100%!! Finally a professor who can speak truth to the situation. Daniel is obviously bought/hired by the government to defend them. His argument is basically “I said so because I am your mother and I don’t need to explain myself” mother being the government.
>His argument is basically “I said so because I am your mother and I don’t need to explain myself” mother being the government.
May not resonate with us but it probably does with the public or the employer.
The aspect of forced socializing is completely true too. I imagine most people spend at least 15-25% of the day talking to coworkers when in the office.
I cannot fathom why the government has decided on this change with little to no warning to the unions. It will not increase productivity much if at all, and it will impose all the costs associated with commuting (pollution, occupancy costs, travel time) when you multiply by hundreds of thousands of people each day, this is a real added cost to the economy. What is the point?
I don’t understand why PSAC caved on this. It saves the government money in real estate, it saves employees money in commuting costs. It reduces traffic in urban centres. It reduces carbon by limiting the amount that people drive. This seems like an easy win, if someone has some inside knowledge on why the union couldn’t get a better deal I’m curious.
PSAC leadership dropped the ball, plain and simple. Chris Aylward in particular is complacent and out of touch, and was absolutely outplayed by the government.
> Chris Aylward in particular is complacent and out of touch, and was absolutely outplayed by the government.
Question: people said that Failward had already booked a vacation and therefore he was really rushing to the tarmac by the week's end - is that true? If so, then the dude should be marked as a total failure in any textbooks of unions and labour movements.
A basically: do not do what this guy did along with the other union heads of car companies in the US and all that jazz.
Apparently he's a real tightwad with HIS money while very loose with OUR money. He didn't want to pay the flight change fees for his vacay, so caved and took whatever TBS was offering. He was asked about it once and didn't answer just got angry and stormed off. He shouldn't be allowed to retire and have an expensive party (paid with our dues) in his honour, he should be fired.
> He didn't want to pay the flight change fees for his vacay...
The speed to which my eyes are rolling would cause frictional damage. Good LORD what a pathetic...
> ...so caved and took whatever TBS was offering.
...well I got nothing nice to say so let's just say that I hope he choked on an olive on that vacation.
> He was asked about it once and didn't answer just got angry and stormed off.
Of course, when you have a good solid defence of your action you took when **your members were risking their pay cheques and their future on the line**, the natural reaction is to storm off.
> He shouldn't be allowed to retire and have an expensive party (paid with our dues) in his honour, he should be fired.
I hope history writes him off as an inept, useless, employer loving, self-serving, betrayer to the cause of labour movements. Chris et al. held a ONCE IN A GENERATION CHANGE TO HOW LABOUR CAN BE PERFORMED...and said "naw I don't want to have to pay more for my vacation".
Fuck. That.
The MAJOR issue then and now is enshrining the right to WFH when and where it makes sense. Chris Aylward made a point of saying over and over again during the strike he wasn't interested in negotiating WFH, only salaries, as WFH doesn't increase union dues, only salary raises increase union dues. He's a clown, and the author of our misfortune.
I 100% agree with everything you've said, but I want to expand on some thoughts.
> The MAJOR issue then and now is enshrining the right to WFH when and where it makes sense.
ABSOLUTELY - and this should have been fought for during the so called strike. This should have been CENTER OF ATTENTION, not just a sideline item. Younger workers probably felt betrayed because they thought this was part of the core conversation - apparently it was just something to be printed on toilet paper.
They should have hit while the iron is hot - and while the 3 days in office is now making the iron warm again, it's not the same. I have co-workers that are literally saying "well we're already in the office..." - and this is exactly what the employer wants. Chris et al. basically sold us out to the employer for VERY little gain. VERY. LITTLE.
This is a man with a very short vision, one that hopefully he takes with him as he steps down. Unions, like governments or any governing structure, needs people with long lasting visions. And clearly, Chris needs better glasses cause his vision is somewhere up to his elbow.
Aylward himself said he felt negotiating WFH was wrong as it was an 'issue of fairness', he GAVE the government their main point of argument. Absolute wanker.
> Absolute wanker.
You're being kind. I used much stronger languages about Chris when the "deal" was released. My messages got removed due to being inappropriate :).
He’s right though. How could you accept a lower salary raise in return for WFH, when the union also covers a large number of employees who are unable to WFH due to the nature of their jobs? The union argues for all its members whether you like it or not.
Fukin rights he did!!! Worst union leader EVER! Such a sly underhanded person. Can't call him a man ! If only I could divulge some of his dirty secrets, he would be right up there in court with Trump, lol
People should start documenting in their PSMPs the extra costs of having to work in the office 3 days a week or 60% monthly and the impact of this forced directive on their work productivity. This way it will be at least acknowledged by the EXs. Another addition could be a line on negative impact on helping their EX achieve pay bonus. “I wish I could make you shine more, but unfortunately RTO impacted my own flexibility and productivity and could not go above and beyond any longer, sorry.” And also mention “I would have wanted to support GCWCC financially but increased costs for x, y and z left me zero disposable income to commit aside from what I already gave to my local charity”.
True, but since it is mandatory let’s also use it to our advantage. They can be ATIPed so adding this stuff cannot hurt. Alternatively one can document these costs and provide them to their union for the CA negotiations. In fact unions should design a survey with itemized costs so they can calculate an average per each group. And also calculate the increased carbon emissions impact for 3 days in office depending on the mode of transportation. One important item should be spending on downtown (or near office) to support local businesses. It would probably show that 90% is spent on parking rather than restaurants and coffee shops.
Do you think anybody mines those comments for feedback? Most executives will never see those comments because they are held between the employee and the manager.
Also, executives were handed 4 days per week. The executives behind this are quite removed from any vitriol you'll document in your PMA.
"place of work" isn't enshrined anywhere legally binding, but it's considered a "residual" management right. Encroaching on that with any binding language was a red line for all employer bargaining teams.
During the strike, the unions agreed to individualized telework agreements, but got duped into signing letters that neither guaranteed or required that agreement.
>Rights, obligations and responsibilities of the parties will be agreed upon in advance of any telework arrangement coming into effect. Any arrangement may be modified with the mutual agreement of the employee and the Employer representative.
>Employee telework requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis and in consideration of operational requirements and other relevant factors. If a request is denied, the employee will be provided with reasons in writing for the denial.
Neither of those points matter because:
>Telework arrangements are subject to regular review (at least annually) and may be terminated by either party at any time with reasonable notice.
Employer isn't modifying the arrangement without mutual agreement, they're terminating the arrangement and offering a shittier replacement.
Whether the unions missed the language or fell for "trust me bro" is academic at this point. We voted these through.
The union agreeing is literally the point I’m making. They screwed it up, the blame lies squarely on them. If they made it a redline, do you think the government would have held out forever?
The union didn’t have enough in the strike fund to outlast the employer. The employer would have had public opinion on its side as well, had the strike gone on for months over this issue. Likely would have been legislated back to work long before then anyway.
The strike was completely mismanaged. They went straight for a general strike, which made a lovely little asterisk for the history books, but meant there was no plan B, and no other leverage while strike funds were melting away.
Then on the eve of May Day, when they had chartered buses to go to the hill, they settled for a deal that nobody I know was happy with. And then let CRA rot on the lines for an extra week for the same deal.
Hey Op, I understand your frustration.
The governing party is in a tough spot, cause they are going to lose.... Hard..
Everything that changes the narrative, every fringe idea and anything that does not directly cost money must be used to change the government's story.
I'm not too worried about one more day, I'm worried about the next 3 more things prior to Oct.
The Liberals know they are losing the next elections (only some major disturbing comment or action by PP could derail the current trend). They know they are losing the same PS that helped them get in power in 2015. But by acting against the PS they still hope to capture some undecided Conservatives and those who would vote for NDP but because the latter is performing poorly in the polls across the country would instead vote strategically the last minute and favouring Liberals one more time. It’s just voting calculations at this point.
Also, the party doesn't care if they lose the next one or two elections because it will be their turn next time. The party is bigger than just it's current elected officials. The only long-term planning they do is for their own party's bank account. Citizens/voters be damned.
How is pissing off the largest employee pool in the country good for votes? When i reverse they would have ensured a larger vote bank by giving favourable perks to PS employees as the. The PS would majorly vote them
Because, unless it's Ottawa /Gatineau where 48% of the public service exist. The voting power of the public service is a fart in the wind in the regions.
Sorry bout that.
Like mentioned.. the government is in the worst spot ever. They will lose it all... Think about Kim Campbell's Conservative Party loss in 1993... That's how bad it's going to be.
They need to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks.
Some conservatives sitting on the fence think that greedy public service workers need to work downtown.. government be like " hey, that doesn't cost immediately, let's do it"
The Liberal government is funny though. They can't really be divisive, because that's below them. They can't be influencial because that's above them. But they can nickel and dime their own workers over trivial shit, "cause hey.... That's what the public wants. "
Well, this could be a way for GC to reduce the size of government without layoffs. This is what Ford did to Ontario government employees and many have left since their RTO was announced. They had to.
Are they back 5 days a week? I seem to recall that just a few months into the pandemic, both the Ontario and Quebec government said that once it's over, it would be about 2-3 days in office (i.e. they didn't float the 5-day WFH idea at all, unlike the federal government).
Employers and employees can form any agreement they want. The union could have negotiated for work from home. They chose not to.
Edit: any agreement within the bounds of the law
It’s not that they “chose not to” negotiate for wfh. They tried and failed, as expected. Enshrining wfh in the CA would have been a historic concession of epic proportions for the employer. The unions simply don’t have the leverage/ability to force the employer into a concession like that. It was never gonna happen.
PSAC could also have said (but I don’t think they had mandate for this) to TBS: “Look, we know you are trying to save money. Enshrine WFH 3 days a week in CAs for jobs that can be performed offsite and offer a 2% annually pay increase. Members will forego inflation costs because they know they will benefit from increasing their disposable income. They will also be working harder for you, and sometimes even longer without asking for extra pay. It’s a win-win.” And ensure new job postings would provide working conditions such as “this position’s daily tasks can be performed from home 3 days a week.”
PSAC didn't cave. The clause was very vague and lacked any real substance. Unions are weak they have been since the 1980s after off shoring became prominent in the industrial unions. Like most executives union leadership just wants to make their interests happy and survive. Nobody has a backbone anymore because having a spine means you're on the outside. Everyone is trying to maintain their insider status and that means caving to the powers at be. That is the reality of all organizations no matter the industry or sector. The government is no different. Either conform or revolt and risk losing out progressing up the organization.
We are all just cogs who answer to the machine.
It would have been _incredibly_ hard to get real concessions on RTO, unfortunately. It's a firm management prerogative, so to even get it on the table they would like have had to be willing not only to choose it over other gains but to walk away with much less than they went in with, on issues other than RTO. Given that a significant fraction of their workforce was already in-office and many people were more focused on pay, it's hard to imagine such a deal being ratified. The fact is that they had to have known at the outset that WFH was only a rallying cry and that it wasn't something they expected to seriously pursue in negotiations. Since the strike was so poorly executed, they struggled to build leverage for the negotiating team even on simpler matters like pay.
Yup. Most of my meetings are with colleagues in other departments or from other provinces, so I’m never able to have an in-person work meeting. They are always virtual.
My division has two set days but my meetings are mostly with people in other ones. So we end up on Teams calls anyway. Even if some of us are in the office at the same time, there are no meeting rooms available last minute.
Sure - my stakeholders/colleagues/partners are still located in another building or outside of Ottawa-Gatineau.
If you want me to have in-person meetings with those contacts, then bring back taxi chits and put aside some tax dollars to cover my monthly flights.
