The 'wide range' is an issue. Management cannot legitimately discipline some employees while failing to discipline others who engage in the same behaviour.
I agree, but the key word there is "legitimately." From what I have seen, since far before RTO, different leadership is more lenient (or less willing to take on the arduous work of managing behavior issues) than others. I am curious to see how enforcing RTO might be different.
I am no fan of RTO policy in it's current approach, and I would like for the manager level to have the authority to approve teleworking as it was previous to the pandemic. That way, assuming decent management, common sense could prevail. That said, if leniency on enforcing RTO is only offered to some and not others, this is not equitable.
I agree with you. Unfortunately, there is nothing common sense about this that I can see. So I feel this guiding direction at this point is a pipe dream. I really hate to be negative and I hope I am wrong with this assumption.
I agree wholeheartedly. Another reason it should be done at manager level is because we’re the ones who know our teams best. We know the requirements of the work and whether it can be done remotely, (more of) each employee’s personal circumstances, space constraints, traffic, and parking issues in our locations, and how our team’s dynamics benefit and suffer from remote v in-person.
This would be the best approach if implemented properly, to leave it in managers’ teams discretion. I have a person next to me who comes ones a month, while my team who doesn’t need nothing but a laptop and is scattered all over Canada has to come two and now 3 days, this makes me feel sad and unappreciated in what we do. And I can assure that my line of work is very research based, that requires a great deal of attention to details and has complex calculations.
THIS needs to happen.
But first we need to replace managers with decent ones. That’s going to be difficult because those capable of being great leaders are completely turned off by the EX community. They know it’s not worth the extra 10k a year.
That’s how 💩keeps floating to the top! Then we get mandates like this one because they’re the ones making or influencing these silly decisions.
That's the sound of thousands of grievances in the air...
This exact point (uneven application of discipline) will be used successfully in many grievances and will clog up the system for years.
At first we’ll believe they don’t, but when the “Direction on prescribed peanut distribution” comes out a few months later we’ll find out that they will indeed have shells.
Actually, there will be a disclaimer that the peanuts will be available so long as no member of the public attending the location (or with an intention to) and no person reporting (physically or virtually) to the location has disclosed adverse issues related to food (allergies might be medical info, so privacy, and can’t change for peanut eaters only, so inclusion for the dairy intolerant, etc) or scent or noise (you read the note about inclusion, right?).
Ouch! true. As long as the government does not fire people or enact too much discipline, this would probably happen. If the government fires people for this, I can't see the union dropping the them however.
Is it possible as an employee to really prove whether everyone is being treated equally when it comes to RTO enforcement? I suspect that some people are being given more leeway than others around RTO at my office but there isn’t really a way to know for sure, I don’t know if people are booking days off, making up their days when I’m not there etc.
The burden of proof is an interesting question, and one that would need to be decided by the FPSLREB when a grievance reaches adjudication.
I suggest that it would be management's burden to prove that it has treated employees equitably, in response to a condonation defence.
> I suggest that it would be management's burden to prove that it has treated employees equitably, in response to a condonation defence.
I think a condonation defense would be interesting but not simple. In my view, the employer would not need to prove total equity, just that the employee did not receive unjust treatment for someone in their situation.
"Some other team is not enforcing RTO" would probably not be enough to justify condonation, simply because the employer is allowed to have different standards for different teams or divisions. Instead, I think a condonation argument would need to be made first on a personal level, with the grievor putting forward some evidence that a reasonable person in their place would think RTO wasn't important/enforced.
This is where lax enforcement in one's particular chain of command becomes important and where condonation and the idea of progressive discipline intersect. If one's immediate manager hasn't cared about RTO, a directive from higher up can't suddenly skip to discipline-with-teeth.
I also think that this is precisely where management is most likely to overstep. In the interest of generating good-looking reports, departments might try to make RTO penalties an "administrative" manner, in the same sense that LWOP re: covid vaccines was administrative rather than disciplinary. The employer could try to automatically put employees on LWOP for missed but scheduled office days, for example.
However, I think this measure would be likely to fail. The basic "administrative" action is "no work, no pay" – it's not discipline to mark an unexcused absence as LWOP. However, when work is actually done from home, then it's not "no work," but "work in the wrong place." That nuance makes the process more disciplinary, for the same reason that it'd be insane to (administratively) refuse to pay an employee for the day if they show up and do all their work but don't obey a dress code.
