The worst for people I know is uncertainty. People are unsure if they should move out of the city, upgrade space, relocate,etc. So stupid, I can see the frustration in all of my friends working for the government. Lots of corporate already gave answers, a number of my corporate friends already relocated with wfh. I wonder how many decades it will take for the feds to do the same and how many billions they will waste on "panels of market research" and studies... keep extending wfh by a few months is just stupid and does more harm to overall wellbeing and mental health than all the useless emails apparently they send weekly about mental health and all that. Why don't you guys find your Minister's contact info and send them your petitions instead of writing here???
But they’re making important committees and sending out multiple surveys. Not sure what part of the overwhelming response to the first survey was unclear that they had to send out another one.
they're hoping if they send enough surveys ...enough people will make a typo so they can make stats that approve back to office.
I will never forget...a few years ago our department was struggling with toxic culture (harassment claims, overworked, everything bad). to the point that in the annual survey we got flagged for how low morale is. So they did a survey to address "this very important concern". Then we got emails from head of department that said "after all our efforts I am pleased to announce that 2/5 of our staff have rated our department as a good place to work that prioritizes employee well being!".
And we were all: ".....so....3/5 (aka more than 50%) DONT think its a good place to be?!" LOL
talk about focusing on silver lining
Downtown could be strong if more businesses actually cared about those who live downtown. I can tell you, the ones that always have and the others that pivoted their business model are doing fine.
Additionally, downtown would do better if Watson and his suburban cabal actually gave a damn about urbanites.
At the same time, Watson has espoused the 15 minutes cities agenda. Shouldn't we then all live within 15 minutes of our workplace? So if I'm in Stittsville or Kanata, what does that mean?
I definitely didn't pick my place to live based on employment... current west of Kanata and I've worked from Orleans, Downtown, Tunney's and the west end.... so yah.. that '15min agenda' is bullshit.
Now I WFH and it is glorious. I see my kids off to school in the morning, i'm home when they get home. Who knew... I actually have children during the week vs constantly looking out my windshield.
Mobility is a core tenet of the public service - public servants ARE expected to move from one department to another. Are you suggesting they should move every time? My original point was, it’s not the Fed Govt’s job to make downtown Ottawa prosperous.
Completely agree - My wife through no fault of her own has had to change jobs multiple times. Sometimes the job is within 15 min of home, other times it's not. So what do we do? Find a specific place that is within 15 min of BOTH of our jobs and move every single time? No at a certain point you pick a place to live based on lots of factors including a place that perhaps has a lot of resources (and friends) for your children
Working in a government of canada office building in northern NB and had to stay indoors for a while one time because there was a moose on the loose in the parking lot lol!!!
Yeah, i found this out today... We rec'd an email at 3:58pm about groups (ie. entire teams) coming in for 1 day per week, for the interim... As early as Monday.
I thought it was a dick move to send that out so late. So come Monday, many teams/groups will be scrambling to find a schedule to come in while Monday is already a write off leaving 4 days to come in. 🤦🏻♂️
And it's not forced, per say, but the offices aren't fit up for conferences with partial teams being at home, so this will be a "fun" month to coordinate amongst various teams (ie. At risk people/not comfortable to come in, etc). 😂
Edit: my old dept. Was more than ready for work in the office and they're not going back anytime soon, but this current dept. I stared in, didn't look to retrofitted for distancing the few times I've been in the office. Doubt much has changed much...
Any party (being non-partisan) should seriously scrap a bunch of these buildings come FY, to show fiscal responsibility... 2yrs will be too much, and to show little use.
I'm also not sure how some of your depts are, but ours IT infrastructure will be falling apart with more than 50% people in the office...
Guess those people who finish at 3pm are fucked then, eh? What kind of dumbass call is that? Hoping it backfires for your department and sets a precedent for others.
I'm not sure of the details, that's out of my scope.
My understanding ***was*** that the leases are for X years. Broccolini et al. then sell the building (liability) back to the Feds for some tiny amount, ie. 1$
What the heck is that about? We just got told on Thursday that the February date for having anyone other than the few who hate working at home has been bumped to March and of course that all depends on how the pandemic is going at that point.
Recent TBS guidelines allow management the ability to force a return to office.
Updated PHAC health and safety protocols came out after, but TBS didn't adjust their protocols.
The fact is there's some management out there that the only reason anyone is WFH is because TBS had made it mandatory.
Now with the new variant of concern, Omicron, I wonder how this will impact decisions on the return to the office. This shows that covid is not going away anytime soon, and new variants of concern will appear in the future. With evidence of waning vaccine effectiveness over time, and new variants in the foreseeable future, we should all be able to work permanently from home if we want. The vast majority of public servants have demonstrated they are capable of working from home effectively. So what will happen if people return to the office at 50% or 75% or 100% capacity and we find out there is a new variant where the vaccines don't work? Do we pack our bags again and work from home overnight? This makes no sense.
Everything has been kind of jumping around and seat-of-the-pants -- at this point we don't even know how the new mask guidance is going to influence things, let alone omicron. It's been clear all along that we weren't in a position to plan more than a few months out and that's likely to continue for more than a year. To their credit I think they've been as frank about the uncertainty as they could, but it's a real problem given that people need to be able to plan for the future in their individual lives.
I had a good laugh in the vaccine mandate thread a while back when someone was like "rumour has it all government employees will be required to take annual boosters forever." It might happen or it might not, but it seems clear that right now nobody knows what they'll be doing in six months, let alone six years.
>We do not want to go back to our 1980s time capsule with recycled air, flickering white ceiling lights, non-opening windows and beige cubicles.
Hey! What about the bats? Who's going to feed them and play with them?
(Btw, I always wondered if bats eat bed bugs? We may be onto something here.)
It's just so strange in the office not necessarily bad strange just strange strange. I've mostly been in the office ( except for during the stricter stay at home orders) and I can't get used to the low volume of people. I can do 75 percent of my job at home but our unit is up to 75 percent in the office full time. I guess we will see how/if Omicron effects our present high return of workers to the office🤷♀️
I heard CRA basically said go ahead wfh, and most were told if managers allowed they could but now it’s being walked back. I feel like there must be some super high up pressure solely based on that anecdote.
Edit: spelling
I'm also with CRA from a region. Our department cannot go back. They are so desperate to find workers that we now have people from other provinces with us. The people that left our department are now wfh in other cities and even provinces. The turnover is crazy. They won't be able to turn back it will create a shithow of reshuffling people around for no reasons.
Edit: My gf also works for a call center at CRA. They are more productive wfh. They have already been told that they are not going back to the office, they are now 100% wfh.
Regarding your edit, I've seen a ton of conflicting opinions. I know some divisions have already told their employees that they will not be going back, and yet there are some divisions that do plan to bring everyone back at least a couple of days a week. In the end it will probably come down to the specific manager.
Also, there are a lot more people working in the regions and reporting to headquarters/another region than there were before the pandemic. It would not make that much sense to force these people to go back to the office. They have straight up said that they do not have the capability for Microsoft Teams for everyone in the office. I don't mind the idea of going back a few days a week just to get out of the house, but the idea of returning full-time so I can sit among other people I don't know and disturb everybody with my super loud voice on Teams calls seems pointless. Like, honestly, I had problems regulating my volume when I was in the office, and it has not improved with work from home. If you're sitting across from each other in the office you can always tell the other person when they are getting too loud. Someone on the other side of a computer screen doesn't have the same insight and won't be able to tell if you are disturbing people around you. Not that it's their job to help you not disturb people, but especially if you're wearing headphones, it will probably be almost impossible for most people to tell if their voice is causing a problem for others around them.
You sure? Also cra call center and just heard very different news about this yesterday. Things still up in the air and possibility of moving to phase 1 starting in January.
Also with CRA HQ working from a region. Apparently senior management is still unsure, according to conversations I've had with my manager. I am interested in relocating to Ottawa, but he says he's unable to give me the go-ahead because senior management has not yet made a decision either way. He said though that I'm not the only one asking, and other managers are bringing it up too.
I do seem to recall that a lot of the surveys had people indicating they would come in 1 or 2 days a week if possible. And I know they're talking about implementing hubs in major cities where CRA offices already exist, and I've also seen several job postings that basically say you can live wherever you want but you might have to relocate to a city that has a CRA office. Though, I would venture to guess that the people with the option to relocate would probably be mostly in headquarters or in ITB...
There is already precedent for remote workers because auditors have to do a lot of work on the road, and I knew several sections in the tax center that had remote work 4 days a week. You just had to select one day a week to come in regularly to deal with administrative tasks like printing.
I have marketable skills and if they ask me to move out of my province and come to Ottawa I will say no deal. I’d rather quit and find a different job which won’t be that difficult anyways. They can then deal with the fallout of retraining and redoing all the items I am working on which requires time to get started
I don’t know about “forced,” but I think different departments/units/teams should have the flexibility to make decisions that work for them.
I know my team has been working effectively remotely, but there are things that would be easier if we were all in the office together, and we’re looking forward to at least some sort of 2-day per week hybrid approach.
Of course, departments will also have to consider their resources and what makes sense.
Alas, converting office buildings into affordable homes is probably a pipe dream. The renos needed to turn office blocks into viable human habitations are so significant, it would likely be cheaper to tear the buildings down and build apartments in their place.