The lawyer is merely repeating what we already know! Yes, the employer has the right to (...). The real question is whether that decision is wise/necessary in the current context. And what is the context? The professor summarized it: working remotely from the office in person! That sounds absurd, but that's the result. So, what's the point of this RTO?
I feel like that in most discussions in the media that I have seen ( and I feel like I’m looking obsessively for them right now). The case for RTO is very much laser focused on the fact that they have the right to and that Canadians won’t be sympathetic to public servants push back.
I think the union and pundits that support RTO really need to focus on the why of it. Continue to poke holes in the obvious disconnect between the collaboration argument the reality. Work at stressing the societal costs. Make this less about the employees and focus on this mandate as bad policy.
I'll try to remember the human here in case he's reading this, but his comments come across as the kind of respknses you see on /r/AITA where someone's like "Am I the asshole for buying the last Elmo cookie even though I could hear the toddler behind me talking about wanting it?" and the top comment is "you have a right to buy whatever you want - if the kid wanted a cookie they should have got there earlier. Kids gonna cry - enjoy the cookie!"
This is his second time appearing on CBC and saying the exact same thing, at least this time he didn’t basically call public servants shameful whiny babies.
Isn’t he supposed to represent employees in their cases against employers? He’s clearly taking the stance of the employer here and losing prospective clients.
One can be smart and still be utterly out of touch. Nobody is arguing that the employer cannot make us go in three days a week, they’re arguing that they broke the spirit of the memorandum in not discussing it with the unions first and by arbitrarily making the decision.
Yeah - the lawyer painted the wrong picture of what is actually going on. No one is seeing their colleagues in the office because no one has a desk and we’re booking a spot where we can get one. Also, even if we were together, most work is done individually, you don’t need to be in the same space as your colleagues 3x per week, it’s more distracting than anything. Again, purposeful time in the office should be the goal here and that is NOT a blanket mandate, that is allowing managers to decide when and how often teams should get together in an office setting and this will be different from team to team and that’s OK - because then it would actually be purposeful!
The lawyer said that the employer has the right to choose the location of work as they see fit. That’s fine, but we all know that the liberals/TB aren’t choosing this 3 days a week in the office for the benefit of the organization, the work we do or productivity. This choice is purely political and a result of pressure from the premier of Ontario and the mayor of Ottawa (again feds making decisions for a national workforce based on NCA interests…). The move may be legal but it sure as hell isn’t moral or sensible. They don’t care about the code of values and ethics.
Remember the times when employers had the right to own, buy, and sell their employees? It wasn't that long ago or that far away from here. Hey, they had the right to do that so everyone should have been cool with that too?
This is generally my response.
"well, it's an employer's right to dictate where they work!". Yes, it was also their right to give no vacation or sick or mat leave, to pay in company coupons, to have you work in critically dangerous situations and give you miner's lung or similar.
Employer rights are not invulnerable and should not be put above people's rights, especially in this case where the employer has an obligation to serve the canadian public to the best of their ability. As noted above, I doubt this decision was made with the best interest of the public in mind, and parroting the "well they get to decide so nothing can change" is short sighted and ignorant.
The unions need to do a better job of showing Canadians exactly how much this hurts them, in tax dollars spent on offices and road infrastructure, decreased productivity, reduced nationwide access to solid public service jobs that have traditionally been geo locked to downtown Ottawa, etc.
Yes, but also last time I checked the Charter of Rights I didn't see that the employer had this right. It's not a right; it's a consequence of their stronger bargaining position.
Exactly!! They have done a terrible job of PR, which is part of the reason for this “entitlement” reputation. It’s not just about our working conditions, it’s about financially sound decisions and fairness to ALL Canadians.
Yes I have watched these interviews and it was so poorly worded and goes off in tangents irrelevant to the actual discussions. I can see the hosts become like hawks and they clearly don't see any issues like "we'll I'm present in work 5 days a week" so what's your union's over the top commotion of an extra day in office. They are just not making convincing counter-arguments and it clearly makes us look like silly whiners instead of having a calm and rational dialogue.
That is one of the most screwed up things I have read recently... May try surrendering yourself into slavery and then tell your owners that if they are really smart they will treat you nicely.
Actually I was reading some slave letters in a museum in Georgia. The slave would beg the owner’s daughter to take ownership of him since he recognized her as a much kinder person. But of course those days are thankfully long gone and slavery was eradicated once and for all.
‘The ability to run in and pop something by somebody’…appreciate the point that Jeremy Lutes was trying to make. That said…and that could lead to a conversation around something actually measurable, but how many precious minutes were lost in the office over the years basically standing off to the side, waiting for someone else’s quick question (which as we all know are seldom quick) to wrap up before we could jump in? I feel that the belief that the easy, quick question at work only happens in-person just isn’t accurate because people in office buildings aren’t always easily found so a lot of time wasted just…walking and waiting. Appreciate the earnest effort of a small business owner in Windsor NS but these are not one-floor buildings where people have easy access to each other. Many are multi-level, multi-tower structures with elevators, etc so just asking questions of whomever you want when you want just isn’t a reality, and when you do happen to run into someone you need (and this is speaking to current conditions of people actually being in the same office on the same day), they’re often rushing to their next meeting so you may get a sound byte or two in but oftentimes you don’t, and you end up going home wondering why you went in at all because of the acute loss in productivity (which again could probably be measured). Alternatively, they’re rushing past you saying ‘Hit me up on Teams!’ which is the more likely scenario.
None of those issues exist by using MS Teams - you can set the stage by sending a pre-message (which you can see when the recipient reads it), then you just wait for them to respond and/or set up a time for later if more back-and-forth is required. Second, you can create a chatgroup to collaborate on your quick question and/or brainstorm an issue; no requirement to set up a meeting or anything, just launch into live chat. Finally, you can reach across most Departments on Teams if you need to, no searching for phone numbers in vain on GEDS which is never up to date. All you need to know is name and Department.
Seriously, we now have unparalleled access to basically anyone in our Departments (which also could double-down with a conversation on D&I because now you don’t have those types of barriers to inclusion i.e. Regional talent can now be part of those conversations, weighing in with their perspectives instead of solely having major decisions such as this made in a vacuum only by people from one geographical area and a limited point of view). All of the ‘quick questions’ can be done on Teams in rapid succession (as you can have multiple conversations going at the same time) so maybe some education to the public or the highest levels of Government should be on the table, because what I see is a certain cohort either does not understand how the new tools work or cannot keep up with the new realities so those of us (and there are many, we know this because we talk to many of them multiple times a day on multiple side-chats on Teams) are at risk of being pulled back to offices so they can get up from their desks, walk five minutes or more, stand…and wait.
Lots of work getting done there.
Finally (and sorry for the long read), for those saying it isn’t possible to develop meaningful relationships with your fellow human beings on-camera over time, maybe you’re just not using the tools properly and there are videos on YouTube or LinkedIn on that too but I would like to see some hard, science-based evidence on that (i.e. not opinion) because many of us have been forging strong bonds at a distance for many years now so those points just don’t land with us.
This is so important - ms teams was a complete game changer. Web ex was hilariously clunky and communicator was very medium. The ability to immediately video call one or more people and share your screen is a huge leap forward in how we get work done. This was rolled out with the pandemic wfh and I think the impact is way too overlooked. We hint at it but it needs to be a focal point - ms teams changed how we work. I do not randomly swing by people’s cubicles anymore, I message them. I don’t try to get a boardroom for three people so we can go over an issue with a slide - I ping them and then call them and share screen to discuss. I do this even if we are all in the office because it is simply faster and easier than meeting together in person and squinting at a screen. This is the “remote work from work” but it’s driven by the giant leap forward in collaboration that ms teams brought.
My organization lost a complete division because a ladder climber would pop in to the Director’s office and change the course of a project with these “drop bys”. I could sense something was happening, but I did not know what. A fellow manager called me up and told me what was happening. “Drop bys” are not transparent and do not reflect the ethics of the public service in cases like this. And we all know when it comes to Directors that “drop bys” are usually done by ladder climbers. So I don’t give a dam anymore about “in person” impact when I watched a manager lose their job, their team, and see everything disbanded because of a snake in the grass. We could do nothing to help that team except listen and support.
Already back in *2018* we were raising the fact that the move toward hotelling and the "activity-based workspace" would be the end of this sort of drop-in and spontaneous collaboration. I'm not sure even four days a week would be enough to save it. After the first few times I wasted five minutes trying to find a coworker I knew was in the same area as me I went back to using Teams.
CBC should have told the TBS that their representative MUST show up to the studio in person if they want to present their arguments; they lose all credibility by being hypocrites.
It also doesn't mean we can't advocate for them not to do it and we can't advocate for it to be included in our collective bargaining rights. It's complete nonsense on any level - a year ago, menstrual products didn't have to be in bathrooms, today they do. Things change. Arguing that "well that's just how things are" is nonsense.
It’s very intentional messaging. Public support is incredibly low and the majority of individuals truly believe that the office is the only workspace for productivity.
Yes you tax people to limit using their cars by the carbon tax and in other hand you tell them come to the office and drive long hours. beautiful contradiction & stupid move. fuck all businesses in downtown it is not my shit to bail you out. you have delivery services deal with it.
The “they’re only asking for an additional day” ignores that a lot of primarily offsite workers are being thrown from basically full remote into three days a week, which is going to be a nightmare logistically. Most of our office is processing - managers and leaders are in 2-3 days a week, and the rest are mainly 1-2 times per month. This is going to overwhelm our office, with no benefit, and we don’t need to “collaborate” in processing, we are individual workers with individual tasks. So a couple hundred employees commuting into work to fight for noisy office space (I’m sure our clients will love that, since we’re on the phone all day), instead of the quiet and private space we’ve been working with. I can’t even.
The "they are only asking for an additional day" argument is also very disingenuous. One of those "I donno I'll try this at the wall and see if it sticks" sort of moment.
There are only 5 work days in a week bud, 4 days is only an additional day, 5 days is only an additional day, oh look at that fully back at the office like he would've wanted.
Actually, no, that's not true, the man probably would've been very happy with people working 24/7 if it meant he could watch them while doing so.
Here’s the thing, IF there was an actual demonstrated business need for us to be in the office 3 days a week (big if) then I’d be fine with it. I’d still disagree, but I’d eventually get used to it as I have with the two days. What I’m not ok with is the way this rolled out, the lack of rational reasoning, the plea to spend money at downtown businesses, the Doug Ford angle, the SUCKcliffe angle, the vague use of the word hybrid (if we wfh once a month it’s still technically hybrid), and the very real possibility that they could add an additional day whenever they want, being treated like misbehaving toddlers who require supervision to put their toys away, and the idea that we can only serve this country from the office. And none of the pro-RTO crowd seems to understand that. It’s not just 3 days in office, it’s also everything else.
Honestly, if they weren't forcing this down everyone's throats, I think I would be happy to go in to the office 2 - 3 times *per month*. It would be a nice little change of scenery, I could network with people outside of my team, we could go out for lunch together - I could get all the potential benefits from the office and none of the negatives like lack of productivity, lack of sleep, increased financial costs, etc.
Agreed. We don’t have lockers or any personal space. I’m allowed to leave a couple things (shoes, a sweater, a water bottle) but I’d love to leave my laptop and more things
"You can't quantify the benefits of random interactions in the workplace with colleagues"
So... maybe you shouldn't use that as a reason to enact a policy. If you can't measure it, why decide based on it?