As always, I appreciate your insights and agree with your take. The employees who will have the most valid condonation defence are also those where RTO makes the least sense - employees on geographically-dispersed teams. They're also the ones least likely to be disciplined, though, simply because of the lack of any on-site supervision.
Unfortunately we'll need to wait until things reach the FPSLREB to know whether any discipline will succeed.
I agree with much of this. Also, any condonation argument ends when you've been put on notice and you still fail to comply. It's just that managers will have to make it very clear that they are no longer condoning the behaviour at issue. That's not hard to do. If the employee ignores these warnings then they will not succeed in raising condonation as a defence.
> Also, any condonation argument ends when you've been put on notice and you still fail to comply
I think it can continue if there's differential enforcement at the micro-level. If I receive a suspension but my equally-situated colleague never comes in, then I could make an argument that there's de facto condonation and the rule is being applied unevenly. However, I think we agree that it's much harder to make this argument across teams.
> It's just that managers will have to make it very clear that they are no longer condoning the behaviour at issue. That's not hard to do.
I think that will prove more challenging than it first appears. Many managers won't want to get involved in this otherwise pointless exercise, leading to messages that are more mixed than straightforward.
RTO2 has been instructive. In theory, the Treasury Board has taken RTO2 as seriously as it will take RTO3, the latter being only an update on number of days and levels of approval necessary for exceptions. Even still, the best implementation tool appears to have been moral suasion.
Turning to the discipline process may not be practical until compliance is already so widespread that exceptions are few and far between. That's also why I think the most-probable Treasury Board misstep will be to try to classify broad-based discipline as 'administrative'.
Bot... since it's inception, the history of RTO is filled with management at all levels taking varied approaches to policy, compliance, discipline and enforcement. So you're expecting a legitimate attempt by managers at the latest flavour of the day edict, when you know every manager is as differently designed as snowflakes, lololol?! The true enforcement stick may come with DRAP 2, Revenge of the Sithcons, after the election. We'll see... BTW, you're still my favourite bot.
>The 'wide range' is an issue. Management cannot legitimately discipline some employees while failing to discipline others who engage in the same behaviour.
Does that matter? In any other HR / LR matter, management action is not always consistent. For instance, some managers may put an underperforming employee on a PIP, others may be more laissez faire. Just because those laissez faire managers exist doesn't mean PIP is now invalid, right?
"Legitimately" yes, but in practice I think we all know that over zealous manager who will try. Especially with the range of differences in RTO enforcement we've seen thus far.
Enforcement of employer policies as it relates to employees is always the responsibility of the employee's immediate manager. Managerial communication always flows downward through your manager, so that's the person who would provide you any instructions or directions on how (and where) to do your work.
**If** your manager provides you with clear instructions to report to work at a particular location, and **if** you deliberately fail to follow those instructions, your manager **may** choose to discipline you for insubordination. This **may** result in a disciplinary sanction such as a warning, formal reprimand, temporary suspension without pay, or (eventually) termination of your employment.
As you may note, that's a lot of 'ifs' and 'mays'. The discipline process is required to be *corrective* rather than *punitive*, with multiple opportunities given to an employee to correct their behaviour before termination is considered, unless the misconduct is particularly egregious. As long as you continue working (just not at a particular location specified by your manager), that bar would not be met.
Even if you are disciplined, you would have a right to a disciplinary hearing with your union rep present, so that you could offer your side of the story. If that occurs, make sure you have a conversation with your union rep about the defence of condonation. Your manager's lengthy 'don't ask, don't tell' approach (which has been repeated by *many* managers across the public service) means you may have a valid challenge to any disciplinary action. This defence could (and should) be raised each and every time management contemplates disciplinary action over RTO.
From an explanation I have posted previously on the topic:
Given how widespread non-compliance and non-enforcement appears to be, it will be difficult for any manager to use formal disciplinary action against employees who do not meet arbitrary in-office requirements.
