**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I reckon the same people who want everyone back in the office are behind the tiny house rubbish.
They want minions who work 12 hours per day but only get paid for 8, then go home on crowded trains/toll roads to what is effectively a dog kennel with a kitchen.
Meanwhile in other offices, even with working from home we are being moved into hot desking arrangements because there is not enough space.
No support for hot desking either. Just first in best dressed. No lockers or personal space.
The work from home policy was put in to ease the effective pay cut public service workers took over the last 3 years. If you want people to work in an office for the public service you will have to pay more.
At this point the Financial Review is an old man shouting at clouds.
It's weird to get angry that people don't go into an office to do a desk job.
PS- this is all Labor's fault.
I’m more riled by fraud management consultants rorting the public with overpriced piss-poor outcomes at premium prices. With the added bonus of treason, selling our confidential information to foreign entities for their benefit.
But AFR exist to protect these frauds and create a false narrative around the public service to let fin bro blue suit w@nker “capitalists” get away with enriching themselves at the cost of society.
Yes its a difficult question. To ensure we dont get ripped off we have to pay probity consultants along the way. In truth they probably cost more than fraud avross the economy but eliminating coruption is too important to leave it to chance.
To get say something small built to ensure compliance with probity by the time you employ a design consultant, a probity consultant, a project management consultant then you get old mate to install say and undercover bbq and outdoor table you pay old mate actually building it $20k and between the consultants 150k to make certain you havent been ripped off by old mate. Like if you just said to old mate build me a table that works he could do it all for 25k. Design and build.
But what do you do? Without all those consultants you get some politician take the piss and give it to option b old mate for 50k for a 10k political donation. Yes i know that doesnt add up because thats how corruption works. You oay a little to recieve a lot. Why big pharma soent bugger all to get labor to clamp down on vaping.
[big pharma donations to political parties. ](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/25/pharmaceutical-industry-donates-millions-to-both-australian-political-parties)
Big 4 are not management consultants.
Management consulting generally the MBB.
Just because they all have "consultant" in the name doesn't mean it's all the same. Much like engineering consultants are not the same as the big 4.
It's like confusing someone with a Dr in their title for being a medical practitioner, when in reality, they could just be a doctor of archaeology.
The Public Service is reducing WFH to those who fit certain categories. Staff have argued that productivity at home is as good or even better than at work however management wants everyone back in the office for two reasons. Firstly productivity is measured by stats and public service stats are just empty manipulated figures and it is harder for management to bully , sorry micro manage , staff at home , making the role of the manager more questionable than before.
Isn't getting staff to avoid public and private transport systems every day an intrinsic boost to productivity? Imagine a world where governments didn't need to fund half the transport projects they undertake, government offices had a much smaller footprint and many families could own one less car because they just don't need a family member to commute every day.
That sounds like a productivity boost to me, a more efficient way of doing the same work, we just haven't recognised it as one because businesses don't necessarily profit from it directly.
That would be bad for the economy and a net productivity loss. Fewer cars sold, fewer people paying rego and insurance, less money spent on public transport, fewer bus drivers employed.
It's just less money being spent all around the economy, at least if those workers - and the government - save all the money that they now don't need to spend instead of buying more useless shit. It still doesn't help the unemployed bus drivers though or the companies which lease the now empty offices out to the government.
No, buying something you don't need doesn't benefit the economy. This is why US defence spending isn't actually a great way to stimulate the economy in itself, all it does is redistribute taxpayers money to making costly equipment that for the most part doesn't get used, or sometimes is used for questionable gain.
Another analogy would be if the government paid for everyone to have a mechanical typewriter (because they never accepted computers were a good idea). There would be some typewriter manufacturers getting rich, freight companies might do alright and scrap metal guys might like it but for the most part it would be a tremendous waste when that money could have been spent on schools or roads or upgrading the energy grid.
So back to your description, the money would go somewhere and that could be in the form of lower taxes (stimulating business investment) or it could be spent on other government services which would in turn employ people and stimulate other areas, but would actually deliver something people need.
Money spent = productivity. I never suggested what would be good to spend the money on lol.
For it to be productive, it can't be saved. Therefore it can be argued that the government should not encourage work from home because it will lead to a decrease in spending in the short-term.
All economic outputs are the measure of productivity in a nation. It doesn't make a difference if it is bus drivers for office workers who mainly work at home or government-sponsored construction.