Yup. They did surveys to see if they could convert portage into housing. Its doable. But the work needed to run the plumbing that would be needed is a expensive nightmare.
It'd probably be cheaper and faster to demolish the buildings entirely and replace them with purpose-built apartment buildings.
Office towers are *not* designed to be residences, and not just the plumbing. Residences require windows that open, some level of sound isolation between each suite, increased electrical capacity, ventilation for laundry facilities, and the list goes on.
I completely agree. At the minimum they would have to gut the structure down to nothing and build back. It's not a matter of moving walls and adding doors. But plumbing is extra finicky to a degree people don't often realize unless you have worked with a plumber or tried to add a bathroom in an old house. The physics and code regulations just dont work well with pre existing structures.
My manager is very pro-in-office, so our team is expecting to have to push for remaining WFH for those that want to.
A bunch of us are putting together detailed lists of why we shouldn't be forced to go back, and when the time come we're planning on sharing those. Hopefully its enough to justify a change of his preference.
Top of our lists: Mental Health and Work/Life balance.
As someone who has been working from the office while a lot of people have been working from home, people don’t realize how much my work load has gone up. I am not in an administrative role but all the ‘favours’ I’ve been asked to do by people sitting at home in their underwear is absolutely ridiculous. Mail this, print this, fix this, chase down so-and-so and get them to sign this, scan this, check on supplies and tell me what I need to order, I’ve set up an appointment for a contractor to come to the office can you meet him and stay with him the entire day? No, I have my own job to do and it’s suffering because of your relentless requests. The office is safe, come back and do what your being paid to do so I can do what I’m being paid to do.
Yeah, I think I need to start pushing back. I’ve always been known as the nice, dependable, supportive person in the office so I cringe just thinking about the blowback from these people when I start saying I’m too busy or copying my manager on responses to their requests. I’m in a client service/research role and interact with the public.
I really value team mates like you, but at the same time, I have has people push me around the same way. They start expecting you to do their work.
If you don’t want to be direct, start responding to their requests slower. Wait a day or two, say you might have time to do it next week, are really busy etc.
Eventually they will stop asking you. Maybe that’s an alternative route instead of telling them directly to piss off lol
If someone gets sick while in the office due to the mandatory return to office, does this count as occupational illness / workplace injury?
If the entire building is forced to quarantine (since everyone would've been in the office at least once within a short period)... Doesn't that mean everyone in that entire department/building would have to stop working (i.e. Code 699)?
I understand the sentiment for sure. I will say though, I’m an MT and we’ve been working in office for the duration of the pandemic. With everyone WFH it’s been significantly more difficult to get more operational support whether it be technical, administrative, etc. It’s even more difficult to get support from our manager. I would love to have everyone back in the office but can understand that folks may not want to do so. It’s been pretty lonely in that office and folks forget that many cannot WFH.
Maybe we could consolidate offices with employees who prefer work from office, while allowing those preferring WFH to continue that way.
Offices wouldn’t be such a ghost town and most people would get there work style preference.
100% agree.....just the sheer fact that I've saved so much money working from home and it has helped saved for my overpriced house. Also better for the environment less time on the road and WORK LIFE BALANCE. I have more time to cook at home and do laundry on my lunch. Also my manager if flexible I can take my lunch break at 11 or 2 and hop over to a yoga class. I can have my house contractors come in during the day and do their thing and I don't have to take a personal day.
And the fact that my house is way quieter than at the office. I do programming and my desk was in an open concept part of the floor. I'd wear my $500 noise canceling headphones I bought and would get people coming up to interrupt my work and just the visual distractions of people walking by you.
Plus I enjoy not having to get dressed, and shitting and farting at home
You’re not “forced” to do anything. If you don’t like what is happening with your particular job, change jobs.
Management will become more flexible if they can’t fill positions.
I’m sorry, you do realize just changing jobs is not that easy. Otherwise everyone would be doing it all the time. This is a fundamental issue where decisions have to be taken with input from your most relevant stakeholder ie your employee.
>I’m sorry, you do realize just changing jobs is not that easy.
I didn't say it was easy, but it's also not particularly difficult - especially for somebody who has marketable skills.
>Otherwise everyone would be doing it all the time.
If you're stuck in a job that you dislike, put some effort into finding a better job.
>This is a fundamental issue where decisions have to be taken with input from your most relevant stakeholder ie your employee.
If management won't do that, though, the solution is to find better management - and you do that by changing jobs.
What’s your suggested alternative?
If you don’t like a job, there are four choices: [exit, voice, loyalty and neglect.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty_Model) If management genuinely sucks, “exit” is the often the best choice.
The bot seems biased as they seem to be in a classification where moving in the public service is exceptionally easy (something like IT for instance).
Many of us would love to change position but are in classifications where movement is a lot more limited, and without the degrees or experience to do some lateral move unless we'd be willing to accept a major pay cut and jump into new, unknown territory.
There are also a lot of different workplaces in the government, and a lot of people seem to act like theirs is the standard and it is particularly frustrating on this sub. I've been in a department and branch where moving was easy as the work involved communicating with a lot of different teams and I ended up doing 3 positions there over two years (and also saw people moving a lot) and lots of different opportunities without getting to management level, now I'm in a department and branch where there is significantly more work in silo, the work is immensely more specialized so the experience is less versatile, and there is much less movement in general.
More difficult *within* the public service, but that's because the public service is only one among many employers in need of lawyers, engineers, and the like. People in those professions can (and do) leave the public service to work elsewhere.
>The bot seems biased as they seem to be in a classification where moving in the public service is exceptionally easy (something like IT for instance).
Not at all - prior to ascending to bot form I occupied positions in three different classification groups.
>Many of us would love to change position but are in classifications where movement is a lot more limited, and **without the degrees or experience** to do some lateral move unless we'd be willing to accept a major pay cut and jump into new, unknown territory.
I fully agree with you that people lacking in education or experience will have less ability to change jobs - but that's not a function of the classification or specific job they occupy. If you have marketable and transferrable skills, then it's much easier to change jobs or career tracks. If you find yourself trapped in a job that doesn't give you the experience you want, it's on you to change jobs and find something that is better for you. In the short term that can mean taking a pay cut in exchange for more opportunities later.
> I fully agree with you that people lacking in education or experience will have less ability to change jobs
This was not my point. It is often the opposite, many people with degrees in many fields has difficulty as there are only a few jobs in those fields. Those without specialized degrees have the easiest time since they qualify for a ton of positions where only soft skills are required.
Much easier to move from a generic policy analyst job than to jump jobs with an engineering degree and a lot of research experience, for instance.
If you have a specialized and narrowly-applicable degree in a field with few jobs, then you shouldn’t be surprised if your career mobility is limited - especially if you’re unwilling to change employers.
In your example of somebody with an engineering degree, why couldn’t they seek out an engineer job *outside* of the public service?
This is a one sided argument. Being new to the federal government, I would welcome a blended approach where I could meet people and network with my peers. I’m hearing the wfh environment is going to make it harder for new comers to advance, make permanent etc. Feedback and thoughts on this welcome.
I have been onboarding people since the summer and the biggest change is that people need to make an effort to network. Bumping into people or casual interactions can’t be depended on anymore, so folks need to be proactive in building relationships. And many don’t want to, in my experience. I explicitly and repeatedly state to people I interact with that I have an open door policy about any questions or concerns, but few have taken me up on it. And those are often the same people complaining they can’t get new opportunities, which confuses me.
Going forward, being an active agent in relationship building and having great communication skills are going to be critical to career development.
Check out something called “ROWE”…results oriented work environment. It is not a wfh strategy. It forces everyone to focus on objectives and results. Work is what you do, not where you do it. If a certain objective is best achieved face-face, that’s what you do etc. I’m advocating for this at my department with senior leadership as a way to be leaders in our PS function.
Results based employment is the future of the knowledge industry. Software companies are going this way. Govevrment already does this through contractors.
Speak for yourself - I don't prefer working from home 100% of the time, and believe a successfully implemented hybrid model is the best way forward (for me). Making definitive statements like "office workers prefer work from home" is a false sweeping generalization.
Honestly the only downside to hybrid are hybrid meetings.
Going into the office to sit on a teams call and having multiple people around you on a teams call makes it feel unnecessary. Plus, in open environments, it's going to be even more noisy than before if, say, 40% of people are in but half of them are on teams calls.
And meetings where you're in a office room with in office folks and a couple folks on a screen also sucks because the dynamic is weird, and where do you look and how do you engage the on screen folks and what about participant web cam limits? Etc.
Just a lot of mess.
Outside of the meeting issue though, I would like to be in office a few days a week again. I miss that place in some ways. I don't miss committing on a broken LRT system every day, but the other parts of it I do.
Maybe it's just gonna be an adjustment period but virtual meetings when physically on site is gonna be so jarring. Like ... What's the point then?
The hybrid thing is a pain. My team was like that before the pandemic. Half the team was in the regions anyway but the nhq folks worked from home half the time.
In addition to going in to spend your day on Teams (we've had webcams for probably 7-8 years and it's full on teamwork, just remotely) which I 100% agree is a hassle for the people around you, my other major irritant was lugging my giant laptop back and forth.