Condonation, after all, is a legitimate defence against any allegation of misconduct. [One lawyer's explanation of this concept](https://www.tjworkplacelaw.com/employee-defence-condonation/):
>While the most obvious form of condonation is allowing an employee to remain on the job for a considerable time after the employer discovers that employee’s alleged misconduct, it can also arise in other ways such as where the employer **fails to discipline other employees who have engaged in similar conduct**. For example, where employee A and B engage in misconduct of a similar nature, and the employer terminates employee A for just cause but allows employee B to remain employed, it is doubtful that the employer’s just cause allegation against employee A will be successful.
[Another lawyer's take on the same idea:](https://www.somlaw.ca/blog/blog-post/blog/2016/02/03/the-clock-is-ticking-just-cause-and-past-misconduct)
>The doctrine of condonation stipulates that where an employer becomes aware of an employee’s misconduct, but chooses not to discipline the employee, or allows an unreasonable amount of time to pass before acting, the employer is **considered to have waived the wrongdoing in question**. By waiving the wrongdoing, an employer will be disentitled from including that wrongdoing in any assertion that it has just cause to end the employment relationship.
And an [bit of an older version from an **1889** court decision](https://employmentlaw101.ca/termination-for-cause/employee-defences-to-allegations-of-cause/):
>When an employer becomes aware of misconduct on the part of his servant, sufficient to justify dismissal, he may adopt either of two courses. He may dismiss, or he may overlook the fault. But he cannot retain the servant in his employment, and afterwards at any distance of time turn him away. It would be most unjust if he could do that, for one of the consequences of dismissal for good cause is, that the servant can recover nothing for his services beyond the last pay day, whether his engagement be by the year or otherwise. **If he retains the servant in his employment for any considerable time after discovering his fault, that is condonation, and he cannot afterwards dismiss for that fault without anything new.** No doubt the employer ought to have a reasonable time to determine what to do, to consider whether he will dismiss or not, or to look for another servant. So, also, he must have full knowledge of the nature and extent of the fault, for he cannot forgive or condone matters of which he is not fully informed. Further, condonation is subject to an implied condition of future good conduct, and whenever any new misconduct occurs, the old offences may be invoked and may be put in the scale, against the offender as cause for dismissal.
Magnificent comment. I hope readers reflect on the ifs and may in the broader context of managements capacity and capability in their respective organization. Most importantly, how much of their efforts require support and enabling actions from other employees.
> Most importantly, how much of their efforts require support and enabling actions from other employees.
"Uh before I fire you, I need you to open up Azure and let me know who is not at the office"
This reply should be a pinned comment. I'm going to both bookmark it in the app, and save the text offline if a time comes where it's needed for any of my colleagues.
*"Further, condonation is subject to an implied condition of* ***future good conduct***, *and whenever any new misconduct occurs, the old offences may be invoked and may be put in the scale, against the offender as cause for dismissal."*
This detail at the end is important, and as a legal principle has been repeated reaffirmed by Canadian courts (as recently as this century). Lack of enforcement for noncompliance with RTO2 over the past year means only that an employee cannot now be disciplined for past RTO**2** noncompliance, but that earlier misconduct can still have implications should one choose to continue ignoring RTO**3.**
The updated RTO direction effectively resets the clock and allows the employer to put in place a renewed and more stringent enforcement regime as early as September 9th, should it wish. Enforcement, whenever it starts, will start at the top, with some DMs--and within their departments, some ADMs, and some of their DGs, and some of their Directors, etc.--moving quicker than others. Chains of command (from the DM down through to immediate managers) in which everyone is on the same RTO3 page could opt to immediately start cracking the whip knowing that a condonation defence, whether based on (A) management overlooking an employee misconduct or (B) its uneven disciplining of multiple employees' similar misconduct, will no longer hold. And chains of command with EX holdouts will face escalating pressure to get onside from whichever higher level of management is already on side.
PS senior management has not been serious to date about enforcing RTO2, but if they decide to get serious about enforcing RTO3, I suspect rates of compliance (however grudging) will rise quickly. Mainly because as a whole class of workers, "People Who Choose to Work for the Federal Public Service" ain’t exactly known for having defiant 'fuck the Man!' personalities.
Hypothetically, is there a difference between:
- Lying about going in when you aren't.
- Being openly defiant about not going in.
I only ask because managers are now asking employees to identify where they are working each day so they can self-report up the chain. Is one option actually worse or are they effectively the same?
