Public Servants to work 20% from home

Padre_Pio

givyjoe wrote: »

Almost as if you didn't read my post carefully. Do you actually believe that the majority of employers are providing chairs, food subsidies etc to their staff? Most will provide the minimum for a number of reasons. I've a laptop, thats it. Some folks managed to get an extra screen, most didn't. Do you believe that PS unions wouldn't milk WFH for all they can for their members?

Yes, I do, because they're legally obligated to do so.

This is an extreme example, seeing as whole companies when from 100% office to 100% home in the space of a week.

I took my laptop, screens, dock and chair from work. I have a desk at home. Some people are working from kitchens and bedrooms, and they will be prioritised when the office opens up.

In the long term companies will provide this. This thread is about a long term plan, not this short term situation.

I don't see how you can milk it, seeing as they'd have to provide all this to the employee anyways.

fits

My village is doing ok with the restrictions. The butcher has never been so busy. The fish van and vegetable stand are selling out in jig time. IT would be great if people could spend more time where they live.

We have a home office, ergonomically set up because I worked from home frequently a few years ago. Many people dont have that and it is a problem

addaword

Padre_Pio wrote: »

If your employer requires you to work from home they must provide the right equipment, unless your contract says otherwise.

I know someone working for a multinational at home and they got nothing, absolutely nothing but they are happy enough with that as it saves commuting costs etc. Time the public sector learned a bit of give and take too.

History Queen

addaword wrote: »

I know someone working for a multinational at home and they got nothing, absolutely nothing but they are happy enough with that as it saves commuting costs etc. Time the public sector learned a bit of give and take too.

You know a lot of people

Calhoun

addaword wrote: »

I know someone working for a multinational at home and they got nothing, absolutely nothing but they are happy enough with that as it saves commuting costs etc. Time the public sector learned a bit of give and take too.

I know a multi-national company who are opening themselves up to litigation in the future.

If they are working from home for covid 19 fair enough but if its permanent there is no way a multi-national is going to get away with providing you with nothing.

To protect against law suit you would want to have, all equipment provided/money towards it, monthly bump for extra usage of utilities ect.

Ninthlife

addaword wrote: »

I know someone working for a multinational at home and they got nothing, absolutely nothing but they are happy enough with that as it saves commuting costs etc. Time the public sector learned a bit of give and take too.

I know lots of public servants working from home who also got nothing, they are using all their own equipment.

I also know lots of people in the private sector who work from home and the employer provides them with everything including broadband and office equipment

givyjoe

givyjoe wrote: »

Really, you don't see them asking for allowances for chairs, equipment etc?

Company that I work for gave each employee 500 euro to set up a home office space for those that normally work in the office full time. They are also paying broadband costs for all staff, as they do for those of us that already work from home full time.

History Queen

DubInMeath wrote: »

Company that I work for gave each employee 500 euro to set up a home office space for those that normally work in the office full time. They are also paying broadband costs for all staff, as they do for those of us that already work from home full time.

Wow, that's very decent.

Padre_Pio

addaword wrote: »

I know someone working for a multinational at home and they got nothing, absolutely nothing but they are happy enough with that as it saves commuting costs etc. Time the public sector learned a bit of give and take too.

So what?

Covid is exceptional. We're talking about long term work from home, not 6 weeks during a pandemic.

If your "friend" hasn't gotten anything yet, they will when their company forms a policy on providing equipment for employees.

History Queen

History Queen wrote: »

Wow, that's very decent.

Well they normally don't let the majority of staff work from home so they needed to pony up for health and safety reasons. The broadband payment was argued that those of us who do work from home full time get it.

Friends who work in a few other MNs were told that they will not be back in the office until January 2021 regardless of the advice given by the government. But could see some Irish companies trying to get staff back in the office as soon as possible and not working from home.

givyjoe

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Yes, I do, because they're legally obligated to do so.

This is an extreme example, seeing as whole companies when from 100% office to 100% home in the space of a week.

I took my laptop, screens, dock and chair from work. I have a desk at home. Some people are working from kitchens and bedrooms, and they will be prioritised when the office opens up.