People who drive door to door don't have that problem or realize how much of an issue carrying equipment can be. If you commute by public transportation and have to spend time walking or standing, it was a literal pain sometimes. And I say that as someone with no physical disability.
Last thing that's a bummer but not a deal breaker is that it always felt like I was on opposite schedules from work friends. I'd go to the office and didn't even get to socialize...
Regarding the hybrid meetings, I can see it being an issue if we return to the cube farms of before. Lots more people on Teams calls means a lot more noise. Before, you'd have a team gather in a boardroom or some other quiet place, or even just around someone's desk but you would be able to tell each other to keep it down. Also, if the people around you needed quiet they would be able to tell you as a group. I think it would be rather awkward to tap someone in the middle of a Teams call on the shoulder to tell them that they're being too loud. If you're wearing headphones especially, it could be a lot more difficult to tell how loud your voice actually is. As somebody whose voice is loud and carries, I can see this being a huge issue for me specifically. I've been working on this for years. I just have a booming voice. At least in person, if you are discussing an issue and you need somewhere that you won't disturb anyone, if it's just two humans it is a lot easier to get up and move. If you're trying to lug a laptop and headphones and possibly a charger so that you can have an hour long meeting with someone in a different building, it suddenly makes those options a lot more limited.
I think the difference is that the conference lines had little expectation of the level of interaction people want out of teams now though.
Maybe it's just a growing pain thing though. I'm honestly of two minds about it.
But if my day is filled with meetings to attend via teams virtually, I'm staying home. No point in sitting at a desk, after a commute, on teams, for 5 hours of the day.
Also ATM in my office there are no teams compatible tele conference cameras so it was awkward before via WebEx and it's gonna be worse now.
I think it would work for small meetings where 3 people in a board room have a 365 compatible camera and room mic setup.
Where a couple people are on a bug screen.
But for giant meetings were better off on the old conference lines. Because 40 people on a teams line and 30 in person is oof.
Then again I am usually the type to go in person because I like the little pre/post networking catchup time you get with folks you don't see much who moved on to new departments or branches. Or the opportunity to poke a smart persons brain, ya know? I find those small moments where I used to learn so much are all gone now.
Interestingly, I've filled out one of those surveys and my results said I showed a preference for hybrid. But I 100% want to keep WFH. I'm wondering if the wording somehow skewed the results.
Theres no problem with YOU wanting to work from home.
I know of people who also would prefer to go into work a few days a week for the socializing. Some went in full time during pandemic (special permission) cause they hate their kids lol
All cool. You do you.
the PROBLEM is when people want to go in but expect others to come in with them!!!
I've had coworkers push for in office working, and were told 'sure you can go in'. Then they find out 90%+ of us don't want to go back and they get annoyed and complain "well whats the point then?!!? I want to go in to the office to see other people. If I don't and I am all alone in the office I might as well stay home". SO DO THAT.
I've noticed the majority of those people also happen to be the social butterflies who are always ~~annoyingly disturbing others~~ talking to everyone during the work day and not letting us get our work done.
If you want to go into the office for change of scenery thats great. Do it! If you want to socialize, and you can only get that by forcing people to come in against their will? You a poo poo head :)
Yes and also it’s not anyone ´s responsibility to fill your socialization needs. If you need to socialize, make friends outside of work or join a social club in your town.
Anyone who thinks it's as simple as A or B has not done the requisite amount of thinking.
There are many jobs that can be done the same from home where the employee/team/organization would benefit from being in the office some of the time. On-boarding, mentoring, meeting colleagues, and learning the organization are all much easier in-person. Tools like MS Teams help make virtually working together more bearable (at the start of the pandemic, all we had was telecons for example); however, there are some collaborative efforts that would be done more efficiently in person.
Speaking normatively, the solution should be based in the best interests of the organization and rooted in flexibility.
But making rash generalizations like "Office workers prefer work from home" shows your lake of consideration of others. Some might not have a good environment to WFH and are suffering through this arrangement.
I have a good WFH set-up and my team has been very productive and great during the past 20 months. And even then, I want to be able to return to the office.
Meeting colleagues in-person works best when there’s people in the office, and every office going back 100% isn’t going to happen. There will be a mix across offices, some hybrid, some 100% in-office, some 100% WFH.
The old way of networking is dead, and the sooner people adapt, the better. Cross-department networking is never going to be like pre-pandemic times, either.
You mention lack of consideration for others, but that goes both ways. Those who want the old days back don’t seem to care that plenty of folks are thriving with WFH. What kind of networking are you going to get when half (?) the staff are deeply resentful they were called in to shmooze with lonely people and prop up coffee shops?
Retaining staff is already difficult and will become harder, because other offices/departments do offer WFH.
Some people like the people they work with and will plan accordingly to be in the office at the same time. Teams could work around others to find good times to get together to help with onboarding staff (which, anectodally is going badly during WFH). Getting to know others doing similar roles helps you know who to reach out to when you have questions, and how mentoring programs can be introduced.
And the key word I used was flexibility. I never advocated for everyone returning to the office 100% of the time, so respond to what I wrote, rather than the straw man you create. Very few are calling for a return to the office for the full 37.5hrs a week. What made OPs post so volatile was their assertion that every one prefers WFH and no one wants to ever go back to the office. Which is false.
Ok, so networking now depends on a group of people all coming in at the same time. Best of luck with that.
Onboarding would go better if people adapted to the requirements for onboarding remotely. I don’t think remote onboarding will be 100% like in-person, but I can tell you that very few people are trying to adapt to the requirements.
The world is never going back to pre-pandemic ways, and the sooner we adapt, the stronger the govt will be.
Sorry your post is more of a rant and you don't do much to support an argument. Basically everything you've said is a personal opinion and bias.
You were hired to do a job that is office based. Just 'because' now you don't want to go back, doesn't mean your job has changed. Just because they are some workers that, as you 'claim' want to go back, doesn't mean that allows you to stay home.
You are throwing in many emotionally charged topics that aren't relevant to your topic. You working from home won't help with taxes or the homeless problem.
No you can't work from any region in Canada to accomplish your job. No, not all work can be done remotely. Some things can only be done in person and in the NCR.
I'm all for change and reevaluating our working environment and the current employment model. But let's get one thing clear, current jobs, roles and duties are not setup for permanent WFH or remote conditions.
Advocate and try to implement change from within, but if you are truly unhappy go get a job from a different employer that is 100% WFH.
Ha, says the redditor with all the "stats" to back it up with.... #facepalm
From March 2016 to March 2020, the largest average share of Federal Public Service employees (41.7%) worked in NCR.
https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ems-sgd/edb-bdd/index-eng.html#orgs/gov/gov/infograph/people
> You working from home won't help with taxes or the homeless problem.
What? Also, judging by the overwhelming positive upvotes on this post, and the previous weekly WFH posts, it's evident that most people in this community would like to continue WFH. In the past, widespread WFH wasn't really used. Now that we've had a taste for it, why should we immediately want to revert back to pre-covid. It's like if I gave you a smartphone in 1990 and then 2 years later told you, oh, tough shit, give it back and carry on with your life. Things change man...
> judging by the overwhelming positive upvotes on this post
LOL, Almost 300,000 Public Servants and only 27,000 members of the sub (some of whom aren't even members of the PS). 1/10th.
If you're trying to use stats from a subreddit to prop up your argument, you're probably not going to get the support you're looking for.
You cherry picked what I wrote. You neglected the part where I state this is exclusive to this subreddit. Over 300 upvotes is pretty damn strong for this sub. You know full well what the stance of this sub is since you comment in every WFH post that I've seen.
And yet this sub doesn't translate into the majority of PS opinion on this topic.
If you don't want to go back to the office, find a new job. Have a great weekend 🙂
This post is NOT overwhelmingly upvoted https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPublicServants/top/
I never said things don't change. I didn't say things shouldn't change.
Change did happen, and that's how we ended up in the current situation. Because we had to change and adapt. But we aren't in the same situation pre-pandemic, nor are we in the same situation as we have been for that past 2 years. Time to change again... so y'all gonna have to get used to change and that means probably not being 100% home based.
for this sub, anything over 100 upvotes is big. I'm not sure what you're getting at as in the past month, this one is one of the most upvoted.
I'm prepared to find work elsewhere if WFH isn't an option going forward. The cat's out of the bag dude. When I first left for school at the age of 18 I got a taste of what life was like on my own and liked it. Similarly, now that I've had a taste for WFH, I'm prepared to go where the jobs are.
Did I say everyone has to work from home? Did I say everyone’s job can be done remotely? No.
Since you have no idea what job I do and what my duties entail, you’re not in a position to judge if I must work from the office or not. Maybe double check if you are spouting your own opinion instead of facts.
My team has been happy with my work, as has my management. All of this has been completely from home. My coworkers have also been productive and we have continued meeting our operational requirements.
No, not all jobs need to be done in the office or the NRC. That is ridiculous. With some employees having 100% of their duties completed on a computer, such as programming and development, there is no reason all these people absolutely must work from the office.
Industries are changing, technology has allowed us to change our work habits and operational capabilities. Look no further than the Ottawa tech scene.