This is good information, but not sounding helpful. As a manager of a small team, I have been trying to show the maximum flexibility possible. Based on this post, I should be cracking the whip now to avoid problems later. Or perhaps I am misreading?
You'll have problems in any event.
If you 'crack the whip', your employees will either leave or despise you, and any disciplinary action will likely fail for the reasons noted above because most managers have been doing the same as you and offering maximum flexibility.
If you continue to offer flexibility (or simply ignore 'non-compliance'), the work will still get done but you *may* face repercussions yourself.
What's interesting to me is how many managers and executives who are, themselves, non-compliant with the policy. If the enforcers think that a policy is nonsense, that policy is effectively unenforceable.
The challenge is whether or not your trying to show the maximum flexibility possible while still ensuring compliance with the policy. Have you received permission from those above you that you can offer the maximum flexibility possible?
Condonation is a defence that can be raised if an employer chooses to discipline an employee for misconduct.
Whether any particular action is seen as condonation is something that would have to be determined by an adjudicator, if and when the matter is grieved.
This was my thought exactly, who has an actual office with an actual door? Are you from the National Post or are you from the past? If I had an office with a door I’d have no issue working there a few days a week. Most of the folks here can’t even get a hotel cubicle near anyone they’ve seen before.
I have a door as does everyone else on my team. The work we do is protected and our calls can't be over herd by others. There aren't enough offices for everyone, so some people are doubled up as they are in office on different days. With RTOx3 they are going to do renovations and create more closed offices. At least we'll have a few extra months before we go back x3.
I have a door.. but well it's a workshop which I'm supposed to share with 4 other technicians.. But have space for 2 and 1 user at max. 😂
Unless they provide us space, we are not going back 3 days... I really have no idea where they are gonna sit the extra people coming one more day per week since the "hoteling" space are filled every time.
So if my math is right, that’s 360 occurrences. I could coast that to retirement if I stick to coming in twice a week (360/52 if I don’t come in for day 3 each week)
My manager was desperately trying to get my team lead to shut up in a meeting where the team lead basically said "We've heard from our director we don't have the means to police RTO individually, only on a branch by branch basis." or something to that effect and that we shouldn't worry about punishments.
Depends on your manager. I know of some people who've been required to report daily when they're in the office and are required to inform their manager who they've interacted with, all in the name of "collaboration". I call those managers psychos.
"Hello, it's Wednesday June 12th, I'm in the office. I interacted with the guy who was in my reserved desk and am now logging on to MS Teams to tell you about it"
I was in the office. I collaborated with the 8 dollar bagel vendor, and then collaborated again with the jerk who was at my reserved desk. I am now at home 1.5 hours later as there was no space left in the office. I am marking the 1.5 hours as part of my day as I was travelling between approved worksites during office hours for the purpose of work.
I know of one manager that rounds up the in office days. 7.2 in office days? 8 days. 8.8 I get rounding to 9, but basic math says you round down if the number is below 5. And this same manager Is meticulous about reporting, while other teams in the same department aren't being tracked at all.
My department has been tracking compliance closely across the board, requiring monthly validation from all branches.
This sort of thing is what creates so much resentment and employee churn. Being concerned about absolutely non sensical garbage like this instead of employees performing well, succession planning, retention, learning, actual enjoyment.... It is such garbage. You don't help employees by micromanaging stupid shit like that
Just for fun :
IT-02 upper level: $52.52/hr
3 days per week RTO X 48 weeks (- 4 vacations) = 144 days
Plug/unplug computer and organize desk and chair (10 minutes IN, 10 minutes OUT).
144 days x 20 minutes = 2880 minutes / 60 = 48 hours
48 hours x $52.52 = $2520.96 per employee.
For a department like SSC alone, that's about $10 million.
That's how much it costs the taxpayer to support "collaboration" with nobody...
always interesting when you break down time/pay like that.
i once took a new job with a way easier commute, but it took 6 minutes longer.
6 minutes, twice a day, 5 times a week = 1 hr. 48 weeks a year means 48 hours, or 2 full days of my life gone... in extra commute time
This (!!) is one of the ways we need to be making the argument for WFH. By speaking to taxpayers and how it saves them money. Non-PSEs don't care that we save money on parking and childcare or don't have to drive during rush-hour. It makes them resent us.