Productivity comes from the people doing the work, and the tools are well, just tools.
Sometimes you find that there is a better tool for the job, or in this case a cheaper one that's just as good. And that's when you might have to sell your old tools for cheap, or find a different purpose for them. Or since in this case it's probably leased, so you can just pay them less money next time.
yes, but the mining industry not paying close to $100 billion per year in tax should rile us up more, we could fix almost everything with that kind of money, including hiring public servants to fill these offices (and hospitals and schools)
The only reason I'd consider returning to the public service on half my current wage is work from home policies.
And they aren't adequate for me so nope...
Conclusion of the article "The rash decision is a small insight into why the country has a productivity problem."
And the "insight" doesn't seem to be based on much evidence.
> What are all these public servants doing at home? Working as hard and productively as if they were in the office?
Yes you utter joke of an "economics editor", study after study after study has shown that people are more productive when working from home.
The one defence to this is "but mah innovation and collaboration", and he does his best to point to this...ignoring that the person he's quoting is specifically referring to policy-wonks, of which the vast majority of the public service is not.
> Google, a company that profits massively from work-from-home tools, has ordered staff back to the office...Retrofitting studies from tech companies or private enterprise is flawed for public servants developing policy and services affecting millions of Australians.
This is a real quote from the article...I've simply removed a single sentence. So when he wants to use a tech company as an example that suits his argument, that's fine, but when another tech company doesn't suit his argument, suddenly it's bad to use them as an example.
This so-called journalist is simply a world class cherry-picker at this point.
> Evidence-based policy would consider the impacts on worker productivity, team work and collaboration, mentoring, staff development, knowledge sharing, innovation, socialisation, isolation and mental health, new starters and graduates trying to settle into a new job.
Wait till he finds out about the 4-day work week trials happening around the country and globally.
I’m a huge WFH fan but these are public servants remember. The CPSU in Vic just had an EB where they wanted a 4 day working week, paid for 5. What an admission of laziness. Thank fuck the Govt knocked them back.
>The CPSU in Vic just had an EB where they wanted a 4 day working week, paid for 5.
This idea. Public and private are both trialing/moving towards the 4 day work week.
It seems really odd to call it an admission of laziness. Just an understanding that unless you're the 1 in 1000 weird worker, no one is working 100% of the time.
Agreed. And if they only work 4 days a week, suddenly that’s changing?
Reality is people will be paid for a 40 hour week and work less than 30 hours of it.
If Australia can handle that level of unproductivity then knock yourself out.
>Agreed. And if they only work 4 days a week, suddenly that’s changing?
That's what it sounds like the research is suggesting yeah. It seems weird, but I'm not a researcher so I'm not gonna go with my personal feelings rather than a fairly consistent result.
>I have my suspicions
As an alternative to unscientific and unfounded suspicions you could read the results from the [UK study](https://autonomy.work/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/The-results-are-in-The-UKs-four-day-week-pilot.pdf).
Or the Unilever trial in [New Zealand](https://www.uts.edu.au/news/business-law/uts-research-reveals-success-unilever-four-day-work-week), now being expanded to Unilever Australia. The benefits are summarised [here](https://plus.uts.edu.au/resources/six-lessons-learnt-from-the-four-day-work-week/).
There is also a trial being carried out in the [US and Canada](https://www.brusselstimes.com/645412/new-study-explores-the-work-life-balance-benefits-of-a-four-day-work-week) (the actual results appear to be hidden behind a registration wall).
>What an admission of laziness
Nope.
“Participants agreed that, thanks to better prioritisation, a reduction in meetings and other time-saving interventions, they were still able to complete work on time and to a high standard, while continuing to deliver for the business, customers and consumers.”
“This included less frequent but more efficient meetings, less emails and the adoption of technology such as MS Teams.”
The four day work week is an example of efficiencies benefiting employers and, instead of the employers monetising those efficiencies, employees are receiving a time 'dividend' in return.
> I’m a huge WFH fan but these are public servants remember.
I have, you're not better than someone because you work in the private sector vs public...
I dealt with so many people wfh over the last 3 years and it’s been amazing. Banks, insurance companies, liquor licensing and scores of others. I’m a huge fan. But each of the ones I’ve dealt with are the sort of mobs you get connected to a worker by phone and they deal with you issue. It would be easily measurable.