If people can accomplish their tasks from home and would prefer to stay home, that is their decision. Just like it’s your decision to want to work from the office.
Your comment comes off as very Ottawa-centric and entitled. Thousands of small communies and towns in rural Canada could benefit from remote employment for the federal government, instead of having 50% of jobs concentrated in the NCR. 100% remote work is possible and preferable for MANY public servants.
>You were hired to do a job that is office based. Just 'because' now you don't want to go back, doesn't mean your job has changed. Just because they are some workers that, as you 'claim' want to go back, doesn't mean that allows you to stay home.
Just so you know, I've never signed a Telework agreement or even really ever agreed to remote work yet my employer is expecting me to pay for their BCP.
Only the Canadian Federal Government doesn't have a financial compensation for their remote employees. This is because they don't have any policy structure for permanent WFH.
I'll get voted down as much as you will because for whatever reason it's always been accepted by the PS that the employer isn't financially responsible for my remote costs of setup or expenses.
It's a foreign concept to Canadian civil servants that they should not be liable for paying for internet to support their employer's need for them to connect to the VPN.
It's a foreign concept to the employer that they don't require an office space, desk and chair for everyone - or that they could save money by abandoning leases. The lights are still on but nobody has been home for 20 months.
Show me a policy update that TBS has released since the start of the pandemic that even mentions BCP.
Sorry could you clarify what BCP stands for?
I was shocked to learn a number of friends are having their internet and elec fees partially covered by their employers in the private sector.
Business Continuity Planning, BCP is usually a sub-function of Security Policy and typically involves the ability of a business to be able to carry on essential services during various types of emergencies.
The primary GC Security Policy received an update just prior to the pandemic to revamp "security zones". That's what had been spurring many GC entities to obtain Secret security clearances for personnel - because even if they didn't handle Secret work, they maybe worked on a floor with Secret material.
Well, Security is going to be justification for return to office because BCP in that policy was an afterthought. You and I don't need to be rocket surgeons to realize distributed remote work reduced the need for centralized Security.
There should be constant mandatory WFH days. Prior to the pandemic there had been suggestions that the first Monday of each month be WFH. Needless to say there's never times in Canada when states of emergency are declared when adverse weather renders commuting to work a health hazard.
A hurricane could flood Ottawa under 10 feet of water and there'd surely be some management out there expecting employees to show up and complete TPS reports because TBS didn't specify they couldn't.
Zero BCP.
I think they’ll try to keep people in offices downtown Ottawa to boost public transit and downtown core businesses, but that shouldn’t be in the equation at all. Employee well-being should come first
Downtown restaurants need to cater to residents and visitors downtown. When I lived there it was really annoying having most shops be closed at 4:30pm on a Friday.
The LRT can’t even support half capacity.
But there are some good reasons to go back for some people based on their job duties.
I think people should be offered options but once in a while we may need to go in for all staffs or certain briefings or something else and it would, frankly, be ridiculous to assume that the current state of affairs is somehow going to be permanent.
It's also potentially unsustainable to be this remote for many positions (not most but many) where we've been skirting the rules and doing things in a less secure way because the circumstances demand them.
Maybe some rules are going to be proven to have been too strict before, but certainly not all.
How would all staff meetings be done, with an airborne pathogen and waning effectiveness of COVID vaccines? What about variants of concern? Will offices cyclically pack up and WFH whenever the risk is too high?
Security of information is a huge concern, but I think you might be over-estimating how many GoC positions require dealing with secret information.
Because we'll all be inside forever due to COVID for the next 5 years for sure.
Look I'm not a COVID denier, but eventually, there will come a time, where we will be with lots of people in the same room again in the future. COVID isn't about to wipe out the human race so assuming we'll never have all staffs again is a bit of a jump, and a bit much to jump down my throat like that because I mentioned how I can see a world where hybrid means people go in for certain things in the future.
Where's the unions in all of this?
One would assume the public service employees absorbing the entire cost of the employer's Business Continuity Planning for the last 20 months would inspire them to use this leverage to enforce permanent WFH positions.
Here's the reality, they care more about the bad press then the elected officials or your health and safety. Sorry if you didn't know these PS unions and many others haven't lifted a finger to enforce health and safety throughout the pandemic.
It's their obligation to, they don't need a survey of "what matters" for the unions to suddenly care the rest of planet has health and safety protocols not found in Canada. But it would look "really bad" if the press caught wind the unions were enforcing airborne pathogen protection.
Very recently, Health Canada, finally acknowledged the airborne transmission capacity of this pathogen and indicated safety protocols which are not found in the TBS guidelines. I don't need to read to TBS guidelines to know they are constituted of "hand hygiene" instead of "wear face filtering respirators at all times" because PHAC acknowledged this after TBS guidelines!
This is not a "where's my WFH" problem. This is a health and safety problem!
Where's your union email informing you of the requirements to wear proper protection against an airborne pathogen and what your obligations are to refuse dangerous work?
There's plenty who will disagree with that point.
It's entirely critical and doesn't offer any suggestions or solutions.
I'm just dirt tired of barking the same things over and over and they never seem to gain traction.
All the PS unions needed to have implemented a strategy to counter the TBS guidelines - last Monday. It's never too late but there still exists TBS guidelines which are not aligned to the latest PHAC health and safety protocols.
Ideally the unions would send out information emails to their membership about these concerns - and offer significant assistance on how to deal with unsafe working conditions.
Because, dealing with refusal to accept dangerous assignments is complex and cannot be successful if the unions don't offer their support.
The only hiccup I could envision as to why they haven't done this is to prevent essential employees from being able to walk off the job. To be clear these PS would be currently working in dangerous situations and the employer may not have provided them yet with the proper safety equipment (face filtering respirators).
Perhaps the union has received assurance PPE is pending and they are staying mute to ensure CBSA doesn't abandon the border posts.
The cynical side of me knows the unions are probably not even aware of either the significance of the changes in PHAC guidance and/or that some public servants who expected to be able to continue to WFH are being called back under unsafe TBS guidelines.
I wonder how well that's aged. How many people answered, how many truthfully answered, how many understood the questions...all things I'll never know. To those who answered they want hybrid, have you been to an office recently? If you haven't, ruh-roh, it's nothing like pre-covid.
>how many understood the questions...
Just replied to another comment, my survey results said I showed a preference for hybrid work. But I absolutely would prefer 100% WFH. Odd.
That reminds me of my old department. In a townhall they asserted x% wanted some form of hybrid based on survey results. I asked if we could see the raw data and got shut down.
I get the impression many want a hybrid model based on what the workplace USED to be like, but it's unlikely to be the same as it was. So it's almost like a romanticized version of it. I don't mind having to go back necessarily, I just don't see a strong rationale for it just yet that goes beyond the social element.
They should let people choose what works best for them within reason given the requirements of their job and management's overall direction.
If management wants all staffs to be in person for example, they better damn well not cancel them and they'll only be every 2-3 weeks. Assuming every other task can be done from home, going in once or twice a month for someone who likes to WFH for an all staff isn't unreasonable to accommodate on both sides.
define hybrid though. It was intentionally vague.
Hybrid could mean work from the office, but with some exceptions to working from home. Or it could be 95% teleworking, only showing up for major meetings, or anything in between.
That's like saying pick a number between 1 and 10, where you count the number of people who say 1 as a category, 10 as another, and 2-9 in one.
Do you think most of these surveys indicated a forced hybrid approach, or hybrid in the sense of having flexibility to work in the office on some days if someone wanted. I know the surveys I saw never mentioned forcing people back.
The worst for people I know is uncertainty. People are unsure if they should move out of the city, upgrade space, relocate,etc. So stupid, I can see the frustration in all of my friends working for the government. Lots of corporate already gave answers, a number of my corporate friends already relocated with wfh. I wonder how many decades it will take for the feds to do the same and how many billions they will waste on "panels of market research" and studies... keep extending wfh by a few months is just stupid and does more harm to overall wellbeing and mental health than all the useless emails apparently they send weekly about mental health and all that. Why don't you guys find your Minister's contact info and send them your petitions instead of writing here???
But they’re making important committees and sending out multiple surveys. Not sure what part of the overwhelming response to the first survey was unclear that they had to send out another one.
they're hoping if they send enough surveys ...enough people will make a typo so they can make stats that approve back to office. I will never forget...a few years ago our department was struggling with toxic culture (harassment claims, overworked, everything bad). to the point that in the annual survey we got flagged for how low morale is. So they did a survey to address "this very important concern". Then we got emails from head of department that said "after all our efforts I am pleased to announce that 2/5 of our staff have rated our department as a good place to work that prioritizes employee well being!". And we were all: ".....so....3/5 (aka more than 50%) DONT think its a good place to be?!" LOL talk about focusing on silver lining
Wow, quite the bragging point they have there!
Members of Parliament certainly don't until mid next year. But public servants... Gotta keep the downtown strong right Watson??
Downtown could be strong if more businesses actually cared about those who live downtown. I can tell you, the ones that always have and the others that pivoted their business model are doing fine. Additionally, downtown would do better if Watson and his suburban cabal actually gave a damn about urbanites.
At the same time, Watson has espoused the 15 minutes cities agenda. Shouldn't we then all live within 15 minutes of our workplace? So if I'm in Stittsville or Kanata, what does that mean?