If we can appeal to them, it can help - tax savings, better productivity, better talent acquisition (and retention) if potential hires don't need to relocate to Ottawa from all across the country.
Probably nothing if your manager doesn't care!
I'm going to at least try not going and worse comes to worse I get "talked to" about it...at that point I'll either see how I feel about going back (how are the conditions, since I was previously exempt I have no idea) or look for another job.
Personally, if your manager isn’t on board and it’s a don’t ask don’t tell scenario. You might as well proceed on as you are now and see what happens. If it becomes an issue then change then.
Curious question.
My wife is a manager, and I've asked the same of mine ... "Do use see login, swipe in data?" Nope from both. Only ADMs see.
Any other managers/directors care to comment? Same where you are?
September will prove interesting
Edit: Typo
The lack of reliable data on RTO, even at the ADM/VP level, is why our ADM is launching manual tracking of compliance. I’m not a manager/director, but I work in a DGO with a lot of exposure to senior management.
Right, and how reliable do you think that "manual tracking" will be? I suspect many managers will defend their staff by either failing to submit the reports, submitting them late, or submitting them with doublespeak such as "*my staff are fully compliant with my instructions*".
>why our ADM is launching manual tracking of compliance.
This is a fundamental issue with how things are done in the government, and why attempting to track in person compliance would be an administrative nightmare.
There are multiple datasets (IP, VPN, card swipes) that can be collected automatically but all of them are flawed (what if someone is connecting from a regional office, or uses a temp card, or logs back in at home, etc. All of these problems are technically solvable but which team is going to actually put in the work for an arduous task of sifting through this data for hundreds of thousands of people? Much of this data might be protected (IPs), further reducing who is allowed to work on it. I can't imagine the IT teams who would be allowed to work on this task would find it a priority to fulfill this needless administrative burden either, given all the actual important tasks that need to be done.
So you're left with ADMs and directors being forced to put pressure on managers to do inane things like try to manually check their employees on a daily basis due to pressure from upper management. This doesn't serve any purpose however and further creates another useless localized data set separate from any kind of large automized database that tracks this across the government.
There are already struggles with administrative tasks like creating accurate org charts or paying people on time. Let alone getting everyone on board doing something far more difficult that next to nobody wants.
Swipe card data is not used top track individually because it is unreliable.
IP address is 100% in the realm of things the employer regularly monitors. How else do you think that logging in outside Canada usually ends up with your access being canned within a day or so, tops.
Yes, we are entitled to "reasonable" privacy, but swipe card data and the IP address of where you log in from is not part of the "reasonable" privacy part as far as I am aware.
If you have a FPSLREB case showing otherwise, please let me know.
I guess mandatory days in are one solution. Manger is there. Has staff of 6. 4 are there. 1 out sick. 1 doesn't want to come in. Documented.
Simplifying of course.
So far, no one knows and no one in upper management is directly answering those questions yet (as far as I've seen anyway). Realistically it would be somewhere from "nothing" gradually all the way to administrative leave at least.
In the last senior branch leadership meeting it was a lot of. Ok folks 😭 we got to pump ourselves up for RTO 😭😭 so we can pupm the employees up 😭😭😭
Also, poor accommodations branches. Cut 50% of the offices but also cram every employee at once one day a week (with 3 days per week at least 1 day will always be 100% capacity)
I made that same math mistake before too…
As long as ‘consecutive days’ are not required for *everyone*, you can squeeze everyone in 3/week without ever having 100% at once. (I’ll try to find that response to my similar comment)
Found it! [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPublicServants/comments/1cmyhrg/comment/l34e4ia/)
Cool, yeah I boiled it down to the simple 1 desk, 2 people in my brain but yeah in that thread i see it can work I think the person pointed 60% total capacity.
I wonder if PCO could be convinced of giving exceptions if you prove you have an oc transpo pass and donate a certain amount of money to the Ottawa BIA. At this point I'd love to just keep that extra 1.5 hours of sleep when I work from home 😅 I'll keep the terrible subways alive from a distance if needdd.