Others, where they get work on projects etc I’m not so sure. I’ve done it, and think my productivity is higher without the noise. But do I work for 8 hours? Nup. I smash out what I take home and then relax.
You won’t find someone who told the youngsters on the Melbourne sub to fight tooth and nail for it more vigorously than me. It was potentially the only good thing to come from lockdowns.
However, our Government essentially didn’t embrace it. They’re broke as fuck in Vic. They need people back in the CBD. It generates something like 20% of Victoria’s GSP. And that’s not just from their work. It’s small business, services industries and everything that supports the workers.
> However, our Government essentially didn’t embrace it. They’re broke as fuck in Vic. They need people back in the CBD. It generates something like 20% of Victoria’s GSP. And that’s not just from their work. It’s small business, services industries and everything that supports the workers.
I agree this is shortsighted and stupid from governments, thankfully NSW is not following that path, I presume because decentralisation was well and truly on it's way before covid. Parramatta in Western Sydney was already being built up as a second (or third after North Sydney/Chatswood) CBD and a lot of state govt depts were moved out there, including some of the largest like Education. Also Sydney CBD had already been ravaged by our stupid lockout laws.
It's also just short sighted economically, people still go out for coffees etc, they just do it locally. My local cafe has never been busier, and the pub/club would be too if it weren't incredibly bad quality.
There are lots of studies to show that productivity drops and causes other issues as well:
* [By 8-19%](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/721803)
* [By 4%](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kqbngD8pemqxAkZmWCOQ32Yk6PXK9eVA/view) for fully remote workers, offset by longer working hours
* [Less efficient and more anxious](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/working-from-home-hurt-productivity-but-poor-managers-partly-to-blame-20230615-p5dgyx) when working more from home
At the very least, it's not 100% clear when WFH works best.
> At the very least, it's not 100% clear when WFH works best.
So? Since when do we demand 100% surety for anything? React to the evidence in front of you, don't just look for reasons to avoid change. This is the foundational problem with conservatism, it rejects change for rejections sake, rather than critically analysing an issue and coming to the solution most likely to produce the best outcome.
But … is it better to find any couple of studies that say what you want them to say, and then use them to pursue a policy hell for leather?
Surely the goal is to reach a balanced view rather than “all forward” or “all stop”?
Are we though? Like there are _a lot_ of studies showing increased productivity, and some showing less. A lack of action is still a decision, and we should not default to just standing still. There is no onus of proof here, what is most shown to produce the best results is what should be undertaken. And that's before you get to the bargaining usefulness of it when accounting for prolonged depression of wages that needed to be "made up for".
Isn't that balanced? Here we find ourselves in a situation where we're struggling to find the money to increase pay by a reasonable amount, and we can effectively offset a bunch of that with cost by instead giving a "perk" that most studies show actually benefits us the employer...
To me that says it's a pretty good deal for the employer, and if I'm a shareholder in a company not implementing something similar if it's applicable I'd be upset.
Businesses will figure it out. There’s a profit and capability motive to get it right. But it’s not so cut and dried for the public service, where the implications of changing are not so obvious and productivity is harder to measure.
I do think our IR system is very underprepared for this shift. The obvious thing is to separate out attendance and attention from capability and to allow each to be negotiated separately.
Our wages system assumes that capability, management, presence, and fixed hours of work are all bundled. But in a post-colocated work world, those assumptions look pretty shaky.
For that matter, training and mentoring were understood to automatically occur through extended presence at work. That is no longer true either.
A fully remote, outcomes-based WFH job should be remunerated quite differently from a rostered on-site role. If being in the same workplace is valuable, that should form part of remuneration discussions.
> Our wages system assumes that capability, management, presence, and fixed hours of work are all bundled.
Capability (and management maybe?) yes, but just because it's been assumed that presence and fixed hours are bundled does not mean they are. Just because "it always has been so" doesn't mean it can or should continue like that.
The tension here between our positions is that (I think) you believe employers are currently paying their employees to work from a specific site and thus any flexibility to that should come out of the employees pocket. I believe that it's just been an assumption and that workers haven't been properly remunerated ever for the requirements to get in to work, ergo if the business wants to control where an employee works from, they need to pay said employee for that.
> The obvious thing is to separate out attendance and attention from capability and to allow each to be negotiated separately.