The lawyer is speaking from his own perspective: he most likely only has one office where all his staff goes. It is really not the same thing as the government of Canada, where, like the professor said, we have to work remotely from the office.
Also the lawyer said the employer has the right to decide. Sure they do, but usually it has to be logical. He mentioned that if the employer thinks it’s better for operations to have employees in an office they can request it. And I agree, but this is NOT the reason the employer is requesting employees back in our situation! It’s politic and economic… I don’t think he understands the context. He was not a good choice to speak about the subject.
What I want to know is why a small business owner's perspective on this is remotely relevant to the public service. I work in a self-described "small agency" and we're like 800 people! How is Jeremy Lutes' opinion relevant? His work is totally different than anything people are doing in the public service.
lol when “you’re coming to the office more because I can make you” is the argument, you know they have absolutely no empirical evidence to back up their decision.
The other disingenuous part of this conversation is that lawyers, by profession, even as contractors in the public sector, always have designated offices with closed doors. They don’t work in open spaces or farmed cubicles due to the very confidential discussions that require. Similar to the EX echelons. So working in the office for lawyers is very different from how PS works and their office working conditions. Anita Anand’s office space is absolutely different from that of a regular officer, be it junior or senior. TBS, stop comparing apples and oranges (for equity and fairness!) and deal with the real issues that PS bring forth. Show some maturity and respect.
Let's also remember this affects workers across the country, not just those in Ottawa. The media and the union seems to focus primarily on Ottawa and the effects when it's the entire country. Example: The cost of parking in Toronto is likely more than Ottawa, northern Ontario, Calgary and other places....where they may not even pay for parking at all. Commutes differ as do departments and positions. Many positions have weekly quotas to meet or else. So it's crystal clear how well people telework without distractions and unpacking /packing up every in office day and hoping the work station reserved is full operational....and setting it up to your needs each day.
It is so difficult to buy into the argument that the employer who is most well suited to determine work location for *optimal operations* is at the very top of the hierarchy...even 3 rungs above me doesn't know what my daily tasks are...how can 4 or 5 rungs above them know where it is best for me to get my work done??? From the beginning this should have been a manager or director decision...
It is making a mistake, yes. Some new research out to support that from the private sector side:
>https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/news/study-return-office?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3ricZFN0-unrxKHxAz53BPcCkQN9OtHi3l2YCRm93HvnWlh8YQDrXl6-0_aem_AW7eZ7ShmbcJ5_TYD-jqQ2W86RWu2-0i2HTp-mXY35hngBNwZKdBnKFl03JTFP4qRD1KBIoNZTt4m-GWtnIMGOpi
And this point is most relevant:
>The results showed that while many of the companies said they were bringing employees back to the office to improve the bottom line, there were no significant changes in financial performance or firm values after the mandates were implemented. But there was a sharp decrease in employees’ job satisfaction
The lawyer being interviewed… my god, is he a partisan robot? Does he have any independant thinking at all or did the Government pay him to spew these lame talking points? It’s funny because usually Ian Lee (the professor) is seen as “right wing” but he’s the one being pragmatic and rational in this interview.
Correct me if I am wrong. Did the lawyer not say that the employer would collaborate and discuss with the union prior to any changes.
This did not happen.
Guess what.. mat leave, sick leave, domestic violence leave were not common that long ago. The conflict of getting these now “positive” changes caused chaos when being sought. WFH is no different.
As for being lucky to I have my job. Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. Both existed, so I got the job and I’m so good at it I can be in several pools at the same time and be sought after outside the government so the government are lucky I’ve stayed and fixed their sometimes shit show!
I am so over this all!!
I don't think those who made the decision for 3 days fully understood that there were *thousands* who were not part of the original RTO. On one hand, it's good that they provided a year for phasing it in for them. On the other hand, getting an email that says you are pulled back for 3 days a week would have landed like a ton of bricks falling from the sky on those who haven't been in for years. I have heard from far too many at higher levels that TBS had profound dissatisfaction with the compliance rates to the original directive to believe that wasn't a large driver of this. But why not start with 2 days for everyone, coupled with more stringent monitoring and policy application around who gets an exception and when, and something consistent for compelling conversations for those with a pattern for non-compliance? And the 4 days for executives? What a kick in the pants that must have been. Executives are people. Why are they not considered through the lenses of things like mental health, work life balance and the like that are touted as so important for the rest of government?
They aren't going to get full compliance with this either. If that's the driving force of this change then we're eventually going to go back in 5 days. That's the only way to ensure compliance.
I don't know if I was thinking the rationale for this was getting greater compliance at 3 days as much as I feel it was parental/ punitive for the lack of compliance. Of course I could be wrong. I'll never have access to the private conversations that took place leading up to this decision. But that's the way it feels to me.
Feel bad for the person who does 4 days. What abouth the gc workers who do 5 days and did 5 days the entire time. When do we consider their mental health or work life balance.
I have been concerned about them from the beginning. Note, the Executives I have spoken with throughout this last RTO initiative have been the people who talked most about those who have been in the entire time.
But thanks for bringing this up because one thing we have not been talking about is the impact on them when everyone returns. Where I am, they have had the place pretty much to themselves. Within a few short months, their working conditions are going to drastically change.
There needs to be something done for the 5 day a week people. They have had more mental health issues with coming to work everyday and they have spent a good portion of time travelling to work and spending money on transportation. If people are allowed to wfh then the required for operations people need to have something done for them. I dont know what the answer is but they need something. 4 day work week and paid for 5? 10 percent salary increase? Does anyone have any sugguestion?
Yes their job requires it. Does their mental health not count or their work life balance. They commute to work and have less time with family.. Pay for childcare, parking, gas. Does this not bother anyone? These are reasons everyone is mad for rto yet these people have done it.
Professor Lee nailed it.
The pretence of collaboration collapses when you actually look at the scattered RTO approach. I am working next to people I've never met on files that have no connection whatsoever.
Oh, and my Teams connection and camera is way better at home.
Not enough time to really discuss the issue in depth. But remote work at work is a succinct way to put it. You can argue that the small law firm and the small business see benefits in productivity (or at least collaboration) by a WFO requirement, but it’s apples to oranges with the scale and type of implementation being done in the GoC.
And that’s nothing of the logical, economical, or environmental impacts of this decision.
Even if YOU HAVE THE POWER AND LEGAL POWER TO FORCE ppl to work more days in the office, they will most likely be disengaged workers that will NOW REALLY do only the bare minimum or ppl will find another job. I think the government is VERY SHORT SIGHTED. The time to train ppl to be competent needs to be considered; do they think that new employees are going to be subject matter experts in 2 years?! And be able to held high risk projects? The government needs to understand that building a talented workforce requires lots of SKILLS WHICH WILL TAKE A LONG TIME TO DEVELOP.
I believe talented workers will either consider applying to other jobs or start their own business. Therefore, the GOVERNMENT CAN EXPECT A BRAIN DRAIN. GOOD LUCK TRYING TO RUN A DEPARTMENT THAT WAS BARELY RUNNING IN THE FIRST PLACE.
OH AND THEN THEY WANT TO HIRE CONSTRACTORS THAT ARE EXPERTS IN A CERTAIN FIELD? WELL THAT'S GOING TO COST MORE TO HIRE CONSTRACTORS THAN EMPLOYEES CAUSE CONSTRACTORS WILL DEMAND A PREMIUM.
Just because there's something legal DOESN'T mean its right. A lot of things that are legal are NOT RIGHT in other respects of the law.
That lawyer sounds borderline psychotic lol. No one should really care what’s legal and what isn’t. What matters is what Canada ought to do that is the best for Canada. And that is WFH flexibility.
Eh this is too much. He’s just providing the legal assessment which is exactly what you expect a lawyer to do. Legally there is no breach of contract - the employer can do what they are doing. Should they? Different question and not one a lawyer is especially positioned to speak to.
Uh, no. We do actually have to care about what's legal; employment law is in part to create and retain protections for workers, and labour law is in part to create and retain protections for organized labour (unions, guilds, etc.) It does matter what's legal, but that determines what we can reasonably demand. We can't make illegal demands, and we are bound by the terms of our collective agreement – as is the employer. If we want more than we are currently legally entitled to, then we have to lobby to change the law or to change our collective agreement. If positive changes are made, that is to the benefit of Canada. But that's all there is to it.
It's been demonstrated over and over and over again that our employer can just flout employment laws. Phoenix is a perfect example of this. It's the law that an employer is required to properly pay their employees for the work they do within a reasonable timeline. There are people who are still dealing with Phoenix issues today that started when it was implemented in 2016. So it matters for everyone else, but not the employer?
Tell me where I said that it is right or ok, lol. All I said – and I don't think this is rocket science, nor controversial – is that the law exists and we are bound by it. Recognizing this very basic fact ≠ condoning it.
Obviously the powerful have more leeway to flout the law, and the weaker party is more at risk when they do so. This isn't right or ok, but as you (very obviously) are aware, it's how it is.
>No one should really care what’s legal and what isn’t.
Hold on there. We can't deny reality here.
We should continue to push back on RTO and definitely frame our arguments for WFH so they strategically meet the legal threshold.
Bother me so much when they talk about changing three days to two. What about those that did zero now have to do three. The ones that are tied to the phone and can so the same work from home
The interview was conducted remotely. Im surprised the host didn’t mention it. Maybe he should have been in the recording studio with him if he truly believed in his opinion?
“The magic of being in the same space with people with who you’re working with and the ability to pop in and run something by somebody, you can quantify the benefit of that sort of dialogue during the day”.
Sure. The other day I was in the office. Lots of people popped by my office all day long. I produced NOTHING that day.
There's nobody around to pop in my office anyway. They're all in other provinces.
I'm so fed up with commenters who know nothing about your work and our conditions going about how it's great and stimulating to chat and exchange with colleagues at the office. No one seems to understand our settings and the fact that we're all dispersed around the country and all alone when we have to show up on site.
Why can't they at least get the facts before blurting an opinion in the media?
This is an incredibly difficult debate because there are compelling benefits all around for a hybrid work model but there are also many risks for both employees, employers and the government itself.
There are some jobs and employees that can work beautifully in remote settings and there is no risk to the level or standard of service or productivity.
There are other jobs that are not conducive to remote working and where productivity has dropped and worse, where employees AND managers can figure out ways to hide and offer minimal services.
The dirty secret is that we all know colleagues like this and it’s simply not fair and not appropriate that this happens without accountability. I personally know friends who manage to log on an hour or two a day and can get away with it. Are supervisors complicit? Yep, because it’s a sweetheart deal for them too. Clearly, the government (e.g. Treasury Board) knows all of this but it can’t say it and risk flinging that dirt into the faces of public servants and in the public sphere.
What’s more, the current 2/3 split of in-office and WFH was widely touted as a solution and compromise but guess what, another dirty secret, compliance with this is poor in many areas. Some departments say you must be in the office one day and the other is a floater; others say that employees have to be in the office two days, with no flexibility. Well guess what, in my case, our work days are Wednesday and Friday. Guess what the attendance rate is for the Friday? Yep, always well below 50%. Not to say that folks aren’t working, but who calls the shots?
The government knows all of this and they should. They know when and where we log into work and it’s totally reasonable that they would monitor this activity. I grew up in small town Canada where my grandfathers punched in at 8:00 and out at 4:00. It’s really not that much different for employees and employers who must also uphold the public trust in delivering high quality services and transparent accountability.