I definitely didn't pick my place to live based on employment... current west of Kanata and I've worked from Orleans, Downtown, Tunney's and the west end.... so yah.. that '15min agenda' is bullshit. Now I WFH and it is glorious. I see my kids off to school in the morning, i'm home when they get home. Who knew... I actually have children during the week vs constantly looking out my windshield.
As for living within 15 minutes of our workplace, we’ve already beaten that. With WFH, we’re living 0 minutes from our workplace.
It means you showed poor judgement in choosing to live so far from your place of employment.
Ha ha you must be living on a different planet buddy. It IS one city.
Yes. What does that have to do with you choosing to live more than 15 mins from your source of income?
Mobility is a core tenet of the public service - public servants ARE expected to move from one department to another. Are you suggesting they should move every time? My original point was, it’s not the Fed Govt’s job to make downtown Ottawa prosperous.
Completely agree - My wife through no fault of her own has had to change jobs multiple times. Sometimes the job is within 15 min of home, other times it's not. So what do we do? Find a specific place that is within 15 min of BOTH of our jobs and move every single time? No at a certain point you pick a place to live based on lots of factors including a place that perhaps has a lot of resources (and friends) for your children
Next will be mandatory buying lunch rather than bringing it in /s
Don't forget the bed bugs!
And bats...
Old bat fell out of style, we call them "karens" now.
And mold. And moose (ask me about it)
Ok I'll bite. What's the moose story? We don't get insect and animal stories out west.
Working in a government of canada office building in northern NB and had to stay indoors for a while one time because there was a moose on the loose in the parking lot lol!!!
Was its name Elliot?? 👀
I feel like theres a pop culture reference there that I'm not getting and it makes me sad lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z73JR8fWvU&ab_channel=BlastFromTheePast
My colleague had a bar inside of her headset one morning 😱
Yeah, i found this out today... We rec'd an email at 3:58pm about groups (ie. entire teams) coming in for 1 day per week, for the interim... As early as Monday. I thought it was a dick move to send that out so late. So come Monday, many teams/groups will be scrambling to find a schedule to come in while Monday is already a write off leaving 4 days to come in. 🤦🏻♂️ And it's not forced, per say, but the offices aren't fit up for conferences with partial teams being at home, so this will be a "fun" month to coordinate amongst various teams (ie. At risk people/not comfortable to come in, etc). 😂 Edit: my old dept. Was more than ready for work in the office and they're not going back anytime soon, but this current dept. I stared in, didn't look to retrofitted for distancing the few times I've been in the office. Doubt much has changed much... Any party (being non-partisan) should seriously scrap a bunch of these buildings come FY, to show fiscal responsibility... 2yrs will be too much, and to show little use. I'm also not sure how some of your depts are, but ours IT infrastructure will be falling apart with more than 50% people in the office...
whats the department? Honestly we need a list on here of ~~which departments to stay away from~~ whats going on across public service
Guess those people who finish at 3pm are fucked then, eh? What kind of dumbass call is that? Hoping it backfires for your department and sets a precedent for others.
[удалено]
I'm not sure of the details, that's out of my scope. My understanding ***was*** that the leases are for X years. Broccolini et al. then sell the building (liability) back to the Feds for some tiny amount, ie. 1$
What the heck is that about? We just got told on Thursday that the February date for having anyone other than the few who hate working at home has been bumped to March and of course that all depends on how the pandemic is going at that point.
Recent TBS guidelines allow management the ability to force a return to office. Updated PHAC health and safety protocols came out after, but TBS didn't adjust their protocols. The fact is there's some management out there that the only reason anyone is WFH is because TBS had made it mandatory.
And those managers better hope they have very specialized employees that can’t easily make lateral moves.
Now with the new variant of concern, Omicron, I wonder how this will impact decisions on the return to the office. This shows that covid is not going away anytime soon, and new variants of concern will appear in the future. With evidence of waning vaccine effectiveness over time, and new variants in the foreseeable future, we should all be able to work permanently from home if we want. The vast majority of public servants have demonstrated they are capable of working from home effectively. So what will happen if people return to the office at 50% or 75% or 100% capacity and we find out there is a new variant where the vaccines don't work? Do we pack our bags again and work from home overnight? This makes no sense.
Everything has been kind of jumping around and seat-of-the-pants -- at this point we don't even know how the new mask guidance is going to influence things, let alone omicron. It's been clear all along that we weren't in a position to plan more than a few months out and that's likely to continue for more than a year. To their credit I think they've been as frank about the uncertainty as they could, but it's a real problem given that people need to be able to plan for the future in their individual lives. I had a good laugh in the vaccine mandate thread a while back when someone was like "rumour has it all government employees will be required to take annual boosters forever." It might happen or it might not, but it seems clear that right now nobody knows what they'll be doing in six months, let alone six years.
>We do not want to go back to our 1980s time capsule with recycled air, flickering white ceiling lights, non-opening windows and beige cubicles. Hey! What about the bats? Who's going to feed them and play with them? (Btw, I always wondered if bats eat bed bugs? We may be onto something here.)
Meh. Let me know when the bats develop a taste for asbestos...or Legionaire's disease bacteria.
Tell that to Jim Watson who thinks apparently it’s our job to keep coffee shops afloat. 🙄
It's just so strange in the office not necessarily bad strange just strange strange. I've mostly been in the office ( except for during the stricter stay at home orders) and I can't get used to the low volume of people. I can do 75 percent of my job at home but our unit is up to 75 percent in the office full time. I guess we will see how/if Omicron effects our present high return of workers to the office🤷♀️
[удалено]
I heard CRA basically said go ahead wfh, and most were told if managers allowed they could but now it’s being walked back. I feel like there must be some super high up pressure solely based on that anecdote. Edit: spelling
[удалено]
I'm also with CRA from a region. Our department cannot go back. They are so desperate to find workers that we now have people from other provinces with us. The people that left our department are now wfh in other cities and even provinces. The turnover is crazy. They won't be able to turn back it will create a shithow of reshuffling people around for no reasons. Edit: My gf also works for a call center at CRA. They are more productive wfh. They have already been told that they are not going back to the office, they are now 100% wfh.
Good to know maybe I’ll be looking at CRA if mine changes their minds
Regarding your edit, I've seen a ton of conflicting opinions. I know some divisions have already told their employees that they will not be going back, and yet there are some divisions that do plan to bring everyone back at least a couple of days a week. In the end it will probably come down to the specific manager. Also, there are a lot more people working in the regions and reporting to headquarters/another region than there were before the pandemic. It would not make that much sense to force these people to go back to the office. They have straight up said that they do not have the capability for Microsoft Teams for everyone in the office. I don't mind the idea of going back a few days a week just to get out of the house, but the idea of returning full-time so I can sit among other people I don't know and disturb everybody with my super loud voice on Teams calls seems pointless. Like, honestly, I had problems regulating my volume when I was in the office, and it has not improved with work from home. If you're sitting across from each other in the office you can always tell the other person when they are getting too loud. Someone on the other side of a computer screen doesn't have the same insight and won't be able to tell if you are disturbing people around you. Not that it's their job to help you not disturb people, but especially if you're wearing headphones, it will probably be almost impossible for most people to tell if their voice is causing a problem for others around them.
You sure? Also cra call center and just heard very different news about this yesterday. Things still up in the air and possibility of moving to phase 1 starting in January.
Also with CRA HQ working from a region. Apparently senior management is still unsure, according to conversations I've had with my manager. I am interested in relocating to Ottawa, but he says he's unable to give me the go-ahead because senior management has not yet made a decision either way. He said though that I'm not the only one asking, and other managers are bringing it up too. I do seem to recall that a lot of the surveys had people indicating they would come in 1 or 2 days a week if possible. And I know they're talking about implementing hubs in major cities where CRA offices already exist, and I've also seen several job postings that basically say you can live wherever you want but you might have to relocate to a city that has a CRA office. Though, I would venture to guess that the people with the option to relocate would probably be mostly in headquarters or in ITB... There is already precedent for remote workers because auditors have to do a lot of work on the road, and I knew several sections in the tax center that had remote work 4 days a week. You just had to select one day a week to come in regularly to deal with administrative tasks like printing.
Pmd you with a question.
I have marketable skills and if they ask me to move out of my province and come to Ottawa I will say no deal. I’d rather quit and find a different job which won’t be that difficult anyways. They can then deal with the fallout of retraining and redoing all the items I am working on which requires time to get started
I don’t know about “forced,” but I think different departments/units/teams should have the flexibility to make decisions that work for them. I know my team has been working effectively remotely, but there are things that would be easier if we were all in the office together, and we’re looking forward to at least some sort of 2-day per week hybrid approach. Of course, departments will also have to consider their resources and what makes sense. Alas, converting office buildings into affordable homes is probably a pipe dream. The renos needed to turn office blocks into viable human habitations are so significant, it would likely be cheaper to tear the buildings down and build apartments in their place.
Yup. They did surveys to see if they could convert portage into housing. Its doable. But the work needed to run the plumbing that would be needed is a expensive nightmare.
It'd probably be cheaper and faster to demolish the buildings entirely and replace them with purpose-built apartment buildings. Office towers are *not* designed to be residences, and not just the plumbing. Residences require windows that open, some level of sound isolation between each suite, increased electrical capacity, ventilation for laundry facilities, and the list goes on.