In the long term companies will provide this. This thread is about a long term plan, not this short term situation.

I don't see how you can milk it, seeing as they'd have to provide all this to the employee anyways.

Didn't read my post again or just cherry picking. In the long terms companies will not provide those things, or rather many will not and for a wide variety of reasons, not least of which being cost. You're assuming also that all employers "trust" their employees to work from home, they don't and won't unfortunately.

thomasdylan

beauf wrote: »

Anyone can explain that. Lots of them work in schools and hospitals or front line services. They also have an older workforce on average.

Also you'll get more sickies in a private company which pays sick pay than one that doesn't.

Its not rocket science.

I don't think the front line services explain rate of sick leave across the public sector. Sick leave reports are broken down by area and published every year. An awful lot of the areas with the highest sick leave are office based. One of the highest sick leave is in the DSP. There is a culture of absenteeism across some sections of the PS.

The lowest sick leave rates across the PS are in doctor's and pharmacists. Both hospital based with doctors working the most hours of anyone in the PS.

Padre_Pio

givyjoe wrote: »

Didn't read my post again or just cherry picking. In the long terms companies will not provide those things, or rather many will not and for a wide variety of reasons, not least of which being cost. You're assuming also that all employers "trust" their employees to work from home, they don't and won't unfortunately.

In the long term, if companies require employees to work from home, and the employees contract doesn't stipulate them provide their own equipment, then employers HAVE to provide equipment.
It's the law.
End of story.

Hotblack Desiato

Pkiernan wrote: »

Care to explain why public workers take on average twice as many sick days as private sector workers?

It's been explained already.

Weekends are counted. Anyone on a 50% work pattern (and 50% wages of course) has their sick leave doubled i.e. one sick day counts as two.

Unpaid sick leave is still counted in your total.

Seve OB

MegamanBoo wrote: »

Going by this article https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/parties-agree-public-servants-could-work-from-home-one-day-a-week-1002573.html it would seem the government formation talks have agreed that all public servants should do 20% from home.

This is primarily to reduce c02 emissions and help rural Ireland where workers will be able to work from local innovation hubs.

Whatya all think?

Personally I think we should all be working from home, long term, where possible. It's such a criminal waste of c02. I think the idea of setting up rural hubs is brilliant and can't believe FG (weren't they a rural party?) went against it. In my experience if people want to be unproductive in the public service, or any large organisation, they'll get away with it one way or the other.

i have a small 3 bedroom house, 3 young kids and im not disciplined enough.

i'll stick to the office thanks

addaword

Some public servants tried to explain the much higher absenteeism due to sickness rate in the public sector compared to the private sector by claiming it was because some public servants work in hospitals where whey are more likely to come in to contact with sick people, but then it was pointed out that :

thomasdylan wrote: »

The lowest sick leave rates across the PS are in doctor's and pharmacists. Both hospital based with doctors working the most hours of anyone in the PS.

Obviously doctors and pharmacists have a better work ethic than some others.

Hotblack Desiato

addaword wrote: »

And do you know how difficult it is to fire a teacher? Even ones who do the bare minimum, read their own books during class etc?

They can be fired damn quick if the BOM wants to, like that teacher who got pregnant outside marriage in the 80s.

Again take it up with the parish priest, nothing to do with the Department of Education or the government.

Hotblack Desiato

Snow Garden wrote: »

I worked in the public sector for several years in 2000s and it is very very very difficult to fire someone.

Teachers aren't really public servants though - the government is not their employer.

The performance appraisal system is a tick-the-box exercise. PIPs never happen.

I can tell you for a fact that both of those sentences are wrong because I have seen otherwise with my own two eyes. Whereas you are taking your own very limited experience that something did not happen to you or where you were and extrapolating that to 350,000 workers across the entire country.

The message was clear, don't rock the boat.

HR are at fault there for not backing the manager. But he would have been wiser to sound them out beforehand. And you're bloody naive if you think the exact same doesn't happen in the private sector.