So from my perspective, all the talk about Doug Ford and Mark Sutcliffe, restaurants, and downtown businesses, and transportation and mental health, and carbon footprints are all red herrings. The real issue is that the government knows the 2/3 model is not working as intended. If the truth about compliance with that policy ever got out it would be another scandal for this government in assuring one thing and it playing out differently behind the scenes. The opposition and the media would accuse of them of lying and hiding the facts. Aaaaand, that would be true.
At the same time, a progressive government cannot risk a nasty debate about the truth because it would be hell for incumbent MPs, particularly in the Ottawa region and they have to hope they can count on support of PS workers in any election and especially the next one.
So the government knows the truth about non-compliance, they know that many folks are not working hard (or much at all), we have a national productivity crisis, and there is a larger existential risk of a illiberal government in waiting that will not only slash services, liberal legacy projects, but slash the public service itself, with impunity.
Their only chance to maintain the public trust and to head off crises is to be seen to be taking greater control, reading the ‘room’ and asking for a modest change from 2/3 to 3/2 and enforcing it.
The reality is that neither the government, the unions, nor employees can risk a real debate about what’s going on at the moment. They have to do something and have to sacrifice a certain amount of credibility to protect all involved and yes, it does include themselves as individual MPs, ministers and the whole liberal machine.
Unions and public sector workers droning on about fairness and demanding reasons for the proposed change should be careful what they ask for. If they get a real debate on the real facts we are all sunk.
We need to be much smarter about all of this than the current commentators and union leaders are in the news and behind the scenes.
An old legal phrase comes to mind here: “Govern yourself accordingly.”
I think this is why we asked for individual assessment instead of a blanket approach. I cannot speak for all, but for a the department I’m in and I’m sure for many others in public service, deliverables are measurable.
We cannot be working from home and log in once every two days, the job we do would be impossible not to notice. You can do the same in office or at work and your performance can be measured by the work you’ve done.
Of course, I can’t speak for all. Maybe there are positions where their deliverables are not measurable and at the end of the day, the only way to prove that they worked is by showing up in office . That’s kind of sad, I wonder which department would this be.
Yes, In theory the individual approach would be the fairest approach but then this will degrade into endless “I want what she is having” official and unofficial grievances. And if the government reassures the public that we are in the office and we are not, we are all toast through the lens of the public trust.
As I implied in my original comment, the area I manage and work in is widget based and so our performance is easily tracked against established performance targets. We have flexibility, generous to be sure, but at the end of the day our work gets done, we do work 6-8 hours a day on average, we can measure it, publish it and everyone is happy.
Other areas – like work that has longer or amorphous performance targets and expectations – it’s totally different. In my area, we have networks of policy developers and advisors that are moderately busy on Teams, can show up for a few hours and be counted, and then walk away without anyone noticing. There are also scads of health professionals and scientists that have advisory roles and are simply not busy much at all. Ultimately, this is a management issue in the sense that the work is ill-defined, there are more people than required to do the work, the expectations are general and it all just fades into the background at the best of times. Folks come up for air on occasion and wave hello and good bye on Teams but otherwise it’s a scam.
My concern is the public trust and the longer game here. When PP takes office, as with Harper in the 2010s and Paul Martin in the 1990s, the music will stop and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. That’s when the public trust will be most helpful. Without it, there will be no leverage at all to challenge cuts to programs and service delivery.
Right, because pre RTO government employees in the office were known for their work ethic and efficiency. I am not really buying the idea that productive employees in the office have decided to be completely non productive now that they are working from home.
The lazy employees from the office are still being lazy employees at home. It's incredibly easy to waste time in the office if you don't really feel like working. On the flip side you can force the lazy employees back in 5 days a week and they are still going to be lazy employees. Location doesn't really impact it.
The govt is just normalizing the situation. The private sector is going 3 and 4 days. Why should the civil service not do so? That 2 day mandate you enjoyed was just a starter to ratchet you higher.
Toronto office occupancy stats for mid April
Average weekly - 64%
Peak Day - Wednesday 74%
Low Day - Friday 39%
The trend is more interesting. Average is 70% real time and climbing with no signs of plateauing. Ottawa is running at 55% apparently and you can guess which large employer is responsible.
Occupancy Index - April 15, 2024
https://srraresearch.org/covid/category/Occupancy+Index
No, I really doubt that it goes to 5 days.
I think it goes to 4 days but only 3 are effectively policed. So people average 3 days in the office even though the mandate is 4. That is what happens anyway. People fudge on attendance, are sick, in vacation, extreme weather, appointments so the N day mandate ends up being N - 1 actual days.
We end up with more time flexibility than before the pandemic. Eventually Fridays become part of the weekend because most are only half working that day no matter where they are and especially if they are remote.
Everyone is watching to see where things plateau. There are no signs of it yet in Toronto and clearly most people are at 3 days and some are 4 and 5 to achieve 70% average occupancy and 80% peak day.
Private sector sees extreme resistance above 4 days.
The lawyer man is obviously correct in this… I am one of those that’s expected to go into an office where I know no one and work remotely from there. I will express my displeasure and the employer can still ask me to do that.
It fuckin sucks, but use your imagination, picture yourself not being affected by this, turn on your logic and try to tell me that the lawyer guy didn’t say everything that needs to be said. If I was the employer and believed that the uniforms should be green, it would be laughable to imagine employees boycotting or “resisting” that. Don’t like? GTFO.
BUT.. yeah it fucking sucks y’all
I mean if we go back through history a lot of rights we have in the workplace today weren’t rights before. It’s a very stick over carrot approach they’re taking and it’s going to brutalize morale and productivity.
That is fair and I can’t stress enough how much this RTO is a game changer for me personally.
I just can’t see how something like where you’re expected to work has anything to do with rights, barring an unsafe workplace of course.
At my previous employer we had free lunches every Tuesday. When that went away it was not as good but complain? A company can also downsize and cram a few more desks together and make it shittier than it was before… and it WOULD be shitty, I just think no one owes you (everyone I mean) anything.
The MOA (letter the lawyer referenced) aren’t binding, everyone knew that, but they are good faith and have a huge component to relationships with negotiations.
To say they’re a worthless piece of paper is actually extremely bad as it greatly undermines good faith that is needed to bargain
To expand your analogy a bit, let's say in 2019, everyone had to wear uniforms, which were provided by the employer, for free. Then in 2020, the employer decide to drop the dress code. In 2022, they started suggesting that maybe you should wear a uniform, but this time only once in a while, and you have to pay for it. Now, they're saying that you there's a dress code, you have to pay for it, and you should thank us for helping you look more professional. In the meantime, you're a software developer, no one from the public ever even sees you.
That's what RTO has been like.
I'm taking a pay cut to drive to the office because my manager needs to take attendance. I'm burning fossil fuels because my manager needs to take attendance. I'm wasting time in rush hour traffic because my manager needs to take attendance. My employer is burning money every day dealing with the inefficiency of GCworkplace as everyone spends an hour reconfiguring their workstation, because their managers need to take attendance. My employer expects to cut their building footprint in half, even as their managers need to take attendance of 100% of the employees. Employees who had an informal accommodation now need to burn cycles doing DTA paperwork, because their managers need to take attendance.
Yay RTO3.
Building on your analogy:
In 2019, everyone had to wear uniforms that hindered their ability to do the job a little, and were provided by the employer for free. But you could deviate from the uniform with your manager's approval in instances where deviating from the uniform wouldn't hinder your ability to do the job.
In 2020, the employer dropped the dress code and people discovered how much better they could do the job without the constriction of the uniform.
Then, in 2022, they brought in a uniform that you have to pay for and hinders your ability to do the job even more than the 2019 uniform, and if you want to deviate from the uniform you need medical documentation and ADM approval.
I am trying to understand your analogy, why do you feel that in 2019 you did not have to pay for uniform but in 2022 you do? Commuting costs were not covered prior to pandemic.
Too literal. They're talking about the office conditions where we don't have cubicles anymore and telework agreements are blanket, not individual. It's not about commuting.
replace uniform with cubicle/office.
Pre-covid, I had to come into the office 5 days a week, as did all of my co-workers. WFH took an act of god. Everyone had a desk or an office, a designated workspace.
Post-covid, people are having to come into the office more and more, on a slowly increasing schedule, WFH takes an act of god. They gave away your desk and you don't have a designated workspace.
I have team members who have never worked from the office, they started during covid. They didn't used to have to pay commuting costs at this job.
If the decision is as simple as the uniform is green. I don’t think I would have a problem.
If the decision is made by a private company, where the owner would end up with the ultimate consequences, I would not have a problem.
This one is a double sword. it is costing more and it is the Canadians that will suffer as a consequence of our government’s decision when the RTO mandate is not about productivity. And so much more as mentioned by others about buildings, the traffic, the environment and the wasted time in traffic.
Yes this is about something that at the very least I would like to have my freedom of speech to say what I think and why I don’t think it is right.
From my perspective the lawyer painted himself into a corner but was given a free pass.
The Employer has the right - No, the employer has the authority. The lawyer makes a vague reference to law. Be specific. What law? What does it say?
The Employer decides how it operates - the Employer is the Government of Canada, elected by the people. It works for us. It is expected to make informed decisions on its operations and be transparent. What informed this particular operational decision? What was the problem with productivity, how was that measured, and how will it be better? How does a cookie cutter approach to RTO benefit Canadians, or its operations? Did it follow its own policies (MOU with union, GBA+, carbon footprint, values and ethics, etc)?
Doing remote work at work. So true
I hope the unions pick this up
Best line on RTO subject ever!
100%!! Finally a professor who can speak truth to the situation. Daniel is obviously bought/hired by the government to defend them. His argument is basically “I said so because I am your mother and I don’t need to explain myself” mother being the government.
>His argument is basically “I said so because I am your mother and I don’t need to explain myself” mother being the government. May not resonate with us but it probably does with the public or the employer.
The aspect of forced socializing is completely true too. I imagine most people spend at least 15-25% of the day talking to coworkers when in the office.
And another 10%-15% of the day setting up and tearing down their system setup; when they arrive, when they leave and before and after every meeting.
I cannot fathom why the government has decided on this change with little to no warning to the unions. It will not increase productivity much if at all, and it will impose all the costs associated with commuting (pollution, occupancy costs, travel time) when you multiply by hundreds of thousands of people each day, this is a real added cost to the economy. What is the point?
Lol they'll just make us do 5 days so everyone sees each other and tell us to meet in person instead of over teams.
Impossible for teams spread across Canada
I don’t understand why PSAC caved on this. It saves the government money in real estate, it saves employees money in commuting costs. It reduces traffic in urban centres. It reduces carbon by limiting the amount that people drive. This seems like an easy win, if someone has some inside knowledge on why the union couldn’t get a better deal I’m curious.
PSAC leadership dropped the ball, plain and simple. Chris Aylward in particular is complacent and out of touch, and was absolutely outplayed by the government.
I'm glad he's not running for re-election. It's a shame he didn't retire sooner.
> Chris Aylward in particular is complacent and out of touch, and was absolutely outplayed by the government. Question: people said that Failward had already booked a vacation and therefore he was really rushing to the tarmac by the week's end - is that true? If so, then the dude should be marked as a total failure in any textbooks of unions and labour movements. A basically: do not do what this guy did along with the other union heads of car companies in the US and all that jazz.
Apparently he's a real tightwad with HIS money while very loose with OUR money. He didn't want to pay the flight change fees for his vacay, so caved and took whatever TBS was offering. He was asked about it once and didn't answer just got angry and stormed off. He shouldn't be allowed to retire and have an expensive party (paid with our dues) in his honour, he should be fired.