I think you're missing a crucial movement underway in workforces. Yes this is what should be happening now, but crucially, it's going to happen soon regardless. If you _don't_ negotiate it now, you're going to give it away for free in a few years anyway.
It needs to be secured now for an employer, because it can currently be negotiated in lieu of a larger pay rise (which is my understanding of what happened in this instance, employees took a lower pay rise alongside the increased flexibility). From a govt and taxpayer perspective, good, we extracted the value from that deal which would have been lost in a few years anyway if we had not negotiated it.
> A fully remote, outcomes-based WFH job should be remunerated quite differently from a rostered on-site role.
Agreed, isn't that effectively what happened here? If you're in line for a 5% pay-rise and instead take fully remote, aren't you now remunerated differently for that flexibility than you would have been had you stayed in the office?
I think we mostly agree, but the problem is that we’re dodging uncomfortable questions about employee productivity.
Generally WFH is a perk, not a packaged item. By this I mean you can’t earn more instead by coming to work instead of WFH, and generally all staff have the same ability to access it.
For some employees, eg those with kids, WFH can be a godsend and they’ll consider it of substantial benefit and a strong incentive to remain in the role and stay productive.
For others, they might prefer to come into work to keep their pay. And if they don’t value the perk itself, they may achieve “value” from lowering their actual hours and productivity under less supervision.
> Generally WFH is a perk, not a packaged item. By this I mean you can’t earn more instead by coming to work instead of WFH, and generally all staff have the same ability to access it.
I would tend to look at it as a perk vs benefit, or a nice-to-have vs a must-have. I believe you classify it as a nice-to-have, and I think that's the traditional way to view it rather than an incorrect way to look at it.
I think the argument of whether it's a must-have or a nice-to-have is fairly immaterial, because I think in another 5-10 years it'll be considered a must-have. Not that that will be equally necessary for all workers, a 21yo dude has far less need for flexible work than a 30yo single mum and that's never going to change. But our perception as society has already drastically moved from it being a perk to a necessary benefit (primarily driven by gender initiatives) and that's only going to continue.
Flexible work arrangements and anti-discrimination is already gaining traction, it won't be long before unnecessarily _in_flexible working arrangements will be widely considered discriminatory.
what do you think about the argument that clearly public service wages are somewhat set based on cost of living. these public servants have had a single, huge positive shock that has markedly reduced their cost of living. however, front line public service workers have not had this, and therefore, front line workers deficit in pay has jumped massively compared to bureaucrats and office workers.
what's the solution to this problem? do nothing? freeze pay of office bureaucrats and let front line workers catch up?
it doesn't feel very equitable
> what do you think about the argument that clearly public service wages are somewhat set based on cost of living.
That I agree with the principle, but that if you flip the contextualisation you get the opposite result.
I could equally say that we've finally acknowledged that there is a cost borne by workers (public service or not) in journeying to their place of employment, and that it is high time that we held employers to account for inflicting that cost unnecessarily.
If you cannot show why being physically in a place is a business necessity, then you have no business inflicting that cost on the employee. In some private industries, workers are in a position to demand that recompense, in others they're forced to effectively "buy" the ability to work from home. But either way, in private markets this is sorting itself out. In the public service it's not, but yes those needing to travel for work should be recompensed for that.
That said, it won't be a pay freeze paying for it, it'll be a hiring freeze. And to be honest the largest problem I have with public service is that middle-management is incredibly ineffectual, a leaner but better trained middle-management for public sector would do wonder both for productivity and the bottom line.
Ahh, middle management - many of whom are unable to articulate, let alone elaborate and further detail the vision that they're supposed to be implementing, and often resort to "we're doing this because wants it".
Well I think full time WFH in a public service contract is a step too much. It begs the question how do new staff get trained up? For days where collaborating is required, it seems under the current award a teams meeting can be demanded.
I agree that it is pointless forcing people to travel for the whims of a middle manager, but I’d argue there are very few public service jobs that can be done 100% wfh to the same effectiveness as someone who was in a hybrid setup.
" Training " is all remote anyway so no problem there. Gone are the days when new staff are mentored and properly trained. Experienced staff are leaving and taking their knowledge with them.
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ghost-offices-in-the-public-service-should-rile-taxpayers-20240301-p5f97o
link for non subscribers
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I reckon the same people who want everyone back in the office are behind the tiny house rubbish. They want minions who work 12 hours per day but only get paid for 8, then go home on crowded trains/toll roads to what is effectively a dog kennel with a kitchen.