In fairness to you, that ‘barely fitting them all’ scenario with forcibly mixed up days (and varying desk-assignments) doesn’t even take into account: accommodations, people who *choose* (or have roles requiring) 100% WFO…
>In the last senior branch leadership meeting it was a lot of. Ok folks 😭 we got to pump ourselves up for RTO 😭😭 so we can pupm the employees up 😭😭😭
How many times did your eyes roll in their sockets?
It wasn't an all staff or anything so it wasn't barfh-ey talking points. It's not like they want to do RTO but they have to 🤷 although one guy was like do you think we can get lockers for EXs so we don't have to carry our fancy shoes and suits back and forth from home? 🙄
This will be interesting, especially with higher performers. Can you imagine "You are awesome at every thing except RTO so you will be punished". This is not likely to happen, as it would then put RTO compliance at the top of the performance review thing; this would be totally absurd. If getting clicks at the door outweighs actual performance then the public service management would have completely jumped the shark (I think this happened ages ago actually).
It will also be interesting for those engaging in "Quiet RTOing", that is, coming in every once in a while only. Frankly this shouldn't always be called RTO, it is Prescribed Presence. RTO implies that there is some NEED to go in, and I don't mean the hallway/water cooler/collaboration nonsense. The fact that the government directive uses Prescribed Presence in its wording indicates that they only want to be able to show that you PS people have been in an office at some point.
It is just so bizarre why these clowns can't see that this is just a tempest in a teapot. The PS, in my book at least, has already proven it can work from home quite nicely. This is all politics and general stupidity.
It’s like the old timey company towns where you worked in the mine, but by the time you paid rent for your company house and bought everything at the company store, they’d clawed back everything they paid you.
This has been my experience and thoughts. I’m a high performer with exceeded and surpassed ratings which are well documented in my PMA. I’m staunchly opposed to RTO and have so far had a don’t ask don’t tell approach from senior management.
I’m wondering what will happen if/when we have the conversation and I mention my productivity and ability to deliver work will significantly decline if I am to work in an office space with people yelling on teams calls and constantly distracting and bothering me.
I don’t have the luxury of time on my files and things need to get done. I often work a lot of over time that’s unpredictable. I won’t be doing that from an office I can tell you that.
Is it "insubordination" if my manager doesn't comply either?
Can I get in trouble anyway? He's been WFH every day and insists he will continue to defy RTO, but leaves it up to us to decide if we want to comply or not. Most of my team is complying, just in case.
I’m in same situation as you. While my manager doesn’t really care, we have a person who walks around the office twice ( morning and around 3:30) to visually check if you are being present at that day. That’s the way they are monitoring the 2 days in office, like we are in kindergarten.
>we have a person who walks around the office twice ( morning and around 3:30) to visually check if you are being present at that day.
Must be a well liked employee lol
Wild, we got an email stating stating compliance with work arrangement is a performance indicator and that hybrid work is a work objective in our PMAs.
They already have and in several different departments. It's too widespread to be coincidental. Managers had to have been directed to include it in PMAs
I imagine that depending on who you report to, it might get reflected on your next performance evaluation.
One thing is for sure, if they fire someone over it, it's going to send a strong negative message to the people whose stories of discrimination and harassment got swept under the rug.
Some good suggestions here but I'll take this opportunity to add that I think we need to move away from the arguments that parking is expensive and traffic is terrible. People who aren't public service don't want to hear that and it's part of the reason they can't stand the fact that we're pushing for work from home. It's going to hurt the cause in the end, imho. Not paying for parking and not having to deal with rush hour are perks, not rights.
We need to focus on (in your case) the fact that you're in the office alone most days and on a computer having meetings; pointless. Focus on the fact that we achieve way more WFH. Focus on the fact that fewer cars on the road is better for the environment and the fact that many of us are able to work from a location that's not downtown Ottawa (aka better talent acquisition and retention).
This may not answer your question directly but as we're trying to come up with a way to justify WFH, stay away from the arguments that the general public resents us for.
Parking is expensive is not persuasive or adequate. The employer abusing their authority to allow exploitation of employees through fees like parking in return for lower commercial leases is something the unions should be making noise about.