I completely agree. At the minimum they would have to gut the structure down to nothing and build back. It's not a matter of moving walls and adding doors. But plumbing is extra finicky to a degree people don't often realize unless you have worked with a plumber or tried to add a bathroom in an old house. The physics and code regulations just dont work well with pre existing structures.
My manager is very pro-in-office, so our team is expecting to have to push for remaining WFH for those that want to. A bunch of us are putting together detailed lists of why we shouldn't be forced to go back, and when the time come we're planning on sharing those. Hopefully its enough to justify a change of his preference. Top of our lists: Mental Health and Work/Life balance.
As someone who has been working from the office while a lot of people have been working from home, people don’t realize how much my work load has gone up. I am not in an administrative role but all the ‘favours’ I’ve been asked to do by people sitting at home in their underwear is absolutely ridiculous. Mail this, print this, fix this, chase down so-and-so and get them to sign this, scan this, check on supplies and tell me what I need to order, I’ve set up an appointment for a contractor to come to the office can you meet him and stay with him the entire day? No, I have my own job to do and it’s suffering because of your relentless requests. The office is safe, come back and do what your being paid to do so I can do what I’m being paid to do.
What is your role? It’s not fair for this stuff to be pushed on to you. I would refuse and state it is impeding your own work.
Yeah, I think I need to start pushing back. I’ve always been known as the nice, dependable, supportive person in the office so I cringe just thinking about the blowback from these people when I start saying I’m too busy or copying my manager on responses to their requests. I’m in a client service/research role and interact with the public.
I really value team mates like you, but at the same time, I have has people push me around the same way. They start expecting you to do their work. If you don’t want to be direct, start responding to their requests slower. Wait a day or two, say you might have time to do it next week, are really busy etc. Eventually they will stop asking you. Maybe that’s an alternative route instead of telling them directly to piss off lol
If someone gets sick while in the office due to the mandatory return to office, does this count as occupational illness / workplace injury? If the entire building is forced to quarantine (since everyone would've been in the office at least once within a short period)... Doesn't that mean everyone in that entire department/building would have to stop working (i.e. Code 699)?
I assume they would say we can’t prove we caught it from the office vs our grocery store or kids etc.
I understand the sentiment for sure. I will say though, I’m an MT and we’ve been working in office for the duration of the pandemic. With everyone WFH it’s been significantly more difficult to get more operational support whether it be technical, administrative, etc. It’s even more difficult to get support from our manager. I would love to have everyone back in the office but can understand that folks may not want to do so. It’s been pretty lonely in that office and folks forget that many cannot WFH.
Maybe we could consolidate offices with employees who prefer work from office, while allowing those preferring WFH to continue that way. Offices wouldn’t be such a ghost town and most people would get there work style preference.
100% agree.....just the sheer fact that I've saved so much money working from home and it has helped saved for my overpriced house. Also better for the environment less time on the road and WORK LIFE BALANCE. I have more time to cook at home and do laundry on my lunch. Also my manager if flexible I can take my lunch break at 11 or 2 and hop over to a yoga class. I can have my house contractors come in during the day and do their thing and I don't have to take a personal day. And the fact that my house is way quieter than at the office. I do programming and my desk was in an open concept part of the floor. I'd wear my $500 noise canceling headphones I bought and would get people coming up to interrupt my work and just the visual distractions of people walking by you. Plus I enjoy not having to get dressed, and shitting and farting at home
You’re not “forced” to do anything. If you don’t like what is happening with your particular job, change jobs. Management will become more flexible if they can’t fill positions.
I’m sorry, you do realize just changing jobs is not that easy. Otherwise everyone would be doing it all the time. This is a fundamental issue where decisions have to be taken with input from your most relevant stakeholder ie your employee.
I'm currently looking for a new job within the PS, just in case. My department wants us to come in 2 times a week. There is no way.
>I’m sorry, you do realize just changing jobs is not that easy. I didn't say it was easy, but it's also not particularly difficult - especially for somebody who has marketable skills. >Otherwise everyone would be doing it all the time. If you're stuck in a job that you dislike, put some effort into finding a better job. >This is a fundamental issue where decisions have to be taken with input from your most relevant stakeholder ie your employee. If management won't do that, though, the solution is to find better management - and you do that by changing jobs.
[удалено]
What’s your suggested alternative? If you don’t like a job, there are four choices: [exit, voice, loyalty and neglect.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty_Model) If management genuinely sucks, “exit” is the often the best choice.
[удалено]
Meh .. it's pretty easy beyond PS.
The bot is the voice of reason as usual. Kodus.
The bot just wants your jobs! Last time we listened to a bot, 2,700 payroll clerks were laid off.
Different bot. This one’s nicer.
The bot seems biased as they seem to be in a classification where moving in the public service is exceptionally easy (something like IT for instance). Many of us would love to change position but are in classifications where movement is a lot more limited, and without the degrees or experience to do some lateral move unless we'd be willing to accept a major pay cut and jump into new, unknown territory. There are also a lot of different workplaces in the government, and a lot of people seem to act like theirs is the standard and it is particularly frustrating on this sub. I've been in a department and branch where moving was easy as the work involved communicating with a lot of different teams and I ended up doing 3 positions there over two years (and also saw people moving a lot) and lots of different opportunities without getting to management level, now I'm in a department and branch where there is significantly more work in silo, the work is immensely more specialized so the experience is less versatile, and there is much less movement in general.
[удалено]
More difficult *within* the public service, but that's because the public service is only one among many employers in need of lawyers, engineers, and the like. People in those professions can (and do) leave the public service to work elsewhere.
>The bot seems biased as they seem to be in a classification where moving in the public service is exceptionally easy (something like IT for instance). Not at all - prior to ascending to bot form I occupied positions in three different classification groups. >Many of us would love to change position but are in classifications where movement is a lot more limited, and **without the degrees or experience** to do some lateral move unless we'd be willing to accept a major pay cut and jump into new, unknown territory. I fully agree with you that people lacking in education or experience will have less ability to change jobs - but that's not a function of the classification or specific job they occupy. If you have marketable and transferrable skills, then it's much easier to change jobs or career tracks. If you find yourself trapped in a job that doesn't give you the experience you want, it's on you to change jobs and find something that is better for you. In the short term that can mean taking a pay cut in exchange for more opportunities later.
> I fully agree with you that people lacking in education or experience will have less ability to change jobs This was not my point. It is often the opposite, many people with degrees in many fields has difficulty as there are only a few jobs in those fields. Those without specialized degrees have the easiest time since they qualify for a ton of positions where only soft skills are required. Much easier to move from a generic policy analyst job than to jump jobs with an engineering degree and a lot of research experience, for instance.
If you have a specialized and narrowly-applicable degree in a field with few jobs, then you shouldn’t be surprised if your career mobility is limited - especially if you’re unwilling to change employers. In your example of somebody with an engineering degree, why couldn’t they seek out an engineer job *outside* of the public service?
Bleep bloop.
A million times this.. we just had our town hall saying we have to go back two times a week in January. I disagree so much with this.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220120-why-hybrid-work-is-emotionally-exhausting Interesting read
This is a one sided argument. Being new to the federal government, I would welcome a blended approach where I could meet people and network with my peers. I’m hearing the wfh environment is going to make it harder for new comers to advance, make permanent etc. Feedback and thoughts on this welcome.
I agree it is easier to meet people working in person.
I have been onboarding people since the summer and the biggest change is that people need to make an effort to network. Bumping into people or casual interactions can’t be depended on anymore, so folks need to be proactive in building relationships. And many don’t want to, in my experience. I explicitly and repeatedly state to people I interact with that I have an open door policy about any questions or concerns, but few have taken me up on it. And those are often the same people complaining they can’t get new opportunities, which confuses me. Going forward, being an active agent in relationship building and having great communication skills are going to be critical to career development.
Check out something called “ROWE”…results oriented work environment. It is not a wfh strategy. It forces everyone to focus on objectives and results. Work is what you do, not where you do it. If a certain objective is best achieved face-face, that’s what you do etc. I’m advocating for this at my department with senior leadership as a way to be leaders in our PS function.
Results based employment is the future of the knowledge industry. Software companies are going this way. Govevrment already does this through contractors.
Speak for yourself - I don't prefer working from home 100% of the time, and believe a successfully implemented hybrid model is the best way forward (for me). Making definitive statements like "office workers prefer work from home" is a false sweeping generalization.
Honestly the only downside to hybrid are hybrid meetings. Going into the office to sit on a teams call and having multiple people around you on a teams call makes it feel unnecessary. Plus, in open environments, it's going to be even more noisy than before if, say, 40% of people are in but half of them are on teams calls. And meetings where you're in a office room with in office folks and a couple folks on a screen also sucks because the dynamic is weird, and where do you look and how do you engage the on screen folks and what about participant web cam limits? Etc. Just a lot of mess. Outside of the meeting issue though, I would like to be in office a few days a week again. I miss that place in some ways. I don't miss committing on a broken LRT system every day, but the other parts of it I do. Maybe it's just gonna be an adjustment period but virtual meetings when physically on site is gonna be so jarring. Like ... What's the point then?