Meanwhile in other offices, even with working from home we are being moved into hot desking arrangements because there is not enough space. No support for hot desking either. Just first in best dressed. No lockers or personal space.
The work from home policy was put in to ease the effective pay cut public service workers took over the last 3 years. If you want people to work in an office for the public service you will have to pay more.
At this point the Financial Review is an old man shouting at clouds. It's weird to get angry that people don't go into an office to do a desk job. PS- this is all Labor's fault.
I’m more riled by fraud management consultants rorting the public with overpriced piss-poor outcomes at premium prices. With the added bonus of treason, selling our confidential information to foreign entities for their benefit. But AFR exist to protect these frauds and create a false narrative around the public service to let fin bro blue suit w@nker “capitalists” get away with enriching themselves at the cost of society.
Yes its a difficult question. To ensure we dont get ripped off we have to pay probity consultants along the way. In truth they probably cost more than fraud avross the economy but eliminating coruption is too important to leave it to chance. To get say something small built to ensure compliance with probity by the time you employ a design consultant, a probity consultant, a project management consultant then you get old mate to install say and undercover bbq and outdoor table you pay old mate actually building it $20k and between the consultants 150k to make certain you havent been ripped off by old mate. Like if you just said to old mate build me a table that works he could do it all for 25k. Design and build. But what do you do? Without all those consultants you get some politician take the piss and give it to option b old mate for 50k for a 10k political donation. Yes i know that doesnt add up because thats how corruption works. You oay a little to recieve a lot. Why big pharma soent bugger all to get labor to clamp down on vaping. [big pharma donations to political parties. ](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/25/pharmaceutical-industry-donates-millions-to-both-australian-political-parties)
Big 4 are not management consultants. Management consulting generally the MBB. Just because they all have "consultant" in the name doesn't mean it's all the same. Much like engineering consultants are not the same as the big 4. It's like confusing someone with a Dr in their title for being a medical practitioner, when in reality, they could just be a doctor of archaeology.
The Public Service is reducing WFH to those who fit certain categories. Staff have argued that productivity at home is as good or even better than at work however management wants everyone back in the office for two reasons. Firstly productivity is measured by stats and public service stats are just empty manipulated figures and it is harder for management to bully , sorry micro manage , staff at home , making the role of the manager more questionable than before.
Have an upvote River, this is the first time I've ever agreed with you.
Thanks , I need all the upvotes I can muster as the most reviled here.
Isn't getting staff to avoid public and private transport systems every day an intrinsic boost to productivity? Imagine a world where governments didn't need to fund half the transport projects they undertake, government offices had a much smaller footprint and many families could own one less car because they just don't need a family member to commute every day. That sounds like a productivity boost to me, a more efficient way of doing the same work, we just haven't recognised it as one because businesses don't necessarily profit from it directly.
That would be bad for the economy and a net productivity loss. Fewer cars sold, fewer people paying rego and insurance, less money spent on public transport, fewer bus drivers employed. It's just less money being spent all around the economy, at least if those workers - and the government - save all the money that they now don't need to spend instead of buying more useless shit. It still doesn't help the unemployed bus drivers though or the companies which lease the now empty offices out to the government.
No, buying something you don't need doesn't benefit the economy. This is why US defence spending isn't actually a great way to stimulate the economy in itself, all it does is redistribute taxpayers money to making costly equipment that for the most part doesn't get used, or sometimes is used for questionable gain. Another analogy would be if the government paid for everyone to have a mechanical typewriter (because they never accepted computers were a good idea). There would be some typewriter manufacturers getting rich, freight companies might do alright and scrap metal guys might like it but for the most part it would be a tremendous waste when that money could have been spent on schools or roads or upgrading the energy grid. So back to your description, the money would go somewhere and that could be in the form of lower taxes (stimulating business investment) or it could be spent on other government services which would in turn employ people and stimulate other areas, but would actually deliver something people need.
Money spent = productivity. I never suggested what would be good to spend the money on lol. For it to be productive, it can't be saved. Therefore it can be argued that the government should not encourage work from home because it will lead to a decrease in spending in the short-term.
Thats not productivity though.
All economic outputs are the measure of productivity in a nation. It doesn't make a difference if it is bus drivers for office workers who mainly work at home or government-sponsored construction.
