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

True and I agree it’s not an entitlement to be able to work from home full time. TBH the only people I know who still seem to have that level of flexibility are a few private sector workers (who seem to be able to do as they please, presumably with the blessing of management) and some HSE admin people,

In any case flexibility cuts both ways and CS who are being forced to attend the office more frequently to pander to the whims of politicians should just turn off their phones after 6pm when they leave their offices. Most of the so called emergency comms after hours is just bluster and chest beating. But as always politicians and increasingly they’re so called advisors want their cake and be able to eat all for themselves as well

The constant “I’m far more productive at home” line also needs a bit of perspective. Self-praise isn’t evidence.

Saying you feel more productive isn’t the same as showing that the organisation delivers better outcomes or that the public receives a better service as a result. Productivity in the public service isn’t just about personal efficiency it’s about meeting public and organisational needs.

If the argument is genuinely that WFH improves public service delivery, then that needs to be demonstrated in outcomes, not just asserted because it suits the individual. Otherwise it’s just preference dressed up as principle.

Feeling productive is fine. Providing a better service to the public is the actual test.

Another thing that rarely gets mentioned is that not every role actually has a full days’ worth of work in it.

Some jobs are cyclical, demand-led, or dependent on others. In those cases, feeling “more productive” at home can just mean you’re more comfortable filling quiet periods, not that the organisation or the public is getting a better service.

That’s not a criticism, it’s just the reality of how some roles operate. Which is exactly why productivity can’t be assessed purely on personal perception or preference.

Here's a thing that doesn't get mentioned often by the anti wfh brigade. My sister is public sector, if there are orange weather alerts they don't go to the office but work from home. If organisations start to become super strict on days in and out of office then surely it's a fair push back to say if you can't be in office because of weather then you just don't work, rather than wfh. Why is it that the employer gets all the benefit of the flexibility but not the staff?

While all evidence points to productivity being the same or better with wfh one might counter your argument by saying shouldn’t what’s best for the employee be a much stronger part of the argument than you make it. You are arguing is all around what suits the employer or the public when the what’s best for the employee (and their family) also needs to be strongly considered. I am sure working 12 hour days and 7 day weeks was argued as being the best way to do things at one point in the past and would suit the employer or the public better but but obviously not what is done anymore.

Wfh makes a massive massive difference to families up and down the country, without it far more people would have to give up work (probably women) which is not what we should aspire to as a society.

I don’t think anyone is saying what’s best for employees doesn’t matter as of course it does. But it can’t be the only lens either. Hence why there's no full return to office mandates.

The comparison with 12-hour days and 7-day weeks is a stretch. Asking people to come into the office two or three days a week isn’t remotely the same thing.

WFH absolutely helps a lot of families, no argument there. But it’s not the only way families were ever supported. Things like flexi, shorter working year, parental leave, carers leave, etc all existed long before Covid. And the absence of full-time WFH doesn’t automatically mean people are forced out of work. Hybrid working exists precisely to strike that balance.

Two or three days in the office isn’t dragging things back to the 1950s as it’s a compromise.

The issue is when WFH gets framed as the only acceptable way to support families or the environment. If that was really the principle, imagine if WFH was formally limited to parents of young children, or only to people based in Dublin. That would be seen as unfair very quickly.

In reality, a lot of the noise seems to boil down to something simpler that people just don’t want to come into the office. That’s understandable, but it’s not the same thing as saying it’s always what’s best for the organisation or the public.

What is the narrative so……

I'd say the reason RTO happening is standardisation across the public service and bringing it back into line with the private sector. That’s the real driver, whether people like it or not.

There’s also a hard truth that rarely gets mentioned: in some areas, public-facing services have reduced significantly while staff numbers have increased. Fewer tax offices, limited council counter hours-car tax, DSP pushing people towards email-only contact in some operational areas. Even the NDLS tried to move away from in-person appointments altogether so work could essentially be done remotely.

From the outside, that’s a hard sell to the taxpayer. “More staff, less direct service” doesn’t land well, fairly or unfairly. RTO will be about optics, especially if private sector workers are largely returning back to offices, that’s the reality and if organisations decide increased office attendance is the model, people will have to accept it or vote with their feet.

You were the one suggesting walking around an multistorey office was an efficient way of working lol.

Punitive stupidity usually triggers outrage.

Suggesting adults need supervision is an complete admittance that an office or that person has no metrics, productivity or output metrics. Or no concept or experience of it.

Its certainly isn't a criticism of WFH. Its an criticism of a poorly managed office.

It makes perfect sense to me that civil servants, explicitly paid to serve their community, should meet and experience that community.

Seriously. Planning office, get on the bus with me, lets see what you think.

I'll guess people will do a bit extra (Stay late, start early) while working from home to be flexible.

If they are running for a train or a bus, or getting out ahead of traffic they become a lot less flexible.

The fallback argument is the simplest one as the office is your place of work under your contract. That’s it. They don’t need collaboration buzzwords once it comes down to terms and conditions.

And the idea that unions will stop it just isn’t realistic. They won’t strike over this in a million years. There’s no solid basis to complain when contracts specify an office location, and most members can’t afford to lose pay nor union afford strike pay. Senior management know that, which is why they can roll over unions on issue after issue.

As for flexibility. Overtime is largely optional, availability outside normal hours is optional, and most public sector staff aren’t working evenings or weekends anyway. Any flexibility exists largely for the employee’s benefit, not the employer. I haven't seen your typical HEO/SO and below working off the clock/for free or really needed to be in contact outside office hours in your typical office environment. The "extra" in most case explicity part of role(travel) and/or compensated for(shift/overtime/flexi).

It was Micheál Martin intervention at the time that caused the management board of DSP to retreat as to not go to be seen to go against Taoiseach.Senior Management don't care about unions.

I would have thought the Taoiseach was the most senior manager of them all. :)