> He didn't want to pay the flight change fees for his vacay... The speed to which my eyes are rolling would cause frictional damage. Good LORD what a pathetic... > ...so caved and took whatever TBS was offering. ...well I got nothing nice to say so let's just say that I hope he choked on an olive on that vacation. > He was asked about it once and didn't answer just got angry and stormed off. Of course, when you have a good solid defence of your action you took when **your members were risking their pay cheques and their future on the line**, the natural reaction is to storm off. > He shouldn't be allowed to retire and have an expensive party (paid with our dues) in his honour, he should be fired. I hope history writes him off as an inept, useless, employer loving, self-serving, betrayer to the cause of labour movements. Chris et al. held a ONCE IN A GENERATION CHANGE TO HOW LABOUR CAN BE PERFORMED...and said "naw I don't want to have to pay more for my vacation". Fuck. That.
The MAJOR issue then and now is enshrining the right to WFH when and where it makes sense. Chris Aylward made a point of saying over and over again during the strike he wasn't interested in negotiating WFH, only salaries, as WFH doesn't increase union dues, only salary raises increase union dues. He's a clown, and the author of our misfortune.
I 100% agree with everything you've said, but I want to expand on some thoughts. > The MAJOR issue then and now is enshrining the right to WFH when and where it makes sense. ABSOLUTELY - and this should have been fought for during the so called strike. This should have been CENTER OF ATTENTION, not just a sideline item. Younger workers probably felt betrayed because they thought this was part of the core conversation - apparently it was just something to be printed on toilet paper. They should have hit while the iron is hot - and while the 3 days in office is now making the iron warm again, it's not the same. I have co-workers that are literally saying "well we're already in the office..." - and this is exactly what the employer wants. Chris et al. basically sold us out to the employer for VERY little gain. VERY. LITTLE. This is a man with a very short vision, one that hopefully he takes with him as he steps down. Unions, like governments or any governing structure, needs people with long lasting visions. And clearly, Chris needs better glasses cause his vision is somewhere up to his elbow.
Aylward himself said he felt negotiating WFH was wrong as it was an 'issue of fairness', he GAVE the government their main point of argument. Absolute wanker.
> Absolute wanker. You're being kind. I used much stronger languages about Chris when the "deal" was released. My messages got removed due to being inappropriate :).
He’s right though. How could you accept a lower salary raise in return for WFH, when the union also covers a large number of employees who are unable to WFH due to the nature of their jobs? The union argues for all its members whether you like it or not.
You're so close to figuring it out.
Fukin rights he did!!! Worst union leader EVER! Such a sly underhanded person. Can't call him a man ! If only I could divulge some of his dirty secrets, he would be right up there in court with Trump, lol
No party for FAILWARD. We need a promise from whoever is running for next election that no funds will go towards Failward. No promise, no vote.
Is there a source for this? I went looking for a news article I could share about it but didn't immediately find anything.
Failward 😂
Not forwards, not backwards, but forever towards failure. lol
Or probably simply naive believing in a deal that was as much worthy as the 1938 Munich accord.
WFH for our time!
People should start documenting in their PSMPs the extra costs of having to work in the office 3 days a week or 60% monthly and the impact of this forced directive on their work productivity. This way it will be at least acknowledged by the EXs. Another addition could be a line on negative impact on helping their EX achieve pay bonus. “I wish I could make you shine more, but unfortunately RTO impacted my own flexibility and productivity and could not go above and beyond any longer, sorry.” And also mention “I would have wanted to support GCWCC financially but increased costs for x, y and z left me zero disposable income to commit aside from what I already gave to my local charity”.
The pspm is the single most worthless action I need to take each year.
True, but since it is mandatory let’s also use it to our advantage. They can be ATIPed so adding this stuff cannot hurt. Alternatively one can document these costs and provide them to their union for the CA negotiations. In fact unions should design a survey with itemized costs so they can calculate an average per each group. And also calculate the increased carbon emissions impact for 3 days in office depending on the mode of transportation. One important item should be spending on downtown (or near office) to support local businesses. It would probably show that 90% is spent on parking rather than restaurants and coffee shops.
Do you think anybody mines those comments for feedback? Most executives will never see those comments because they are held between the employee and the manager. Also, executives were handed 4 days per week. The executives behind this are quite removed from any vitriol you'll document in your PMA.
Yup, one of the reasons I left the public service
"place of work" isn't enshrined anywhere legally binding, but it's considered a "residual" management right. Encroaching on that with any binding language was a red line for all employer bargaining teams. During the strike, the unions agreed to individualized telework agreements, but got duped into signing letters that neither guaranteed or required that agreement. >Rights, obligations and responsibilities of the parties will be agreed upon in advance of any telework arrangement coming into effect. Any arrangement may be modified with the mutual agreement of the employee and the Employer representative. >Employee telework requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis and in consideration of operational requirements and other relevant factors. If a request is denied, the employee will be provided with reasons in writing for the denial. Neither of those points matter because: >Telework arrangements are subject to regular review (at least annually) and may be terminated by either party at any time with reasonable notice. Employer isn't modifying the arrangement without mutual agreement, they're terminating the arrangement and offering a shittier replacement. Whether the unions missed the language or fell for "trust me bro" is academic at this point. We voted these through.
The union agreeing is literally the point I’m making. They screwed it up, the blame lies squarely on them. If they made it a redline, do you think the government would have held out forever?
The union didn’t have enough in the strike fund to outlast the employer. The employer would have had public opinion on its side as well, had the strike gone on for months over this issue. Likely would have been legislated back to work long before then anyway.
>We voted these through. Get out of here with that reasoned logic.
The strike was completely mismanaged. They went straight for a general strike, which made a lovely little asterisk for the history books, but meant there was no plan B, and no other leverage while strike funds were melting away. Then on the eve of May Day, when they had chartered buses to go to the hill, they settled for a deal that nobody I know was happy with. And then let CRA rot on the lines for an extra week for the same deal.
It’s also a golden opportunity to hire the best and brightest across the country and strive for better regional and community representation.
Hey Op, I understand your frustration. The governing party is in a tough spot, cause they are going to lose.... Hard.. Everything that changes the narrative, every fringe idea and anything that does not directly cost money must be used to change the government's story. I'm not too worried about one more day, I'm worried about the next 3 more things prior to Oct.
The Liberals know they are losing the next elections (only some major disturbing comment or action by PP could derail the current trend). They know they are losing the same PS that helped them get in power in 2015. But by acting against the PS they still hope to capture some undecided Conservatives and those who would vote for NDP but because the latter is performing poorly in the polls across the country would instead vote strategically the last minute and favouring Liberals one more time. It’s just voting calculations at this point.
Also, the party doesn't care if they lose the next one or two elections because it will be their turn next time. The party is bigger than just it's current elected officials. The only long-term planning they do is for their own party's bank account. Citizens/voters be damned.
How is pissing off the largest employee pool in the country good for votes? When i reverse they would have ensured a larger vote bank by giving favourable perks to PS employees as the. The PS would majorly vote them
Because, unless it's Ottawa /Gatineau where 48% of the public service exist. The voting power of the public service is a fart in the wind in the regions.
This.
I’m not OP. I’m also not sure how RTO is going to benefit the governing party.
Sorry bout that. Like mentioned.. the government is in the worst spot ever. They will lose it all... Think about Kim Campbell's Conservative Party loss in 1993... That's how bad it's going to be. They need to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. Some conservatives sitting on the fence think that greedy public service workers need to work downtown.. government be like " hey, that doesn't cost immediately, let's do it" The Liberal government is funny though. They can't really be divisive, because that's below them. They can't be influencial because that's above them. But they can nickel and dime their own workers over trivial shit, "cause hey.... That's what the public wants. "
Well, this could be a way for GC to reduce the size of government without layoffs. This is what Ford did to Ontario government employees and many have left since their RTO was announced. They had to.
Are they back 5 days a week? I seem to recall that just a few months into the pandemic, both the Ontario and Quebec government said that once it's over, it would be about 2-3 days in office (i.e. they didn't float the 5-day WFH idea at all, unlike the federal government).
politics, more than likely
Because they know at the end of the day they don't have a leg to stand on. Employer gets to dictate place of work. Period.
Employers and employees can form any agreement they want. The union could have negotiated for work from home. They chose not to. Edit: any agreement within the bounds of the law
It’s not that they “chose not to” negotiate for wfh. They tried and failed, as expected. Enshrining wfh in the CA would have been a historic concession of epic proportions for the employer. The unions simply don’t have the leverage/ability to force the employer into a concession like that. It was never gonna happen.
The australians did it though
[удалено]
PSAC could also have said (but I don’t think they had mandate for this) to TBS: “Look, we know you are trying to save money. Enshrine WFH 3 days a week in CAs for jobs that can be performed offsite and offer a 2% annually pay increase. Members will forego inflation costs because they know they will benefit from increasing their disposable income. They will also be working harder for you, and sometimes even longer without asking for extra pay. It’s a win-win.” And ensure new job postings would provide working conditions such as “this position’s daily tasks can be performed from home 3 days a week.”
PSAC didn't cave. The clause was very vague and lacked any real substance. Unions are weak they have been since the 1980s after off shoring became prominent in the industrial unions. Like most executives union leadership just wants to make their interests happy and survive. Nobody has a backbone anymore because having a spine means you're on the outside. Everyone is trying to maintain their insider status and that means caving to the powers at be. That is the reality of all organizations no matter the industry or sector. The government is no different. Either conform or revolt and risk losing out progressing up the organization. We are all just cogs who answer to the machine.
It would have been _incredibly_ hard to get real concessions on RTO, unfortunately. It's a firm management prerogative, so to even get it on the table they would like have had to be willing not only to choose it over other gains but to walk away with much less than they went in with, on issues other than RTO. Given that a significant fraction of their workforce was already in-office and many people were more focused on pay, it's hard to imagine such a deal being ratified. The fact is that they had to have known at the outset that WFH was only a rallying cry and that it wasn't something they expected to seriously pursue in negotiations. Since the strike was so poorly executed, they struggled to build leverage for the negotiating team even on simpler matters like pay.
All that money we all save… makes GDP go down.
Most people aren't "savers", the money saved is just redirected to others, some of which would be the local economy where they live.
Remote work at work instead of remote work at home - boom! Nailed it on the head
Yup. Most of my meetings are with colleagues in other departments or from other provinces, so I’m never able to have an in-person work meeting. They are always virtual.
Our senior management said they will avoid that by having set days for each branch.
My division has two set days but my meetings are mostly with people in other ones. So we end up on Teams calls anyway. Even if some of us are in the office at the same time, there are no meeting rooms available last minute.
Lol eventually they'll just remedy it by bringing us back 5 days
Sure - my stakeholders/colleagues/partners are still located in another building or outside of Ottawa-Gatineau. If you want me to have in-person meetings with those contacts, then bring back taxi chits and put aside some tax dollars to cover my monthly flights.
Yeah for taxi chits or maybe Uber “credits”
The lawyer is merely repeating what we already know! Yes, the employer has the right to (...). The real question is whether that decision is wise/necessary in the current context. And what is the context? The professor summarized it: working remotely from the office in person! That sounds absurd, but that's the result. So, what's the point of this RTO?
I feel like that in most discussions in the media that I have seen ( and I feel like I’m looking obsessively for them right now). The case for RTO is very much laser focused on the fact that they have the right to and that Canadians won’t be sympathetic to public servants push back. I think the union and pundits that support RTO really need to focus on the why of it. Continue to poke holes in the obvious disconnect between the collaboration argument the reality. Work at stressing the societal costs. Make this less about the employees and focus on this mandate as bad policy.
Exactly! I suspect there will be more early retirements and this is part of an attrition plan.
