Civil Service - Post Lockdown - Blended Working?

Under the legislation - all they have to do is give a reason and say it was considered, and even if granted, you must have 6 months of continuous service (continuous employment) before the arrangement can start. The legislation specifically covers the training situation I described above with zero issues. As I said, completely agree that after 6 months blended makes sense for a lot of roles. You also need to consider that during probation there is typically a closer / more visible management approach for good reason, especially in the CS where it is impossible to dismiss somebody after this realistically. SO probation needs to make sure the candidate is the right fit for a long term career in the CS - harder to do if you and their team mates only see them 2 days a week.

The legislation isn't really worth much tbh as the only appeal grounds are procedural and not what the decision was.

My wife started as a CO last year, was allowed 3 days WFH after being there 6 weeks. No accrual of flexitime at home though (unlike me).

Just because they can do it, doesn't mean they should.

One of the regular queries that comes up over on the Blended Working Survey thread is questions on what specific Departments are offering in terms of WFH. Presumably these queries are from staff considering taking up roles in these Departments.

Being so limited will only end up hurting these Depts in the long run, as there will be people who will turn down roles in favour of Depts which offer better options (which we're already seen confirmed here).

I understand there are specialist roles that require more training and office attendance, but I presume the people who seek out those roles understand the trade off.

IMO, for general admin grades, six months to a year full time WFO before being allowed apply for WFH is excessive.

Some people just dont work well from home.

When you consider a lot of the tech companies now want 3 days in the office(at least), its hard to see public sector jobs not following the same pathway.

team building, knowledge sharing, training, project development, sense of belonging etc are all negativley impacted by too much WFH.

Not to mention visibility of work, which is a concern for a lot of management.

Some WFH is a good thing, in the right roles and for the right people, but most large organisations are likley to settle on a 3 day office attendance in the end.

And yet, all this was managed - and managed well - during the pandemic. In many places (both private and public sector) productivity was reported as improved during the pandemic, due to WFH

We also now have Teams and Skype or Business embedded. I personally have more day to day interaction with colleagues now, then I did when I worked full time from the office pre-pandemic, and it is more focused.

No more distractions because Mary from Accounts wants to chat about what was on the telly last night. I genuinely get far less work done on days I am in the office.

For those who don't want to work from home, or who prefer an office environment, they are allowed to opt out of wfh completely.

I think you're talking about the private sector.

Different animal.

Online meetings are forced, structured and downplay participation. They disallow most forms of interaction that are not planned.

Not in my experience. Quite the opposite.

team building, knowledge sharing, training, project development, sense of belonging etc are all negativley impacted by too much WFH.

Bollocks.

Team building, I'll give you. But only because there's more opportunity for non work-related "banter" in person than over Teams or Zoom, and you can go for a coffee or a pint after work.

Knowledge sharing, training, project development - nope, all can be done equally as well WFH, or even better when WFH. "How do I do X?" "Let me share my screen…" "Here's the updated GANTT chart, as you can see we need to prioritise this segment…" over "Right, did you all bring printouts of the chart I emailed?" Many, many meetings could have been emails…

The private sector is generally more efficient than the public sector.

Absolute bollocks! Having worked in both (now working in the latter), and having to deal with private sector companies regularly (in both work and personal life), I can tell you that you haven't a clue if you genuinely believe that's the case. Yes, there are inefficient areas in the public sector. But there are whole private sector companies - large and small - that are total shitshows to work with. Telecoms companies that will take months to put new fibre in. Companies that won't speak to you because of GDPR when you try to cancel an account for someone who has died, "we can only speak to the account holder." Consultants that draw up project plans that have user acceptance testing taking place before infrastructure has been deployed. Requests for quotes for products and/or services that you know the company supplies because you're a customer that just go unanswered. Tenders sent in after deadlines. With missing information. I could go on.

Compare to the likes of the Passport Office, where you can apply online and have a new passport at your door in 2 to 3 days. Or Revenue, where you can apply for a balancing statement online and have a tax refund in your bank a week later. (Transferring money from my bank account to someone else's bank account in the same branch can somehow take a week, though - if I know their account number and have a little calculator-like thing that still has a charged-up battery in it, and I happen to have it with me when I go to do the transfer).

while I agree the wind is blowing that way , I think the lower salaries in the PS/CS for similar roles might be a saviour for us to keep our level of WFH. It’s a perk they can use to keep and attract staff, a free perk.

Well, it's a good thing we're civil servants then, and this thread is about the civil service.

would many civil servants leave the civil service if there was a mandatory four days back in the office?

That's the result of staff shortages and out dated systems. Add to that a bunch of people out sick. It was a pandemic after all. The passport office doubled their staff and spent millions on their systems.

You can't massively grow the population, putting a huge demand on services, have the same or less staff, and paper based systems all done in person. The maths don't add up.

Yeah WFH caused that lol.

Have you read the thread title?.

The CS don't tend to follow the private sector in these things, it's the other way around.

I was involved in the consultation process and drafting of the DPER framework and the blended working policy in my own Dept. These things were discussed in minute detail.

I am far from niave.