Seems to me there wasn’t a pattern signed off on though? Just 2 days in and informally the days the OP worked suited them and the section
Now they’re being asked, for the first time, to have an anchor day. So they’re not being asked to change an anchor day, management is introducing one. I wouldn’t imagine the union or anyone else can stop that happening tbh
It’s not ideal that it was introduced without consultation, but I don’t see anyway solution to it other than turning up or asking to move. The second one is fraught with danger too
Core Day / Anchor Day = same thing.
The OP states the Unit and the staff of the Unit have been operating this pattern for 14 months. Unless there is a solid and valid business reason the change it, then it doesn't need to be changed.
In fact, the new AP is who needs to look at their WFH pattern (and complete a new WFH application) as they are the one moving into a new role.
@tgdaly I concur with @TaurenDruid's suggestions above. If you don't push back on this now you'll get walked over.
I'd 99% guarantee the next thing will be those "occasional Thursdays" in work will become every Thursday following a bank holiday Monday.
Hi all thanks for the replies on both sides.
Having checked on remote working application on NSSO, it does specify that my office days were Tuesday and Wednesday and the other days were WFH.
Would that make any difference in this case?
of course it would!
Absolutely!
Management: "Here is an agreed policy for Blended Working." (Possibly arrived at after consultation with the union(s), though that only seemed to happen in a minority of workplaces, IIRC.)
Management: "If you wish to avail of the Blended Working Policy, you must fill out the form on this poorly worded NSSO website, indicating the days you will work in the office. That will apply for at least the next year."
The new AP, also management: "Feck that, it doesn't suit me. So I'm arbitrarily going to change it to suit me."
Feck that! Nope! Just no.
And if OP wants to be snarky about it, and make HR squirm awkwardly a little bit, they could ask for a copy of the Partnership Committee's (*) input to the Blended Working Policy.
(*) Ha, Partnership Committees. Remember them? Gas thing is, every civil/public service workplace is still supposed to have one to work on things exactly like the Blended Working Policy. This post brought to you by the 1990s, and yes, I am listening to Block Rockin' Beats, why do you ask?
It's a privelge. There's no legislation, policy or circular that provides an guaranteed entitlement to wfh. There's also nothing that says they are to be decided collaboratively.
Although on this case given the assigned days are referenced in the NSSo application it presents a much stronger case to push back.
Have to agree with people that say it’s a privilege not a right. Myself and other colleagues went to our AP and asked that the core day was changed and they had no issue. They were more concerned that everyone was in the office at least one day a week for logistics. If your AP is thinking differently because Monday suits them better if a lot of staff are against it presents a different picture. Talk to your colleagues first a united front is best
Don't say "work-life balance", say "caring responsibilities". It's none of their business who the person(s) being cared for are and so much as asking about it is discrimination on the family ground.
On the subject of treating people fairly, why are some Depts / Offices still allowed to refuse the accrual of flexitime when working from home?
I honestly don't agree, the world has changed.
In the legal sense Like flexitime is a privilege and can be withdrawn where misused / abused.
Similarly blended applications can actually be refused or if there is a performance issue and the employee needs more support they may be required to work FT in-office
Yes, but unfortunately legislation and civil service policy and circulars haven't changed.
In what sense? Most people’s contracts haven’t changed. Certainly nothing has changed in the civil service. It is very much a privilege for most workers.
Yes, good point.
And in answer to your question, because Fórsa and the AHCPS have absolutely let them get away with it.
There is no basis for refusal - no performance issues or employee needing more support - in the case presented here.
Actually I wouldn't advise the OP to say anything about having caring responsibilities or they'll come back at them with "you must be available during working hours". That is a dodgy path to go down.
No, I wouldn't be justifying to them why it is the OPs need to stick to what has already been agreed and signed off on, I'd be putting the onus on them to give a business reason that justifies why the the core days need to be changed now.
"Because senior management says so" really doesn't cut it, here.
@tgdaly As a matter of interest, is there a PO you can speak too?
Established civil servants do not have contracts.
And I never said they did. Whatsoever. I’m well aware there is only a probationary contract and you are then governed by the circulars. Said as much to someone on the pay thread two days ago.
@Ezeoul I'm not sure if the PO will be much help with this. It's a strange one, they signed off on the Tuesday / Wednesday but I'd say they probably aren't going to care about the new AP changing the days at the same time
The PO ultimately has responsibility for the Unit, so it's their bloody job to care.
If the AP continues to push for Mondays, take it to the PO and remind them they signed off on Tues/Wed.
Exactly and iirc there is a set period of time the arrange is in place before a review.
You did say "most people"
Oh piss off.
A lot depends on the size of the team. If you've a largish team, more than five people, you're not going to please all the people all of the time. Whatever core day you choose, you're gonna piss someone off, so you're going to have to make decisions that don't suit everyone.
I agree with the above, but that doesn't appear to be the case here though.
This appears to be a new AP joining the Unit, and arbitrarily changing the Unit's existing arrangements (Tuesday and Wednesday) which have been in place for 14 months, to suit their own WFH pattern.
Which coincidentally happens to be the days they have put forward - Monday and Thursday - with Monday the new core day and Thursday now being suggested, as an "occasional" extra day.
Why would the PO not leave the management his AP's staff to the AP?
As per the DPER Framework, WFH applications require a two person approval process. In my Dept it is the AP who is the Recommender and the PO who is the Approver.
And as already mentioned, the PO ultimately has responsibility for all staff working under them, especially if something contentious arises.
Tgdaly has already said it was their PO who signed off on Tuesday and Wednesday as their WFH days.
https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2024/0115/1426555-coffee-badging-return-to-office-work-from-home-employers-employees/ food for thought :-)
As a taxpayer running a small business, my view is that the piper calls the tune. If a civil or public servant is required in office, that's it. Get in there or get out.
We are all taxpayers.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd35c43580ff62b54e9919958f2a898.svg)