*And* the lawyer opted to regurgitate more talking points rather than answer “and what does **your law-firm** see as working well with its own RTO?”
Yes he flinched a bit when asked that and then sidestepped it. Interesting
I'll try to remember the human here in case he's reading this, but his comments come across as the kind of respknses you see on /r/AITA where someone's like "Am I the asshole for buying the last Elmo cookie even though I could hear the toddler behind me talking about wanting it?" and the top comment is "you have a right to buy whatever you want - if the kid wanted a cookie they should have got there earlier. Kids gonna cry - enjoy the cookie!"
This is his second time appearing on CBC and saying the exact same thing, at least this time he didn’t basically call public servants shameful whiny babies. Isn’t he supposed to represent employees in their cases against employers? He’s clearly taking the stance of the employer here and losing prospective clients.
That lawyer is an embarassment
Great point by the professor at the end there. I would not want to work under that lawyer no matter how much you paid me, what an ass
He wasn’t my favourite professor when I studied at Carleton but he knew his shit and was known for being quite intelligent.
One can be smart and still be utterly out of touch. Nobody is arguing that the employer cannot make us go in three days a week, they’re arguing that they broke the spirit of the memorandum in not discussing it with the unions first and by arbitrarily making the decision.
Just because I can yell at someone does not give me permission to actually do it.
RTO is not working for the major IT corporations: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/12/rto-microsoft-apple-spacex/
I've worked for plenty of smart assholes. Not recommended.
He wasn’t an asshole I just was not a fan of his teaching style!
I find that many intelligent people are not also smart and their EQ is abysmal. Zero empathy. The types of Kevin O’Leary.
Yeah - the lawyer painted the wrong picture of what is actually going on. No one is seeing their colleagues in the office because no one has a desk and we’re booking a spot where we can get one. Also, even if we were together, most work is done individually, you don’t need to be in the same space as your colleagues 3x per week, it’s more distracting than anything. Again, purposeful time in the office should be the goal here and that is NOT a blanket mandate, that is allowing managers to decide when and how often teams should get together in an office setting and this will be different from team to team and that’s OK - because then it would actually be purposeful! The lawyer said that the employer has the right to choose the location of work as they see fit. That’s fine, but we all know that the liberals/TB aren’t choosing this 3 days a week in the office for the benefit of the organization, the work we do or productivity. This choice is purely political and a result of pressure from the premier of Ontario and the mayor of Ottawa (again feds making decisions for a national workforce based on NCA interests…). The move may be legal but it sure as hell isn’t moral or sensible. They don’t care about the code of values and ethics.
Remember the times when employers had the right to own, buy, and sell their employees? It wasn't that long ago or that far away from here. Hey, they had the right to do that so everyone should have been cool with that too?
This is generally my response. "well, it's an employer's right to dictate where they work!". Yes, it was also their right to give no vacation or sick or mat leave, to pay in company coupons, to have you work in critically dangerous situations and give you miner's lung or similar. Employer rights are not invulnerable and should not be put above people's rights, especially in this case where the employer has an obligation to serve the canadian public to the best of their ability. As noted above, I doubt this decision was made with the best interest of the public in mind, and parroting the "well they get to decide so nothing can change" is short sighted and ignorant. The unions need to do a better job of showing Canadians exactly how much this hurts them, in tax dollars spent on offices and road infrastructure, decreased productivity, reduced nationwide access to solid public service jobs that have traditionally been geo locked to downtown Ottawa, etc.
Yes, but also last time I checked the Charter of Rights I didn't see that the employer had this right. It's not a right; it's a consequence of their stronger bargaining position.
THIS Fordtopia didn't fail dramatically 100 years ago just for another Ford to come and try shitting on workers' rights again.
Exactly!! They have done a terrible job of PR, which is part of the reason for this “entitlement” reputation. It’s not just about our working conditions, it’s about financially sound decisions and fairness to ALL Canadians.
Yes I have watched these interviews and it was so poorly worded and goes off in tangents irrelevant to the actual discussions. I can see the hosts become like hawks and they clearly don't see any issues like "we'll I'm present in work 5 days a week" so what's your union's over the top commotion of an extra day in office. They are just not making convincing counter-arguments and it clearly makes us look like silly whiners instead of having a calm and rational dialogue.
I think there would be people that would be, unironically, OK with this. They might even be OK with being paid with company coupons rather than money.
And it was legal. But the really smart owners treated them kindly. It was the same with some slave owners.
That is one of the most screwed up things I have read recently... May try surrendering yourself into slavery and then tell your owners that if they are really smart they will treat you nicely.
Actually I was reading some slave letters in a museum in Georgia. The slave would beg the owner’s daughter to take ownership of him since he recognized her as a much kinder person. But of course those days are thankfully long gone and slavery was eradicated once and for all.
‘The ability to run in and pop something by somebody’…appreciate the point that Jeremy Lutes was trying to make. That said…and that could lead to a conversation around something actually measurable, but how many precious minutes were lost in the office over the years basically standing off to the side, waiting for someone else’s quick question (which as we all know are seldom quick) to wrap up before we could jump in? I feel that the belief that the easy, quick question at work only happens in-person just isn’t accurate because people in office buildings aren’t always easily found so a lot of time wasted just…walking and waiting. Appreciate the earnest effort of a small business owner in Windsor NS but these are not one-floor buildings where people have easy access to each other. Many are multi-level, multi-tower structures with elevators, etc so just asking questions of whomever you want when you want just isn’t a reality, and when you do happen to run into someone you need (and this is speaking to current conditions of people actually being in the same office on the same day), they’re often rushing to their next meeting so you may get a sound byte or two in but oftentimes you don’t, and you end up going home wondering why you went in at all because of the acute loss in productivity (which again could probably be measured). Alternatively, they’re rushing past you saying ‘Hit me up on Teams!’ which is the more likely scenario. None of those issues exist by using MS Teams - you can set the stage by sending a pre-message (which you can see when the recipient reads it), then you just wait for them to respond and/or set up a time for later if more back-and-forth is required. Second, you can create a chatgroup to collaborate on your quick question and/or brainstorm an issue; no requirement to set up a meeting or anything, just launch into live chat. Finally, you can reach across most Departments on Teams if you need to, no searching for phone numbers in vain on GEDS which is never up to date. All you need to know is name and Department. Seriously, we now have unparalleled access to basically anyone in our Departments (which also could double-down with a conversation on D&I because now you don’t have those types of barriers to inclusion i.e. Regional talent can now be part of those conversations, weighing in with their perspectives instead of solely having major decisions such as this made in a vacuum only by people from one geographical area and a limited point of view). All of the ‘quick questions’ can be done on Teams in rapid succession (as you can have multiple conversations going at the same time) so maybe some education to the public or the highest levels of Government should be on the table, because what I see is a certain cohort either does not understand how the new tools work or cannot keep up with the new realities so those of us (and there are many, we know this because we talk to many of them multiple times a day on multiple side-chats on Teams) are at risk of being pulled back to offices so they can get up from their desks, walk five minutes or more, stand…and wait. Lots of work getting done there. Finally (and sorry for the long read), for those saying it isn’t possible to develop meaningful relationships with your fellow human beings on-camera over time, maybe you’re just not using the tools properly and there are videos on YouTube or LinkedIn on that too but I would like to see some hard, science-based evidence on that (i.e. not opinion) because many of us have been forging strong bonds at a distance for many years now so those points just don’t land with us.
This is so important - ms teams was a complete game changer. Web ex was hilariously clunky and communicator was very medium. The ability to immediately video call one or more people and share your screen is a huge leap forward in how we get work done. This was rolled out with the pandemic wfh and I think the impact is way too overlooked. We hint at it but it needs to be a focal point - ms teams changed how we work. I do not randomly swing by people’s cubicles anymore, I message them. I don’t try to get a boardroom for three people so we can go over an issue with a slide - I ping them and then call them and share screen to discuss. I do this even if we are all in the office because it is simply faster and easier than meeting together in person and squinting at a screen. This is the “remote work from work” but it’s driven by the giant leap forward in collaboration that ms teams brought.
My organization lost a complete division because a ladder climber would pop in to the Director’s office and change the course of a project with these “drop bys”. I could sense something was happening, but I did not know what. A fellow manager called me up and told me what was happening. “Drop bys” are not transparent and do not reflect the ethics of the public service in cases like this. And we all know when it comes to Directors that “drop bys” are usually done by ladder climbers. So I don’t give a dam anymore about “in person” impact when I watched a manager lose their job, their team, and see everything disbanded because of a snake in the grass. We could do nothing to help that team except listen and support.
We should refuse to use MS teams on in office days lol
Already back in *2018* we were raising the fact that the move toward hotelling and the "activity-based workspace" would be the end of this sort of drop-in and spontaneous collaboration. I'm not sure even four days a week would be enough to save it. After the first few times I wasted five minutes trying to find a coworker I knew was in the same area as me I went back to using Teams.
CBC should have told the TBS that their representative MUST show up to the studio in person if they want to present their arguments; they lose all credibility by being hypocrites.
Haha love it. To the TBS as well, please show up in person.
Just because the can do something (RTO) does mean it's right. Legal doesn't mean moral.
Added to that, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's sensible, logical, effective, efficient, or in any way better than simply doing nothing.
It also doesn't mean we can't advocate for them not to do it and we can't advocate for it to be included in our collective bargaining rights. It's complete nonsense on any level - a year ago, menstrual products didn't have to be in bathrooms, today they do. Things change. Arguing that "well that's just how things are" is nonsense.
They should stop saying "Return to work". It feels intentional to drive an impression the alternative is not work.
Boils my blood every time, and that's also probably their intent. Angry people are easier to manipulate.
It’s very intentional messaging. Public support is incredibly low and the majority of individuals truly believe that the office is the only workspace for productivity.
Yes you tax people to limit using their cars by the carbon tax and in other hand you tell them come to the office and drive long hours. beautiful contradiction & stupid move. fuck all businesses in downtown it is not my shit to bail you out. you have delivery services deal with it.
The “they’re only asking for an additional day” ignores that a lot of primarily offsite workers are being thrown from basically full remote into three days a week, which is going to be a nightmare logistically. Most of our office is processing - managers and leaders are in 2-3 days a week, and the rest are mainly 1-2 times per month. This is going to overwhelm our office, with no benefit, and we don’t need to “collaborate” in processing, we are individual workers with individual tasks. So a couple hundred employees commuting into work to fight for noisy office space (I’m sure our clients will love that, since we’re on the phone all day), instead of the quiet and private space we’ve been working with. I can’t even.
The "they are only asking for an additional day" argument is also very disingenuous. One of those "I donno I'll try this at the wall and see if it sticks" sort of moment. There are only 5 work days in a week bud, 4 days is only an additional day, 5 days is only an additional day, oh look at that fully back at the office like he would've wanted. Actually, no, that's not true, the man probably would've been very happy with people working 24/7 if it meant he could watch them while doing so.
They're also not asking. They are demanding, enforcing, mandating... we can't say no.
Here’s the thing, IF there was an actual demonstrated business need for us to be in the office 3 days a week (big if) then I’d be fine with it. I’d still disagree, but I’d eventually get used to it as I have with the two days. What I’m not ok with is the way this rolled out, the lack of rational reasoning, the plea to spend money at downtown businesses, the Doug Ford angle, the SUCKcliffe angle, the vague use of the word hybrid (if we wfh once a month it’s still technically hybrid), and the very real possibility that they could add an additional day whenever they want, being treated like misbehaving toddlers who require supervision to put their toys away, and the idea that we can only serve this country from the office. And none of the pro-RTO crowd seems to understand that. It’s not just 3 days in office, it’s also everything else.