Another manager told me that the only way to get rid of someone useless or prone to dossing is to actively promote them to another grade/role outside your section/dept.

Now this is complete crap. Managers do not have authority to promote anyone.

givyjoe

Padre_Pio wrote: »

In the long term, if companies require employees to work from home, and the employees contract doesn't stipulate them provide their own equipment, then employers HAVE to provide equipment.
It's the law.
End of story.

Jesus wept, you can stomp your feet and stick your fingers in your ears all you like, but the reality of what the law is and what companies actually do, are two very different things. If everyone company obeyed by the law so rigidly, there wouldn't be a single case in the WRC for unfair dismissal.

How on earth are many companies going to be able to afford to provide essentially double the equipment. Not every employer is an American tech giant or the Public Service with money to burn.

Companies will also carefully word the WFH arrangements. I note you use the word required.. many companies including mine, will not require that you work from home, either on a part time basis, or a full time basis, but will give you the option, i.e. which is come risk your health in the office or stay working from home. They cant and won't be providing all of the comforts of work, at home.. end of story. :rolleyes:

addaword

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Teachers aren't really public servants though - the government is not their employer.

Who pays their wages? The government.

beauf

thomasdylan wrote: »

I don't think the front line services explain rate of sick leave across the public sector. Sick leave reports are broken down by area and published every year. An awful lot of the areas with the highest sick leave are office based. One of the highest sick leave is in the DSP. There is a culture of absenteeism across some sections of the PS.

The lowest sick leave rates across the PS are in doctor's and pharmacists. Both hospital based with doctors working the most hours of anyone in the PS.

I would have thought that DSP would have a lot of front line staff. All those public facing offices. All those interviews etc. I imagine you'd get a lot of hassle and stress from some challenging situations. I wouldn't want to do it.

There are lot of other people other than doctors and pharmacists in hospitals. When you've been in hospital as a patient has the majority of your contact been with doctors and pharmacists? Also Who do you think would have the most sick leave. Those at the top of the tree or the bottom?

I've never worked in either place. Neither place world appeal to me. I would have assumed they have strict sick leave policies as they do across the public sector.

But if people think it's a route to riches and an easy life. Then apply to work there. That people complain about it, but won't work there tells it's own story.

beauf

addaword wrote: »

Some public servants tried to explain the much higher absenteeism due to sickness rate in the public sector compared to the private sector by claiming it was because some public servants work in hospitals where whey are more likely to come in to contact with sick people, but then it was pointed out that :


Obviously doctors and pharmacists have a better work ethic than some others.

You could say the same of any high end profession or business owners.

Padre_Pio

givyjoe wrote: »

Jesus wept, you can stomp your feet and stick your fingers in your ears all you like, but the reality of what the law is and what companies actually do, are two very different things. If everyone company obeyed by the law so rigidly, there wouldn't be a single case in the WRC for unfair dismissal.

Most companies do obey the law rigidly. There are millions employed in Ireland. Very few ever need to get HR, a union or the WRC to fight a case.

How on earth are many companies going to be able to afford to provide essentially double the equipment. Not every employer is an American tech giant or the Public Service with money to burn.

Why double equipment? If everyone works 1 day a week in an office, your office is 80% smaller. Hot desks. It's cheaper to put a desk and equipment in an employees home than put it in rented or owned office space.

Companies will also carefully word the WFH arrangements. I note you use the word required.. many companies including mine, will not require that you work from home, either on a part time basis, or a full time basis, but will give you the option, i.e. which is come risk your health in the office or stay working from home. They cant and won't be providing all of the comforts of work, at home.. end of story. :rolleyes:

We're talking at cross purposes. If you are not required to work from home and your company has paid for a desk in an office for you, then you are right.
I would argue that for the next 12-18 months, many people are required to work from home as companies cannot maintain social distancing in an office. As companies work through their COVID plans, they will legally be required to provide home equipment if they cannot bring people into the office.

If companies move to mandatory full or partial WHF, then they must provide equipment.

Hotblack Desiato

addaword wrote: »

Who pays their wages? The government.