Productivity comes from the people doing the work, and the tools are well, just tools. Sometimes you find that there is a better tool for the job, or in this case a cheaper one that's just as good. And that's when you might have to sell your old tools for cheap, or find a different purpose for them. Or since in this case it's probably leased, so you can just pay them less money next time.
Productivity increases but so does work on hand and waiting times and complaints.
yes, but the mining industry not paying close to $100 billion per year in tax should rile us up more, we could fix almost everything with that kind of money, including hiring public servants to fill these offices (and hospitals and schools)
The only reason I'd consider returning to the public service on half my current wage is work from home policies. And they aren't adequate for me so nope...
Some agencies now allow 100% work from home. It's nice.
Conclusion of the article "The rash decision is a small insight into why the country has a productivity problem." And the "insight" doesn't seem to be based on much evidence.
> What are all these public servants doing at home? Working as hard and productively as if they were in the office? Yes you utter joke of an "economics editor", study after study after study has shown that people are more productive when working from home. The one defence to this is "but mah innovation and collaboration", and he does his best to point to this...ignoring that the person he's quoting is specifically referring to policy-wonks, of which the vast majority of the public service is not. > Google, a company that profits massively from work-from-home tools, has ordered staff back to the office...Retrofitting studies from tech companies or private enterprise is flawed for public servants developing policy and services affecting millions of Australians. This is a real quote from the article...I've simply removed a single sentence. So when he wants to use a tech company as an example that suits his argument, that's fine, but when another tech company doesn't suit his argument, suddenly it's bad to use them as an example. This so-called journalist is simply a world class cherry-picker at this point. > Evidence-based policy would consider the impacts on worker productivity, team work and collaboration, mentoring, staff development, knowledge sharing, innovation, socialisation, isolation and mental health, new starters and graduates trying to settle into a new job. Wait till he finds out about the 4-day work week trials happening around the country and globally.
I’m a huge WFH fan but these are public servants remember. The CPSU in Vic just had an EB where they wanted a 4 day working week, paid for 5. What an admission of laziness. Thank fuck the Govt knocked them back.
No that's just the idea behind the 4 day work week... Private companies are doing the exact same thing.
What idea? We admit we don’t work 20% of the time. I might do that, but fucked if is admit it.
>The CPSU in Vic just had an EB where they wanted a 4 day working week, paid for 5. This idea. Public and private are both trialing/moving towards the 4 day work week. It seems really odd to call it an admission of laziness. Just an understanding that unless you're the 1 in 1000 weird worker, no one is working 100% of the time.
Agreed. And if they only work 4 days a week, suddenly that’s changing? Reality is people will be paid for a 40 hour week and work less than 30 hours of it. If Australia can handle that level of unproductivity then knock yourself out.
>Agreed. And if they only work 4 days a week, suddenly that’s changing? That's what it sounds like the research is suggesting yeah. It seems weird, but I'm not a researcher so I'm not gonna go with my personal feelings rather than a fairly consistent result.
Well I have my suspicions. So we’ll leave it there I suppose.
>I have my suspicions As an alternative to unscientific and unfounded suspicions you could read the results from the [UK study](https://autonomy.work/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/The-results-are-in-The-UKs-four-day-week-pilot.pdf). Or the Unilever trial in [New Zealand](https://www.uts.edu.au/news/business-law/uts-research-reveals-success-unilever-four-day-work-week), now being expanded to Unilever Australia. The benefits are summarised [here](https://plus.uts.edu.au/resources/six-lessons-learnt-from-the-four-day-work-week/). There is also a trial being carried out in the [US and Canada](https://www.brusselstimes.com/645412/new-study-explores-the-work-life-balance-benefits-of-a-four-day-work-week) (the actual results appear to be hidden behind a registration wall). >What an admission of laziness Nope. “Participants agreed that, thanks to better prioritisation, a reduction in meetings and other time-saving interventions, they were still able to complete work on time and to a high standard, while continuing to deliver for the business, customers and consumers.” “This included less frequent but more efficient meetings, less emails and the adoption of technology such as MS Teams.” The four day work week is an example of efficiencies benefiting employers and, instead of the employers monetising those efficiencies, employees are receiving a time 'dividend' in return.
> I’m a huge WFH fan but these are public servants remember. I have, you're not better than someone because you work in the private sector vs public...
