick to it that's one thing. But that removes flexibility in another way. I can honestly see some people wanting to flit from early morning one day to evening the next with no notice on a whim, and with a large team it would be impossible. As usually its a few "takers" who ruin it for everyone who expect flexibility all one way, and no give and take
I know that the non core hours that was sent for review in Revenue was set hours. So you requested to work 7-2.30pm and that was set. You couldn't decide to work 10-5.30pm etc. So the managers knew who was on daily and it didn't change day to day, and not knowing what time someone would start working at.
The recent revenue staff survey has similar questions asked about different work patterns.
Shift patterns will change, and if it suits some - then so be it! Let them work the new patterns available. The day of having to work a to b will soon be gone unless in customer facing role (phone lines etc).
The flexibility even now is very good and will only get better.
Completely agree but unfortunately many take a view of "entitlement" based on individual wants, especially if Mike in the dept next door gets to do it... some will say "if I can't then I am being bullied and I will be off to the union" and the manager is on the hook for unfair treatment
I'd go with Loueze's answer there:
Like WFH before it, if non-core hours did become an option, it's availability would be entirely dependant on business needs, and would come down to the roles involved, and not the needs of the individuals performing those roles.
Your scenario is easy to manage with a spreadsheet. Do I need to have a regular all hands team meeting? Can it be done virtually? Can one or other of you arrange to attend a once-a-week meeting even though it's now not part of your normal hours? Yes? Great. No? Then if you can't be that flexible, neither can we. "I regret to inform you..."
To my mind, it's exactly like arranging annual leave with adequate cover over the summer; or sorting applications for the shorter working year when you've a good few parents of school-going children on your team. You get in all the applications, you see if they can all be accommodated. If they can? Happy days. If they can't. Sorry, folks, we need X people in, minimum, over those four weeks - can ye discuss and come back. And sometimes you decline leave, or say no, you can't have 4 weeks SWY, but we could accomodate two.
Business needs come first, but if business needs are being met, then offer flexibility. Because that helps loyalty, retention, and my own (and the business' need) for flexibility at times, too.
In the civil service? None that I am aware of.
Each department was supposed to offer a pilot scheme for blended working, based off DPER's framework, by last October. I'm not aware of any government departments that no remote working available whatsoever. Certain sections might not have it, but not whole Departments, AFAIAA.
Are departments permitted to have no remote working available whatsoever?
Someone like your colleague could benefit by making a local arrangement. A guy in my dept had a local arrangement with HR that he started work at 11am to 7pm as he had to take care of his father in the mornings, and that was 20 years ago.
Can I ask you what jobs offer full remote work?
As a manager what are you meant to do if somebody wants to work 6:30-2 and another person wants to work 2-9, and you need to organise regular meetings? If you have a large team 10-15, keeping track of infinite hours that possibly change by the day would be a minefield There needs to be some level of commonality and some level of core hours for basic efficient working.
It absolutely won't work for everyone or for every workplace, but it will also absolutely suit others. E.g., a colleague of mine has to call in to elderly parents and can just about manage that at lunch, but has to go back in the evening. The flexibility of just having to work afternoon into evening or just early morning up to lunchtime would really suit them. Likewise, someone with young kids who are only in school/creche for a couple of hours could really benefit. It's the 21st century, we've proven we don't need to follow 20th work patterns any more, this is just another extension of that. And if it also meant access to services for the public over longer hours, all the better!
Revenue already worked that way during covid so they obviously think it was successful. I know someone in Revenue who we would have liased with started around 7 and would be away for a few hours and then back online. Again not sure how it would work at all
100 percent. I see no benefit to anyone in getting rid of core hours or even changing them. Its not broken so dont try and fix it.
Will be great if possible but not sure how it could work
Along with proposal for working set non-core hours, for example 7am - 2.30pm (includes half hour lunch). Both have been sent for review.
Honestly, I think the core hours should remain, as they give some structure to the working day. When you look at them, they are not restrictive, its only four hours in total that you are expected to be working, a 2.5 hr slot in the morning, and 1.5 hr slot in the afternoon.
10:00am to 12:30pm and 2:30pm to 4:00pm.
So while I am yes to WFH and yes to Flexi while WFH and yes to a four day week, I have doubts about dropping core hours.
Any decent manager will meet flexibility with the same in return. It's when staff aren't willing to be flexible but expect everything in return that there are problems.
Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, most people don't like or want 9am meetings. In my experience the majority of people avoid scheduling them for that time whenever possible.
I do think the current core hours are also fair enough - they give some structure while also giving flexibility.
WFH, with full flexi, a four day week, and non-core hours?
Do you want to give the micro-managers heart attacks?
I don't know, I would hope so. But it could very easily spiral into, "I am not available at 11am for a meeting as I want to work 12-8 as it suits me better" in the same way that you can't schedule a meeting outside core hours now, even by request. When I schedule a meeting for 9, team members reply to say they don't start till 10. Removal of core hours would work if people flex back (give and take) but not everyone will and many will go with a "I can work whatever hours I like as there are no cor hours, and you need to work around my hours instead" mindset ruining it for everyone else.
Presumably non-core hours, if piloted, would absolutely still allow for 'everyone needs to be available for a meeting on X time on Y date'. It would also presumably allow for an extension of opening hours to the public so you're not screwed if you try to contact Revenue after, say, 5pm on a Friday; and would result in less crowded public transports/roads at rush hour if it became widespread? It wouldn't be for me, but I can see how it would work for some people.
While not disagreeing with the idea that core hours are necessary, it isn’t hard to schedule a meeting and expect people to make that. As with flexi (and indeed WFH), non-core hours would be at the discretion of management so if they require you to be in a building for a certain time, people will make sure they are.
I agree - they benefit everyone by providing clarity around availability and facilitate scheduling meetings and events. Without core hours, how could you organise meetings or training days etc? I mean 10-12:30 and 2-4, are not that restrictive and help ensure normal business response times and real time collaboration, whilst still also allowing async flexibility for people.
It think core hours are essential to make communication easier and for management of staff.
I think they may be mixing up 4 days WFH, 1 in office with the campaign for a 4-day working week with no reduction in pay - this is on trial again with some more Irish employers and I heard one government department was also looking at it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/08231869fd786c2459f2d35b207b4d26.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