As has been explained to you multiple times now, the vast majority of schools are run by religious boards of management who alone have the authority to hire and fire.

Public servants can't be refused a job because they're the "wrong" religion or aren't seen to go to mass in the local parish often enough - but teachers can.

You are "impervious to facts".

Truly you need to update your perception.
Really, it's become a bore.
Only someone with an agenda would refuse.
Lately, I find your endlessly repeated debunked arguments boring.
Ladies and gentlemen of the internet would agree.

thomasdylan

beauf wrote: »

I would have thought that DSP would have a lot of front line staff. All those public facing offices. All those interviews etc. I imagine you'd get a lot of hassle and stress from some challenging situations. I wouldn't want to do it.

There are lot of other people other than doctors and pharmacists in hospitals. When you've been in hospital as a patient has the majority of your contact been with doctors and pharmacists? Also Who do you think would have the most sick leave. Those at the top of the tree or the bottom?

I've never worked in either place. Neither place world appeal to me. I would have assumed they have strict sick leave policies as they do across the public sector.

But if people think it's a route to riches and an easy life. Then apply to work there. That people complain about it, but won't work there tells it's own story.

People working in the DSP take 4 to 5 times as much sick leave as doctors and pharmacists. How can this be explained? (doctors BTW have contact with loads of patients, probably more than most other hospital jobs but would be in less close contact than nurses and HCAs, etc.)

Those in administrative roles in the HSE take more sick leave than nurses, HCAs, physios, SLT, pharmacists and doctors.

There absolutely is a culture of absenteeism across some PS areas. Every year absense rates are broken down by area and there are fairly marked differences seen.

Stovepipe

My experience is that some people, a minority, across the State workplaces and private sector, regard sick days as a goal to be achieved and regard uncertified sick leave as free holidays. Some people "game" the leave/sick days system and others don't; they regard it as a right or an entitlement to always have Christmas off or always have that two weeks off in July and will bring in the Union at the drop of a hat,if they think their alleged entitlements are being infringed in any way.

They'll be the ones who always manage to go sick on the Thursday before a Bank Holiday weekend. Doctors and front line medical staff tend to be under greater workplace pressure to be in and the system usually makes it hard for them to get leave and they constantly get leave interrurpted or cancelled; it's no wonder that so many of them are heavy drinkers.
As for CS management, many of them are old hands at gaming the system and will happily shunt dossers and wasters aside if they get the chance. If a waster is dragging down their performance figures and threatens their bonus,management will find a way. If someone is persistently sick, they can be medicalled out. People who are chronically lazy can find themselves deadended in some paper stacking task, in a windowless office, with zero chance of promotion and they will usually be culled by early retirement schemes.

Deebles McBeebles

thomasdylan wrote: »

People working in the DSP take 4 to 5 times as much sick leave as doctors and pharmacists. How can this be explained?

Have you seen some of the people they have to deal with? I live near a DSP office and I would be taking sick days to protect my sanity if I was in that position.

thomasdylan

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Have you seen some of the people they have to deal with? I live near a DSP office and I would be taking sick days to protect my sanity if I was in that position.

So the justification is that their jobs are 4-5 more stressful and demanding than pharmacists and doctors?

Lots of people have stressful jobs, particularly now.

Hotblack Desiato

Stovepipe wrote: »

and regard uncertified sick leave as free holidays.

Wow, seven whole days every two years.

they regard it as a right or an entitlement to always have Christmas off

Most people are entitled to Christmas off. My office shuts down for two whole days. All of the private sector offices in the area shut down for two weeks, you can't get a coffee or a sandwich because there's no point in these places opening when civil servants are the only people at work.

If a waster is dragging down their performance figures and threatens their bonus

What bonus? You are talking out of your rear end.

Hotblack Desiato

thomasdylan wrote: »

People working in the DSP take 4 to 5 times as much sick leave as doctors and pharmacists. How can this be explained?

Is their sick leave counted if it's on a day they're not due to work?

Is their sick leave counted if they're not paid for it?