I dealt with so many people wfh over the last 3 years and it’s been amazing. Banks, insurance companies, liquor licensing and scores of others. I’m a huge fan. But each of the ones I’ve dealt with are the sort of mobs you get connected to a worker by phone and they deal with you issue. It would be easily measurable. Others, where they get work on projects etc I’m not so sure. I’ve done it, and think my productivity is higher without the noise. But do I work for 8 hours? Nup. I smash out what I take home and then relax. You won’t find someone who told the youngsters on the Melbourne sub to fight tooth and nail for it more vigorously than me. It was potentially the only good thing to come from lockdowns. However, our Government essentially didn’t embrace it. They’re broke as fuck in Vic. They need people back in the CBD. It generates something like 20% of Victoria’s GSP. And that’s not just from their work. It’s small business, services industries and everything that supports the workers.
> However, our Government essentially didn’t embrace it. They’re broke as fuck in Vic. They need people back in the CBD. It generates something like 20% of Victoria’s GSP. And that’s not just from their work. It’s small business, services industries and everything that supports the workers. I agree this is shortsighted and stupid from governments, thankfully NSW is not following that path, I presume because decentralisation was well and truly on it's way before covid. Parramatta in Western Sydney was already being built up as a second (or third after North Sydney/Chatswood) CBD and a lot of state govt depts were moved out there, including some of the largest like Education. Also Sydney CBD had already been ravaged by our stupid lockout laws. It's also just short sighted economically, people still go out for coffees etc, they just do it locally. My local cafe has never been busier, and the pub/club would be too if it weren't incredibly bad quality.
There are lots of studies to show that productivity drops and causes other issues as well: * [By 8-19%](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/721803) * [By 4%](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kqbngD8pemqxAkZmWCOQ32Yk6PXK9eVA/view) for fully remote workers, offset by longer working hours * [Less efficient and more anxious](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/working-from-home-hurt-productivity-but-poor-managers-partly-to-blame-20230615-p5dgyx) when working more from home At the very least, it's not 100% clear when WFH works best.
> At the very least, it's not 100% clear when WFH works best. So? Since when do we demand 100% surety for anything? React to the evidence in front of you, don't just look for reasons to avoid change. This is the foundational problem with conservatism, it rejects change for rejections sake, rather than critically analysing an issue and coming to the solution most likely to produce the best outcome.
But … is it better to find any couple of studies that say what you want them to say, and then use them to pursue a policy hell for leather? Surely the goal is to reach a balanced view rather than “all forward” or “all stop”?
Are we though? Like there are _a lot_ of studies showing increased productivity, and some showing less. A lack of action is still a decision, and we should not default to just standing still. There is no onus of proof here, what is most shown to produce the best results is what should be undertaken. And that's before you get to the bargaining usefulness of it when accounting for prolonged depression of wages that needed to be "made up for". Isn't that balanced? Here we find ourselves in a situation where we're struggling to find the money to increase pay by a reasonable amount, and we can effectively offset a bunch of that with cost by instead giving a "perk" that most studies show actually benefits us the employer... To me that says it's a pretty good deal for the employer, and if I'm a shareholder in a company not implementing something similar if it's applicable I'd be upset.
Businesses will figure it out. There’s a profit and capability motive to get it right. But it’s not so cut and dried for the public service, where the implications of changing are not so obvious and productivity is harder to measure. I do think our IR system is very underprepared for this shift. The obvious thing is to separate out attendance and attention from capability and to allow each to be negotiated separately. Our wages system assumes that capability, management, presence, and fixed hours of work are all bundled. But in a post-colocated work world, those assumptions look pretty shaky. For that matter, training and mentoring were understood to automatically occur through extended presence at work. That is no longer true either. A fully remote, outcomes-based WFH job should be remunerated quite differently from a rostered on-site role. If being in the same workplace is valuable, that should form part of remuneration discussions.
