Civil Service - Post Lockdown - Blended Working?

I won't say where it is happening but it is happening in various disparate PS bodies. It may not be happening in your university but it might be happening in a different educational institution. Just an example.

I suspect that every organisation will eventually end up in the same place (full time office work or token wfh) even if some are slower than others to get there.

The exception to this could be the CS which is often far more forward thinking and better organised than other parts of the public sector.

Why won't you say where it's happening?

I mean, page 18 here has the results of a survey I did, with 75 respondents from 23 civil service departments/organisations and either one or two local authorities. Only people from seven bodies said they had to work from the office 2 to 4 days a week, with most others either working less in the office (1 or 2 days a week); or no change at all in recent weeks (i.e. still WFH fulltime).

There's no way blended working is going to just quietly disappear. I would have been adamant about that before more recent events like Ukraine, but with the rocketing prices of fuel and increasing scarcity in the offing (home heating oil is already being rationed), there's no way on earth we'll be forced back to our 10 commuting trips a week.

Westmeath county council staff asked back to the office 5 days a week, no flexibility whatsoever

I really don't see full time on-site work returning to the PS, but I do think the lack of compromise from some people to accept a 3 days on-site position for example and to demand full remote or only one day on-site isn't helping matters.

I think either of the 2 days on-site or 3 days on-site models are good solutions for the coming few years and assess longer term impacts in a "Normal" world and if staff were more open to this is might stop the push to full on-site by a small minority. As others have said, I think fully remote was never going to happen and people need to stop demanding it with a sense of entitlement, as this is rubbing people up the wrong way imo.

Except that's not what they did.

Google: Hybrid, 3 days in office, 2 "from anywhere"

Microsoft: Hybrid - can't find recent details of any change

Apple: Hybrid, 1 day in office.

So no, no fulltime, no options "mid-April return to the office", in any way, shape or form.

As a private worker and taxpayer, I'd rather have civil servants working at their place of work, rather than at home.

Why?

My departments productivity is up. Sick leave is down.

Why would you want us back to work only for us to provide less value to the tax payer (which also includes us)?

The public service has been "talking" about remote work since at least 2003. I know someone working in network admin in the PS since the mid 90s and he said they were talking about it then too. There was ample time to introduce it in normal times but for the vast majority of public servants, it was never on the table. Same with a lot of other things that have been talked about over the years.

When Covid arrived, management was forced into introducing WFH. Grudgingly.

I think a lot of reasonable people would now accept 2 days in the office and 3 WFH but if the split was the other way, that would be a different story.

As I said above, people in various organisations are being told to return to the office a MINIMUM of three days a week with further return phases to come. Then at some stage come policies based on DPER guidance. We already know that the right to request remote work legislation is useless. The longer it takes to introduce the policies, the worse it will be. People already seem to be forgetting about Covid, the Ukraine situation helps and provides opportunities for distraction, virtue signalling and shaming "Get back to the office and stop complaining, if you were in Ukraine you'd have something to complain about".

The HSE cyber attack was another useful thing.

Telling people who have been working well remotely to "return to work", sloppiness or an attempt at gaslighting people?

Considering the above, IMO it's naive to think that WFH will be anything but a token thing (at best) for most in the future. Even if large numbers of people want it, there are enough dinosaurs in power to stop it. People will be angry but the reality is that most employees are wage slaves and as I said already in this thread, it is very difficult for established public servants to gain private sector employment.

Ah ok but is that everyone?

Also how is that permitted. The guidance still is a phased return to the workplace not a full and immediate return (that is direct quote from forsa at a recent meeting btw).

I appreciate the things are different in each sector but there is no harm in challenging stuff if staff are willing. As already mentioned I know of attempts to bring back staff full time in my own sector which were successfully challenged but we already have our own policy etc.

agree - I never thought full time remote working was on the table and I think 2 day on site model would be a great compromise. I love working fully remote and I havent been requested to return at all.

Ive done both the 3 day onsite/2 WFH and 2 onsite/3 WFH and 2 days onsite is way better for me.

Very interesting. I didn’t realise any Dept was doing it officially, even encouraging it. I did know of a few people that had unofficial arrangements, but never heard of a formal policy. Thanks for sharing.

Sounds like an enlightened organisation compared to others.

Hi Loueze, I would be interested to know what Department that is. You could PM me rather than post it.

At least you’re not back full time.