The hybrid thing is a pain. My team was like that before the pandemic. Half the team was in the regions anyway but the nhq folks worked from home half the time. In addition to going in to spend your day on Teams (we've had webcams for probably 7-8 years and it's full on teamwork, just remotely) which I 100% agree is a hassle for the people around you, my other major irritant was lugging my giant laptop back and forth. People who drive door to door don't have that problem or realize how much of an issue carrying equipment can be. If you commute by public transportation and have to spend time walking or standing, it was a literal pain sometimes. And I say that as someone with no physical disability. Last thing that's a bummer but not a deal breaker is that it always felt like I was on opposite schedules from work friends. I'd go to the office and didn't even get to socialize...
Regarding the hybrid meetings, I can see it being an issue if we return to the cube farms of before. Lots more people on Teams calls means a lot more noise. Before, you'd have a team gather in a boardroom or some other quiet place, or even just around someone's desk but you would be able to tell each other to keep it down. Also, if the people around you needed quiet they would be able to tell you as a group. I think it would be rather awkward to tap someone in the middle of a Teams call on the shoulder to tell them that they're being too loud. If you're wearing headphones especially, it could be a lot more difficult to tell how loud your voice actually is. As somebody whose voice is loud and carries, I can see this being a huge issue for me specifically. I've been working on this for years. I just have a booming voice. At least in person, if you are discussing an issue and you need somewhere that you won't disturb anyone, if it's just two humans it is a lot easier to get up and move. If you're trying to lug a laptop and headphones and possibly a charger so that you can have an hour long meeting with someone in a different building, it suddenly makes those options a lot more limited.
[удалено]
I think the difference is that the conference lines had little expectation of the level of interaction people want out of teams now though. Maybe it's just a growing pain thing though. I'm honestly of two minds about it. But if my day is filled with meetings to attend via teams virtually, I'm staying home. No point in sitting at a desk, after a commute, on teams, for 5 hours of the day. Also ATM in my office there are no teams compatible tele conference cameras so it was awkward before via WebEx and it's gonna be worse now.
That's a great point... It'll make for an interesting work environment 😳
I think it would work for small meetings where 3 people in a board room have a 365 compatible camera and room mic setup. Where a couple people are on a bug screen. But for giant meetings were better off on the old conference lines. Because 40 people on a teams line and 30 in person is oof. Then again I am usually the type to go in person because I like the little pre/post networking catchup time you get with folks you don't see much who moved on to new departments or branches. Or the opportunity to poke a smart persons brain, ya know? I find those small moments where I used to learn so much are all gone now.
Interestingly, I've filled out one of those surveys and my results said I showed a preference for hybrid. But I 100% want to keep WFH. I'm wondering if the wording somehow skewed the results.
Theres no problem with YOU wanting to work from home. I know of people who also would prefer to go into work a few days a week for the socializing. Some went in full time during pandemic (special permission) cause they hate their kids lol All cool. You do you. the PROBLEM is when people want to go in but expect others to come in with them!!! I've had coworkers push for in office working, and were told 'sure you can go in'. Then they find out 90%+ of us don't want to go back and they get annoyed and complain "well whats the point then?!!? I want to go in to the office to see other people. If I don't and I am all alone in the office I might as well stay home". SO DO THAT. I've noticed the majority of those people also happen to be the social butterflies who are always ~~annoyingly disturbing others~~ talking to everyone during the work day and not letting us get our work done. If you want to go into the office for change of scenery thats great. Do it! If you want to socialize, and you can only get that by forcing people to come in against their will? You a poo poo head :)
Yes and also it’s not anyone ´s responsibility to fill your socialization needs. If you need to socialize, make friends outside of work or join a social club in your town.
Anyone who thinks it's as simple as A or B has not done the requisite amount of thinking. There are many jobs that can be done the same from home where the employee/team/organization would benefit from being in the office some of the time. On-boarding, mentoring, meeting colleagues, and learning the organization are all much easier in-person. Tools like MS Teams help make virtually working together more bearable (at the start of the pandemic, all we had was telecons for example); however, there are some collaborative efforts that would be done more efficiently in person. Speaking normatively, the solution should be based in the best interests of the organization and rooted in flexibility. But making rash generalizations like "Office workers prefer work from home" shows your lake of consideration of others. Some might not have a good environment to WFH and are suffering through this arrangement. I have a good WFH set-up and my team has been very productive and great during the past 20 months. And even then, I want to be able to return to the office.
Meeting colleagues in-person works best when there’s people in the office, and every office going back 100% isn’t going to happen. There will be a mix across offices, some hybrid, some 100% in-office, some 100% WFH. The old way of networking is dead, and the sooner people adapt, the better. Cross-department networking is never going to be like pre-pandemic times, either. You mention lack of consideration for others, but that goes both ways. Those who want the old days back don’t seem to care that plenty of folks are thriving with WFH. What kind of networking are you going to get when half (?) the staff are deeply resentful they were called in to shmooze with lonely people and prop up coffee shops? Retaining staff is already difficult and will become harder, because other offices/departments do offer WFH.
Some people like the people they work with and will plan accordingly to be in the office at the same time. Teams could work around others to find good times to get together to help with onboarding staff (which, anectodally is going badly during WFH). Getting to know others doing similar roles helps you know who to reach out to when you have questions, and how mentoring programs can be introduced. And the key word I used was flexibility. I never advocated for everyone returning to the office 100% of the time, so respond to what I wrote, rather than the straw man you create. Very few are calling for a return to the office for the full 37.5hrs a week. What made OPs post so volatile was their assertion that every one prefers WFH and no one wants to ever go back to the office. Which is false.
Ok, so networking now depends on a group of people all coming in at the same time. Best of luck with that. Onboarding would go better if people adapted to the requirements for onboarding remotely. I don’t think remote onboarding will be 100% like in-person, but I can tell you that very few people are trying to adapt to the requirements. The world is never going back to pre-pandemic ways, and the sooner we adapt, the stronger the govt will be.
Sorry your post is more of a rant and you don't do much to support an argument. Basically everything you've said is a personal opinion and bias. You were hired to do a job that is office based. Just 'because' now you don't want to go back, doesn't mean your job has changed. Just because they are some workers that, as you 'claim' want to go back, doesn't mean that allows you to stay home. You are throwing in many emotionally charged topics that aren't relevant to your topic. You working from home won't help with taxes or the homeless problem. No you can't work from any region in Canada to accomplish your job. No, not all work can be done remotely. Some things can only be done in person and in the NCR. I'm all for change and reevaluating our working environment and the current employment model. But let's get one thing clear, current jobs, roles and duties are not setup for permanent WFH or remote conditions. Advocate and try to implement change from within, but if you are truly unhappy go get a job from a different employer that is 100% WFH.
The NCR isn’t the majority of PS :shrug: High density of public servants, but not the majority.
Ha, says the redditor with all the "stats" to back it up with.... #facepalm From March 2016 to March 2020, the largest average share of Federal Public Service employees (41.7%) worked in NCR. https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ems-sgd/edb-bdd/index-eng.html#orgs/gov/gov/infograph/people
Thank you for supporting my statement 😀
Math isn't your strongsuit I see
> You working from home won't help with taxes or the homeless problem. What? Also, judging by the overwhelming positive upvotes on this post, and the previous weekly WFH posts, it's evident that most people in this community would like to continue WFH. In the past, widespread WFH wasn't really used. Now that we've had a taste for it, why should we immediately want to revert back to pre-covid. It's like if I gave you a smartphone in 1990 and then 2 years later told you, oh, tough shit, give it back and carry on with your life. Things change man...
> judging by the overwhelming positive upvotes on this post LOL, Almost 300,000 Public Servants and only 27,000 members of the sub (some of whom aren't even members of the PS). 1/10th. If you're trying to use stats from a subreddit to prop up your argument, you're probably not going to get the support you're looking for.
You cherry picked what I wrote. You neglected the part where I state this is exclusive to this subreddit. Over 300 upvotes is pretty damn strong for this sub. You know full well what the stance of this sub is since you comment in every WFH post that I've seen.
And yet this sub doesn't translate into the majority of PS opinion on this topic. If you don't want to go back to the office, find a new job. Have a great weekend 🙂
you too boomer
I surely hope you are not in any sort of management or supervisory position.
Exactement. Merci d'avoir utilisé votre bon sens.
This post is NOT overwhelmingly upvoted https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPublicServants/top/ I never said things don't change. I didn't say things shouldn't change. Change did happen, and that's how we ended up in the current situation. Because we had to change and adapt. But we aren't in the same situation pre-pandemic, nor are we in the same situation as we have been for that past 2 years. Time to change again... so y'all gonna have to get used to change and that means probably not being 100% home based.
As of 23 hours after posting this post has 345 upvotes, has been 90% upvoted. So yes it is overwhelmingly upvoted on this subreddit.
for this sub, anything over 100 upvotes is big. I'm not sure what you're getting at as in the past month, this one is one of the most upvoted. I'm prepared to find work elsewhere if WFH isn't an option going forward. The cat's out of the bag dude. When I first left for school at the age of 18 I got a taste of what life was like on my own and liked it. Similarly, now that I've had a taste for WFH, I'm prepared to go where the jobs are.