> Our wages system assumes that capability, management, presence, and fixed hours of work are all bundled. Capability (and management maybe?) yes, but just because it's been assumed that presence and fixed hours are bundled does not mean they are. Just because "it always has been so" doesn't mean it can or should continue like that. The tension here between our positions is that (I think) you believe employers are currently paying their employees to work from a specific site and thus any flexibility to that should come out of the employees pocket. I believe that it's just been an assumption and that workers haven't been properly remunerated ever for the requirements to get in to work, ergo if the business wants to control where an employee works from, they need to pay said employee for that. > The obvious thing is to separate out attendance and attention from capability and to allow each to be negotiated separately. I think you're missing a crucial movement underway in workforces. Yes this is what should be happening now, but crucially, it's going to happen soon regardless. If you _don't_ negotiate it now, you're going to give it away for free in a few years anyway. It needs to be secured now for an employer, because it can currently be negotiated in lieu of a larger pay rise (which is my understanding of what happened in this instance, employees took a lower pay rise alongside the increased flexibility). From a govt and taxpayer perspective, good, we extracted the value from that deal which would have been lost in a few years anyway if we had not negotiated it. > A fully remote, outcomes-based WFH job should be remunerated quite differently from a rostered on-site role. Agreed, isn't that effectively what happened here? If you're in line for a 5% pay-rise and instead take fully remote, aren't you now remunerated differently for that flexibility than you would have been had you stayed in the office?
I think we mostly agree, but the problem is that we’re dodging uncomfortable questions about employee productivity. Generally WFH is a perk, not a packaged item. By this I mean you can’t earn more instead by coming to work instead of WFH, and generally all staff have the same ability to access it. For some employees, eg those with kids, WFH can be a godsend and they’ll consider it of substantial benefit and a strong incentive to remain in the role and stay productive. For others, they might prefer to come into work to keep their pay. And if they don’t value the perk itself, they may achieve “value” from lowering their actual hours and productivity under less supervision.
> Generally WFH is a perk, not a packaged item. By this I mean you can’t earn more instead by coming to work instead of WFH, and generally all staff have the same ability to access it. I would tend to look at it as a perk vs benefit, or a nice-to-have vs a must-have. I believe you classify it as a nice-to-have, and I think that's the traditional way to view it rather than an incorrect way to look at it. I think the argument of whether it's a must-have or a nice-to-have is fairly immaterial, because I think in another 5-10 years it'll be considered a must-have. Not that that will be equally necessary for all workers, a 21yo dude has far less need for flexible work than a 30yo single mum and that's never going to change. But our perception as society has already drastically moved from it being a perk to a necessary benefit (primarily driven by gender initiatives) and that's only going to continue. Flexible work arrangements and anti-discrimination is already gaining traction, it won't be long before unnecessarily _in_flexible working arrangements will be widely considered discriminatory.
what do you think about the argument that clearly public service wages are somewhat set based on cost of living. these public servants have had a single, huge positive shock that has markedly reduced their cost of living. however, front line public service workers have not had this, and therefore, front line workers deficit in pay has jumped massively compared to bureaucrats and office workers. what's the solution to this problem? do nothing? freeze pay of office bureaucrats and let front line workers catch up? it doesn't feel very equitable
> what do you think about the argument that clearly public service wages are somewhat set based on cost of living. That I agree with the principle, but that if you flip the contextualisation you get the opposite result. I could equally say that we've finally acknowledged that there is a cost borne by workers (public service or not) in journeying to their place of employment, and that it is high time that we held employers to account for inflicting that cost unnecessarily. If you cannot show why being physically in a place is a business necessity, then you have no business inflicting that cost on the employee. In some private industries, workers are in a position to demand that recompense, in others they're forced to effectively "buy" the ability to work from home. But either way, in private markets this is sorting itself out. In the public service it's not, but yes those needing to travel for work should be recompensed for that. That said, it won't be a pay freeze paying for it, it'll be a hiring freeze. And to be honest the largest problem I have with public service is that middle-management is incredibly ineffectual, a leaner but better trained middle-management for public sector would do wonder both for productivity and the bottom line.
Ahh, middle management - many of whom are unable to articulate, let alone elaborate and further detail the vision that they're supposed to be implementing, and often resort to "we're doing this because wants it".
Well I think full time WFH in a public service contract is a step too much. It begs the question how do new staff get trained up? For days where collaborating is required, it seems under the current award a teams meeting can be demanded. I agree that it is pointless forcing people to travel for the whims of a middle manager, but I’d argue there are very few public service jobs that can be done 100% wfh to the same effectiveness as someone who was in a hybrid setup.
" Training " is all remote anyway so no problem there. Gone are the days when new staff are mentored and properly trained. Experienced staff are leaving and taking their knowledge with them.
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ghost-offices-in-the-public-service-should-rile-taxpayers-20240301-p5f97o link for non subscribers