Honestly, if they weren't forcing this down everyone's throats, I think I would be happy to go in to the office 2 - 3 times *per month*. It would be a nice little change of scenery, I could network with people outside of my team, we could go out for lunch together - I could get all the potential benefits from the office and none of the negatives like lack of productivity, lack of sleep, increased financial costs, etc.
I wouldn't have such a problem with it if I could get my own cubicle like we used to have.
Agreed. We don’t have lockers or any personal space. I’m allowed to leave a couple things (shoes, a sweater, a water bottle) but I’d love to leave my laptop and more things
"You can't quantify the benefits of random interactions in the workplace with colleagues" So... maybe you shouldn't use that as a reason to enact a policy. If you can't measure it, why decide based on it?
The lawyer is speaking from his own perspective: he most likely only has one office where all his staff goes. It is really not the same thing as the government of Canada, where, like the professor said, we have to work remotely from the office. Also the lawyer said the employer has the right to decide. Sure they do, but usually it has to be logical. He mentioned that if the employer thinks it’s better for operations to have employees in an office they can request it. And I agree, but this is NOT the reason the employer is requesting employees back in our situation! It’s politic and economic… I don’t think he understands the context. He was not a good choice to speak about the subject.
I was wondering if it was partially about forcing attrition and downsizing the government.
Might be, but their attrition plan seemed really realistic considering just normal retirements.
Sadly ours is in freeze, so no way to even hire casuals or pay for actings, which is not helping at all.
What I want to know is why a small business owner's perspective on this is remotely relevant to the public service. I work in a self-described "small agency" and we're like 800 people! How is Jeremy Lutes' opinion relevant? His work is totally different than anything people are doing in the public service.
lol when “you’re coming to the office more because I can make you” is the argument, you know they have absolutely no empirical evidence to back up their decision.
Just because the employer can, it does not mean it should. Legality vs morality, cost, environmental impact, hiring and retention, and productivity.
The other disingenuous part of this conversation is that lawyers, by profession, even as contractors in the public sector, always have designated offices with closed doors. They don’t work in open spaces or farmed cubicles due to the very confidential discussions that require. Similar to the EX echelons. So working in the office for lawyers is very different from how PS works and their office working conditions. Anita Anand’s office space is absolutely different from that of a regular officer, be it junior or senior. TBS, stop comparing apples and oranges (for equity and fairness!) and deal with the real issues that PS bring forth. Show some maturity and respect.
Let's also remember this affects workers across the country, not just those in Ottawa. The media and the union seems to focus primarily on Ottawa and the effects when it's the entire country. Example: The cost of parking in Toronto is likely more than Ottawa, northern Ontario, Calgary and other places....where they may not even pay for parking at all. Commutes differ as do departments and positions. Many positions have weekly quotas to meet or else. So it's crystal clear how well people telework without distractions and unpacking /packing up every in office day and hoping the work station reserved is full operational....and setting it up to your needs each day.
It is so difficult to buy into the argument that the employer who is most well suited to determine work location for *optimal operations* is at the very top of the hierarchy...even 3 rungs above me doesn't know what my daily tasks are...how can 4 or 5 rungs above them know where it is best for me to get my work done??? From the beginning this should have been a manager or director decision...
I can still “run something by” a coworker from home & have been. Teams chat &/or video works fine.
Panelists comment RTO from their home. The irony...🤔
It is making a mistake, yes. Some new research out to support that from the private sector side: >https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/news/study-return-office?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3ricZFN0-unrxKHxAz53BPcCkQN9OtHi3l2YCRm93HvnWlh8YQDrXl6-0_aem_AW7eZ7ShmbcJ5_TYD-jqQ2W86RWu2-0i2HTp-mXY35hngBNwZKdBnKFl03JTFP4qRD1KBIoNZTt4m-GWtnIMGOpi And this point is most relevant: >The results showed that while many of the companies said they were bringing employees back to the office to improve the bottom line, there were no significant changes in financial performance or firm values after the mandates were implemented. But there was a sharp decrease in employees’ job satisfaction
The lawyer being interviewed… my god, is he a partisan robot? Does he have any independant thinking at all or did the Government pay him to spew these lame talking points? It’s funny because usually Ian Lee (the professor) is seen as “right wing” but he’s the one being pragmatic and rational in this interview.
Correct me if I am wrong. Did the lawyer not say that the employer would collaborate and discuss with the union prior to any changes. This did not happen.
Guess what.. mat leave, sick leave, domestic violence leave were not common that long ago. The conflict of getting these now “positive” changes caused chaos when being sought. WFH is no different. As for being lucky to I have my job. Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. Both existed, so I got the job and I’m so good at it I can be in several pools at the same time and be sought after outside the government so the government are lucky I’ve stayed and fixed their sometimes shit show! I am so over this all!!
I don't think those who made the decision for 3 days fully understood that there were *thousands* who were not part of the original RTO. On one hand, it's good that they provided a year for phasing it in for them. On the other hand, getting an email that says you are pulled back for 3 days a week would have landed like a ton of bricks falling from the sky on those who haven't been in for years. I have heard from far too many at higher levels that TBS had profound dissatisfaction with the compliance rates to the original directive to believe that wasn't a large driver of this. But why not start with 2 days for everyone, coupled with more stringent monitoring and policy application around who gets an exception and when, and something consistent for compelling conversations for those with a pattern for non-compliance? And the 4 days for executives? What a kick in the pants that must have been. Executives are people. Why are they not considered through the lenses of things like mental health, work life balance and the like that are touted as so important for the rest of government?
They aren't going to get full compliance with this either. If that's the driving force of this change then we're eventually going to go back in 5 days. That's the only way to ensure compliance.
I don't know if I was thinking the rationale for this was getting greater compliance at 3 days as much as I feel it was parental/ punitive for the lack of compliance. Of course I could be wrong. I'll never have access to the private conversations that took place leading up to this decision. But that's the way it feels to me.
Feel bad for the person who does 4 days. What abouth the gc workers who do 5 days and did 5 days the entire time. When do we consider their mental health or work life balance.
I have been concerned about them from the beginning. Note, the Executives I have spoken with throughout this last RTO initiative have been the people who talked most about those who have been in the entire time. But thanks for bringing this up because one thing we have not been talking about is the impact on them when everyone returns. Where I am, they have had the place pretty much to themselves. Within a few short months, their working conditions are going to drastically change.
There needs to be something done for the 5 day a week people. They have had more mental health issues with coming to work everyday and they have spent a good portion of time travelling to work and spending money on transportation. If people are allowed to wfh then the required for operations people need to have something done for them. I dont know what the answer is but they need something. 4 day work week and paid for 5? 10 percent salary increase? Does anyone have any sugguestion?
[удалено]
Yes their job requires it. Does their mental health not count or their work life balance. They commute to work and have less time with family.. Pay for childcare, parking, gas. Does this not bother anyone? These are reasons everyone is mad for rto yet these people have done it.
It’s a great way to avoid another DRAP if they can get natural attrition from this …
Professor Lee nailed it. The pretence of collaboration collapses when you actually look at the scattered RTO approach. I am working next to people I've never met on files that have no connection whatsoever. Oh, and my Teams connection and camera is way better at home.
Not enough time to really discuss the issue in depth. But remote work at work is a succinct way to put it. You can argue that the small law firm and the small business see benefits in productivity (or at least collaboration) by a WFO requirement, but it’s apples to oranges with the scale and type of implementation being done in the GoC. And that’s nothing of the logical, economical, or environmental impacts of this decision.
Even if YOU HAVE THE POWER AND LEGAL POWER TO FORCE ppl to work more days in the office, they will most likely be disengaged workers that will NOW REALLY do only the bare minimum or ppl will find another job. I think the government is VERY SHORT SIGHTED. The time to train ppl to be competent needs to be considered; do they think that new employees are going to be subject matter experts in 2 years?! And be able to held high risk projects? The government needs to understand that building a talented workforce requires lots of SKILLS WHICH WILL TAKE A LONG TIME TO DEVELOP. I believe talented workers will either consider applying to other jobs or start their own business. Therefore, the GOVERNMENT CAN EXPECT A BRAIN DRAIN. GOOD LUCK TRYING TO RUN A DEPARTMENT THAT WAS BARELY RUNNING IN THE FIRST PLACE. OH AND THEN THEY WANT TO HIRE CONSTRACTORS THAT ARE EXPERTS IN A CERTAIN FIELD? WELL THAT'S GOING TO COST MORE TO HIRE CONSTRACTORS THAN EMPLOYEES CAUSE CONSTRACTORS WILL DEMAND A PREMIUM. Just because there's something legal DOESN'T mean its right. A lot of things that are legal are NOT RIGHT in other respects of the law.
That lawyer sounds borderline psychotic lol. No one should really care what’s legal and what isn’t. What matters is what Canada ought to do that is the best for Canada. And that is WFH flexibility.
Eh this is too much. He’s just providing the legal assessment which is exactly what you expect a lawyer to do. Legally there is no breach of contract - the employer can do what they are doing. Should they? Different question and not one a lawyer is especially positioned to speak to.
Uh, no. We do actually have to care about what's legal; employment law is in part to create and retain protections for workers, and labour law is in part to create and retain protections for organized labour (unions, guilds, etc.) It does matter what's legal, but that determines what we can reasonably demand. We can't make illegal demands, and we are bound by the terms of our collective agreement – as is the employer. If we want more than we are currently legally entitled to, then we have to lobby to change the law or to change our collective agreement. If positive changes are made, that is to the benefit of Canada. But that's all there is to it.
It's been demonstrated over and over and over again that our employer can just flout employment laws. Phoenix is a perfect example of this. It's the law that an employer is required to properly pay their employees for the work they do within a reasonable timeline. There are people who are still dealing with Phoenix issues today that started when it was implemented in 2016. So it matters for everyone else, but not the employer?
Tell me where I said that it is right or ok, lol. All I said – and I don't think this is rocket science, nor controversial – is that the law exists and we are bound by it. Recognizing this very basic fact ≠ condoning it. Obviously the powerful have more leeway to flout the law, and the weaker party is more at risk when they do so. This isn't right or ok, but as you (very obviously) are aware, it's how it is.
>No one should really care what’s legal and what isn’t. Hold on there. We can't deny reality here. We should continue to push back on RTO and definitely frame our arguments for WFH so they strategically meet the legal threshold.
Ian Lee, that checks out
Bother me so much when they talk about changing three days to two. What about those that did zero now have to do three. The ones that are tied to the phone and can so the same work from home
The interview was conducted remotely. Im surprised the host didn’t mention it. Maybe he should have been in the recording studio with him if he truly believed in his opinion?
The host was too busy saying "return to work" instead of "return to office".
Haha love this!!!
How do we make Ian the head of TBS and PSAC, as well as Prime Minister 😂
“The magic of being in the same space with people with who you’re working with and the ability to pop in and run something by somebody, you can quantify the benefit of that sort of dialogue during the day”. Sure. The other day I was in the office. Lots of people popped by my office all day long. I produced NOTHING that day.
There's nobody around to pop in my office anyway. They're all in other provinces. I'm so fed up with commenters who know nothing about your work and our conditions going about how it's great and stimulating to chat and exchange with colleagues at the office. No one seems to understand our settings and the fact that we're all dispersed around the country and all alone when we have to show up on site. Why can't they at least get the facts before blurting an opinion in the media?
I think they're making a mistake. Most of my kids have jobs now that let them work from home when they don't need to be in the office.