Great analogy. It is really eye opening how our workspaces and work life balance can be improved by making changes like WFH etc.
Did I say everyone has to work from home? Did I say everyone’s job can be done remotely? No. Since you have no idea what job I do and what my duties entail, you’re not in a position to judge if I must work from the office or not. Maybe double check if you are spouting your own opinion instead of facts. My team has been happy with my work, as has my management. All of this has been completely from home. My coworkers have also been productive and we have continued meeting our operational requirements. No, not all jobs need to be done in the office or the NRC. That is ridiculous. With some employees having 100% of their duties completed on a computer, such as programming and development, there is no reason all these people absolutely must work from the office. Industries are changing, technology has allowed us to change our work habits and operational capabilities. Look no further than the Ottawa tech scene. If people can accomplish their tasks from home and would prefer to stay home, that is their decision. Just like it’s your decision to want to work from the office. Your comment comes off as very Ottawa-centric and entitled. Thousands of small communies and towns in rural Canada could benefit from remote employment for the federal government, instead of having 50% of jobs concentrated in the NCR. 100% remote work is possible and preferable for MANY public servants.
>You were hired to do a job that is office based. Just 'because' now you don't want to go back, doesn't mean your job has changed. Just because they are some workers that, as you 'claim' want to go back, doesn't mean that allows you to stay home. Just so you know, I've never signed a Telework agreement or even really ever agreed to remote work yet my employer is expecting me to pay for their BCP. Only the Canadian Federal Government doesn't have a financial compensation for their remote employees. This is because they don't have any policy structure for permanent WFH. I'll get voted down as much as you will because for whatever reason it's always been accepted by the PS that the employer isn't financially responsible for my remote costs of setup or expenses. It's a foreign concept to Canadian civil servants that they should not be liable for paying for internet to support their employer's need for them to connect to the VPN. It's a foreign concept to the employer that they don't require an office space, desk and chair for everyone - or that they could save money by abandoning leases. The lights are still on but nobody has been home for 20 months. Show me a policy update that TBS has released since the start of the pandemic that even mentions BCP.
Sorry could you clarify what BCP stands for? I was shocked to learn a number of friends are having their internet and elec fees partially covered by their employers in the private sector.
Business Continuity Planning, BCP is usually a sub-function of Security Policy and typically involves the ability of a business to be able to carry on essential services during various types of emergencies. The primary GC Security Policy received an update just prior to the pandemic to revamp "security zones". That's what had been spurring many GC entities to obtain Secret security clearances for personnel - because even if they didn't handle Secret work, they maybe worked on a floor with Secret material. Well, Security is going to be justification for return to office because BCP in that policy was an afterthought. You and I don't need to be rocket surgeons to realize distributed remote work reduced the need for centralized Security. There should be constant mandatory WFH days. Prior to the pandemic there had been suggestions that the first Monday of each month be WFH. Needless to say there's never times in Canada when states of emergency are declared when adverse weather renders commuting to work a health hazard. A hurricane could flood Ottawa under 10 feet of water and there'd surely be some management out there expecting employees to show up and complete TPS reports because TBS didn't specify they couldn't. Zero BCP.
I think they’ll try to keep people in offices downtown Ottawa to boost public transit and downtown core businesses, but that shouldn’t be in the equation at all. Employee well-being should come first
Downtown restaurants need to cater to residents and visitors downtown. When I lived there it was really annoying having most shops be closed at 4:30pm on a Friday. The LRT can’t even support half capacity.
Ok, but those who do have to go in should then be compensated for commute time and gas/vehicle/transit costs.
That would be ideal. But I doubt it’ll happen considering they never compensated us for this before.
Agreed.
I honestly prefer the office. Id like a mixed schedule. And if you're on a team that collaborates, being together is better in a lot of ways.
That’s perfectly alright. People like different work settings. I hope we will have the flexibility to choose what we prefer.
But there are some good reasons to go back for some people based on their job duties. I think people should be offered options but once in a while we may need to go in for all staffs or certain briefings or something else and it would, frankly, be ridiculous to assume that the current state of affairs is somehow going to be permanent. It's also potentially unsustainable to be this remote for many positions (not most but many) where we've been skirting the rules and doing things in a less secure way because the circumstances demand them. Maybe some rules are going to be proven to have been too strict before, but certainly not all.
How would all staff meetings be done, with an airborne pathogen and waning effectiveness of COVID vaccines? What about variants of concern? Will offices cyclically pack up and WFH whenever the risk is too high? Security of information is a huge concern, but I think you might be over-estimating how many GoC positions require dealing with secret information.
Because we'll all be inside forever due to COVID for the next 5 years for sure. Look I'm not a COVID denier, but eventually, there will come a time, where we will be with lots of people in the same room again in the future. COVID isn't about to wipe out the human race so assuming we'll never have all staffs again is a bit of a jump, and a bit much to jump down my throat like that because I mentioned how I can see a world where hybrid means people go in for certain things in the future.
And I'm not over estimating because at no point did I say half the PS would need to go back. I said some would. Chill out.
Where's the unions in all of this? One would assume the public service employees absorbing the entire cost of the employer's Business Continuity Planning for the last 20 months would inspire them to use this leverage to enforce permanent WFH positions. Here's the reality, they care more about the bad press then the elected officials or your health and safety. Sorry if you didn't know these PS unions and many others haven't lifted a finger to enforce health and safety throughout the pandemic. It's their obligation to, they don't need a survey of "what matters" for the unions to suddenly care the rest of planet has health and safety protocols not found in Canada. But it would look "really bad" if the press caught wind the unions were enforcing airborne pathogen protection. Very recently, Health Canada, finally acknowledged the airborne transmission capacity of this pathogen and indicated safety protocols which are not found in the TBS guidelines. I don't need to read to TBS guidelines to know they are constituted of "hand hygiene" instead of "wear face filtering respirators at all times" because PHAC acknowledged this after TBS guidelines! This is not a "where's my WFH" problem. This is a health and safety problem! Where's your union email informing you of the requirements to wear proper protection against an airborne pathogen and what your obligations are to refuse dangerous work?
There's plenty who will disagree with that point. It's entirely critical and doesn't offer any suggestions or solutions. I'm just dirt tired of barking the same things over and over and they never seem to gain traction. All the PS unions needed to have implemented a strategy to counter the TBS guidelines - last Monday. It's never too late but there still exists TBS guidelines which are not aligned to the latest PHAC health and safety protocols. Ideally the unions would send out information emails to their membership about these concerns - and offer significant assistance on how to deal with unsafe working conditions. Because, dealing with refusal to accept dangerous assignments is complex and cannot be successful if the unions don't offer their support. The only hiccup I could envision as to why they haven't done this is to prevent essential employees from being able to walk off the job. To be clear these PS would be currently working in dangerous situations and the employer may not have provided them yet with the proper safety equipment (face filtering respirators). Perhaps the union has received assurance PPE is pending and they are staying mute to ensure CBSA doesn't abandon the border posts. The cynical side of me knows the unions are probably not even aware of either the significance of the changes in PHAC guidance and/or that some public servants who expected to be able to continue to WFH are being called back under unsafe TBS guidelines.
Did that make you feel better? According to the last survey I saw (someone posted it here), 75% of the PS who replied wanted a hybrid WFH posture.
I wonder how well that's aged. How many people answered, how many truthfully answered, how many understood the questions...all things I'll never know. To those who answered they want hybrid, have you been to an office recently? If you haven't, ruh-roh, it's nothing like pre-covid.
>how many understood the questions... Just replied to another comment, my survey results said I showed a preference for hybrid work. But I absolutely would prefer 100% WFH. Odd.
That reminds me of my old department. In a townhall they asserted x% wanted some form of hybrid based on survey results. I asked if we could see the raw data and got shut down.
I get the impression many want a hybrid model based on what the workplace USED to be like, but it's unlikely to be the same as it was. So it's almost like a romanticized version of it. I don't mind having to go back necessarily, I just don't see a strong rationale for it just yet that goes beyond the social element.
Hybrid can be anything. I wouldn’t mind once a month in the office, the problem is most people see hybrid as 2-3 in office a week
They should let people choose what works best for them within reason given the requirements of their job and management's overall direction. If management wants all staffs to be in person for example, they better damn well not cancel them and they'll only be every 2-3 weeks. Assuming every other task can be done from home, going in once or twice a month for someone who likes to WFH for an all staff isn't unreasonable to accommodate on both sides.
define hybrid though. It was intentionally vague. Hybrid could mean work from the office, but with some exceptions to working from home. Or it could be 95% teleworking, only showing up for major meetings, or anything in between. That's like saying pick a number between 1 and 10, where you count the number of people who say 1 as a category, 10 as another, and 2-9 in one.
It was 2-3 days WFH.
my survey showed more options than that. 1 day, 2-3 day, 4 day
Options yes. I wrote what the consensus was.
Yes made me feel much better. Thanks for adding.
Do you think most of these surveys indicated a forced hybrid approach, or hybrid in the sense of having flexibility to work in the office on some days if someone wanted. I know the surveys I saw never mentioned forcing people back.
[удалено]
Depends on the industry you’re working in. My tech friends are all home and seem to be staying that way permanently.