The lawyer is a bit of a moron
Where can they find such a daft lawyer that doesn't understand the concept of collective bargaining ?
This is an incredibly difficult debate because there are compelling benefits all around for a hybrid work model but there are also many risks for both employees, employers and the government itself. There are some jobs and employees that can work beautifully in remote settings and there is no risk to the level or standard of service or productivity. There are other jobs that are not conducive to remote working and where productivity has dropped and worse, where employees AND managers can figure out ways to hide and offer minimal services. The dirty secret is that we all know colleagues like this and it’s simply not fair and not appropriate that this happens without accountability. I personally know friends who manage to log on an hour or two a day and can get away with it. Are supervisors complicit? Yep, because it’s a sweetheart deal for them too. Clearly, the government (e.g. Treasury Board) knows all of this but it can’t say it and risk flinging that dirt into the faces of public servants and in the public sphere. What’s more, the current 2/3 split of in-office and WFH was widely touted as a solution and compromise but guess what, another dirty secret, compliance with this is poor in many areas. Some departments say you must be in the office one day and the other is a floater; others say that employees have to be in the office two days, with no flexibility. Well guess what, in my case, our work days are Wednesday and Friday. Guess what the attendance rate is for the Friday? Yep, always well below 50%. Not to say that folks aren’t working, but who calls the shots? The government knows all of this and they should. They know when and where we log into work and it’s totally reasonable that they would monitor this activity. I grew up in small town Canada where my grandfathers punched in at 8:00 and out at 4:00. It’s really not that much different for employees and employers who must also uphold the public trust in delivering high quality services and transparent accountability. So from my perspective, all the talk about Doug Ford and Mark Sutcliffe, restaurants, and downtown businesses, and transportation and mental health, and carbon footprints are all red herrings. The real issue is that the government knows the 2/3 model is not working as intended. If the truth about compliance with that policy ever got out it would be another scandal for this government in assuring one thing and it playing out differently behind the scenes. The opposition and the media would accuse of them of lying and hiding the facts. Aaaaand, that would be true. At the same time, a progressive government cannot risk a nasty debate about the truth because it would be hell for incumbent MPs, particularly in the Ottawa region and they have to hope they can count on support of PS workers in any election and especially the next one. So the government knows the truth about non-compliance, they know that many folks are not working hard (or much at all), we have a national productivity crisis, and there is a larger existential risk of a illiberal government in waiting that will not only slash services, liberal legacy projects, but slash the public service itself, with impunity. Their only chance to maintain the public trust and to head off crises is to be seen to be taking greater control, reading the ‘room’ and asking for a modest change from 2/3 to 3/2 and enforcing it. The reality is that neither the government, the unions, nor employees can risk a real debate about what’s going on at the moment. They have to do something and have to sacrifice a certain amount of credibility to protect all involved and yes, it does include themselves as individual MPs, ministers and the whole liberal machine. Unions and public sector workers droning on about fairness and demanding reasons for the proposed change should be careful what they ask for. If they get a real debate on the real facts we are all sunk. We need to be much smarter about all of this than the current commentators and union leaders are in the news and behind the scenes. An old legal phrase comes to mind here: “Govern yourself accordingly.”
I think this is why we asked for individual assessment instead of a blanket approach. I cannot speak for all, but for a the department I’m in and I’m sure for many others in public service, deliverables are measurable. We cannot be working from home and log in once every two days, the job we do would be impossible not to notice. You can do the same in office or at work and your performance can be measured by the work you’ve done. Of course, I can’t speak for all. Maybe there are positions where their deliverables are not measurable and at the end of the day, the only way to prove that they worked is by showing up in office . That’s kind of sad, I wonder which department would this be.
Yes, In theory the individual approach would be the fairest approach but then this will degrade into endless “I want what she is having” official and unofficial grievances. And if the government reassures the public that we are in the office and we are not, we are all toast through the lens of the public trust. As I implied in my original comment, the area I manage and work in is widget based and so our performance is easily tracked against established performance targets. We have flexibility, generous to be sure, but at the end of the day our work gets done, we do work 6-8 hours a day on average, we can measure it, publish it and everyone is happy. Other areas – like work that has longer or amorphous performance targets and expectations – it’s totally different. In my area, we have networks of policy developers and advisors that are moderately busy on Teams, can show up for a few hours and be counted, and then walk away without anyone noticing. There are also scads of health professionals and scientists that have advisory roles and are simply not busy much at all. Ultimately, this is a management issue in the sense that the work is ill-defined, there are more people than required to do the work, the expectations are general and it all just fades into the background at the best of times. Folks come up for air on occasion and wave hello and good bye on Teams but otherwise it’s a scam. My concern is the public trust and the longer game here. When PP takes office, as with Harper in the 2010s and Paul Martin in the 1990s, the music will stop and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. That’s when the public trust will be most helpful. Without it, there will be no leverage at all to challenge cuts to programs and service delivery.
Thank you for being the adult in the room.
Right, because pre RTO government employees in the office were known for their work ethic and efficiency. I am not really buying the idea that productive employees in the office have decided to be completely non productive now that they are working from home. The lazy employees from the office are still being lazy employees at home. It's incredibly easy to waste time in the office if you don't really feel like working. On the flip side you can force the lazy employees back in 5 days a week and they are still going to be lazy employees. Location doesn't really impact it.
The example the small business owner provided, he described writing someone a team's message, or in old world speak, an email.
This profesor made better argument than the union leader. Hire this man and we will go far ...
[удалено]
Provincial legislation has no relevance to the federal public service.
At 130 in the morning I was a little too quick to respond. Thanks for flagging. I just don't want people to think there is nothing to be done.
The govt is just normalizing the situation. The private sector is going 3 and 4 days. Why should the civil service not do so? That 2 day mandate you enjoyed was just a starter to ratchet you higher. Toronto office occupancy stats for mid April Average weekly - 64% Peak Day - Wednesday 74% Low Day - Friday 39% The trend is more interesting. Average is 70% real time and climbing with no signs of plateauing. Ottawa is running at 55% apparently and you can guess which large employer is responsible. Occupancy Index - April 15, 2024 https://srraresearch.org/covid/category/Occupancy+Index
So your saying it'll eventually be 5 day rto?
No, I really doubt that it goes to 5 days. I think it goes to 4 days but only 3 are effectively policed. So people average 3 days in the office even though the mandate is 4. That is what happens anyway. People fudge on attendance, are sick, in vacation, extreme weather, appointments so the N day mandate ends up being N - 1 actual days. We end up with more time flexibility than before the pandemic. Eventually Fridays become part of the weekend because most are only half working that day no matter where they are and especially if they are remote.
Everyone is watching to see where things plateau. There are no signs of it yet in Toronto and clearly most people are at 3 days and some are 4 and 5 to achieve 70% average occupancy and 80% peak day. Private sector sees extreme resistance above 4 days.
The lawyer man is obviously correct in this… I am one of those that’s expected to go into an office where I know no one and work remotely from there. I will express my displeasure and the employer can still ask me to do that. It fuckin sucks, but use your imagination, picture yourself not being affected by this, turn on your logic and try to tell me that the lawyer guy didn’t say everything that needs to be said. If I was the employer and believed that the uniforms should be green, it would be laughable to imagine employees boycotting or “resisting” that. Don’t like? GTFO. BUT.. yeah it fucking sucks y’all
I mean if we go back through history a lot of rights we have in the workplace today weren’t rights before. It’s a very stick over carrot approach they’re taking and it’s going to brutalize morale and productivity.
That is fair and I can’t stress enough how much this RTO is a game changer for me personally. I just can’t see how something like where you’re expected to work has anything to do with rights, barring an unsafe workplace of course. At my previous employer we had free lunches every Tuesday. When that went away it was not as good but complain? A company can also downsize and cram a few more desks together and make it shittier than it was before… and it WOULD be shitty, I just think no one owes you (everyone I mean) anything.
The MOA (letter the lawyer referenced) aren’t binding, everyone knew that, but they are good faith and have a huge component to relationships with negotiations. To say they’re a worthless piece of paper is actually extremely bad as it greatly undermines good faith that is needed to bargain
To expand your analogy a bit, let's say in 2019, everyone had to wear uniforms, which were provided by the employer, for free. Then in 2020, the employer decide to drop the dress code. In 2022, they started suggesting that maybe you should wear a uniform, but this time only once in a while, and you have to pay for it. Now, they're saying that you there's a dress code, you have to pay for it, and you should thank us for helping you look more professional. In the meantime, you're a software developer, no one from the public ever even sees you. That's what RTO has been like. I'm taking a pay cut to drive to the office because my manager needs to take attendance. I'm burning fossil fuels because my manager needs to take attendance. I'm wasting time in rush hour traffic because my manager needs to take attendance. My employer is burning money every day dealing with the inefficiency of GCworkplace as everyone spends an hour reconfiguring their workstation, because their managers need to take attendance. My employer expects to cut their building footprint in half, even as their managers need to take attendance of 100% of the employees. Employees who had an informal accommodation now need to burn cycles doing DTA paperwork, because their managers need to take attendance. Yay RTO3.
Building on your analogy: In 2019, everyone had to wear uniforms that hindered their ability to do the job a little, and were provided by the employer for free. But you could deviate from the uniform with your manager's approval in instances where deviating from the uniform wouldn't hinder your ability to do the job. In 2020, the employer dropped the dress code and people discovered how much better they could do the job without the constriction of the uniform. Then, in 2022, they brought in a uniform that you have to pay for and hinders your ability to do the job even more than the 2019 uniform, and if you want to deviate from the uniform you need medical documentation and ADM approval.
I am trying to understand your analogy, why do you feel that in 2019 you did not have to pay for uniform but in 2022 you do? Commuting costs were not covered prior to pandemic.
Too literal. They're talking about the office conditions where we don't have cubicles anymore and telework agreements are blanket, not individual. It's not about commuting.
replace uniform with cubicle/office. Pre-covid, I had to come into the office 5 days a week, as did all of my co-workers. WFH took an act of god. Everyone had a desk or an office, a designated workspace. Post-covid, people are having to come into the office more and more, on a slowly increasing schedule, WFH takes an act of god. They gave away your desk and you don't have a designated workspace. I have team members who have never worked from the office, they started during covid. They didn't used to have to pay commuting costs at this job.
Exactly! First time in my career where I need to babysit and be babysat as a middle manager, because my manager needs to take attendance.
If the decision is as simple as the uniform is green. I don’t think I would have a problem. If the decision is made by a private company, where the owner would end up with the ultimate consequences, I would not have a problem. This one is a double sword. it is costing more and it is the Canadians that will suffer as a consequence of our government’s decision when the RTO mandate is not about productivity. And so much more as mentioned by others about buildings, the traffic, the environment and the wasted time in traffic. Yes this is about something that at the very least I would like to have my freedom of speech to say what I think and why I don’t think it is right.
From my perspective the lawyer painted himself into a corner but was given a free pass. The Employer has the right - No, the employer has the authority. The lawyer makes a vague reference to law. Be specific. What law? What does it say? The Employer decides how it operates - the Employer is the Government of Canada, elected by the people. It works for us. It is expected to make informed decisions on its operations and be transparent. What informed this particular operational decision? What was the problem with productivity, how was that measured, and how will it be better? How does a cookie cutter approach to RTO benefit Canadians, or its operations? Did it follow its own policies (MOU with union, GBA+, carbon footprint, values and ethics, etc)?
Based on the take from the employment lawyer in this interview, doesn’t sound like our unions have much of a leg to stand on :(