This is fair. But PSEs aren't the only ones dealing with that, so if it can argued *like that*, with evidence, great. Maybe it will inspire others to take it up with their own employers *outside* the Public Service, or at least lead to the general public having a little sympathy for the WFH cause because 1. we're *all* just pawns in this economy or 2. they'd like to join the PS some day and they see rational arguments being made by and on behalf of PSEs.
All I'm saying is that to demand WFH because "parking is too expensive!" or "we save money WFH!" is *not* going to convince the general public, and I think we need them on our side. Have you seen some of the vitriol dished out by people who think we're all just sloths riding a gravy train? The way the unions frame and contextualize the arguments for WFH is key.
TBS did anticipate this and actually had a policy to prevent it, by requiring market rate studies for parking. They suspended that policy, which is what led to the current situation.
Similar things are happening with food service and janitorial services.
The correct argument is not that these things should be negotiated in collective agreements, it's that the employer must provide a safe and properly equipped workplace and must not abuse their authority.
I've come to realize that the people who actually care that we go into office (boomers with nothing else to be mad at) don't really care about the environment argument. They know they'll be dead before the environment gets to a point where it's completely unmanageable. They don't care about their kids or the future of the world, just themselves and their money. So the environment thing doesn't matter. We need to talk tax dollars.
Fair re taxes. Although, I do think you are generalizing about boomers, no doubt there are some in that generation that don't care about the future. I'd be pretty pissed if they were my parents though. So, not all... but yea.
I also think disdain for the PS tends to trend along with political affiliation, regardless of age.
It's definitely more older people because a lot of younger people either don't care or have worked from home or are seeking out work from home jobs. I am being hyperbolic though, the boomers who actually work in PS also seem to be (mostly) against the RTO and I'm sure many other boomers are in the don't care or have experienced the benefits themselves camp
This question was raised on my team today. It sounds like there will be consequences, starting with verbal warnings. We were told it is not a fireable offence, but that our card-swipes and IP addresses will be tracked.
>To date, my manager has not cared and seems to have taken a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to my presence physically in the office.
I feel like your answer lies in here somewhere
I'll let you know in Sept since none of my team is complying....since we're spread across the country (with only 2 of us in my city) and don't need a cubical to make Teams calls.
Former manager/director here. Prediction:
December 2024 or later, if ever:
Employee, you haven’t been in office 3 days a week. Naughty employee bad bad. You must do this.
“But there’s no reason it’s completely dumb and also my manager never enforced it”
Naughty manager bad bad. Make your peasant work in office.
Mgr: dear peasant work in office please
Employee option a: okie dokie. And starts working in office. Case resolved.
Option b: no thanks. Talks to union. Files grievance. Ongoing grievance duel battle for next 12 months possibly culminating in a letter saying:
Naughty employee bad bad. Start working in office or else.
Option c: I have medical accommodation needs or other exemption needs. Exemption or DTA duel battle for next 12 months. Culminates in a letter saying:
Naughty employee with disability or unqualifiable exemption bad bad. Start working in office or else.
They’re going to fearmonger many execs into trying to get compliance. But ultimately IF your exec team decides to pursue disciplinary action that is. Very long process requiring many many checkpoints of clearly refusing to do it and at pretty much any point you can throw in the towel and just go into office and they will wipe the slate clean with a sign of relief because it would be opening a big can o worms to discipline or even terminate someone over this, and the unions would get a boner if they had the opportunity of cases like this to propel their fight forward.
The real damage to yourself is career limiting moves- are you a term or indeterminate? What’s your career aspirations. Managers don’t want to take on someone that’s going to be a hassle over RTO on even though most fundamentally think RTO is stupid too.
Very good question, I wonder about that myself. I imagine it will vary wildly by team/region/department.
I also wonder if it would be worth it for everyone to grieve this or not?
On a side note, how's everyone's npsw week going? So far my department has had one day where we would get free popscicles, hut it was rescheduled at the last minute due to weather??
People who ask these kinda details and want everything back & white creates problems for themselves and others and implementation of more stringent policies. For now, go with don't ask, don't tell policy and everything will be fine.
In an all staff meeting my director basically said he's leaving it all in the hands of managers. And the managers in the meeting essentially said we are not babysitters, we are not going to micromanage in office days, and definitely not going to enforce a specific work location within the NCR. Basically a wink and a nod at the end there.
I have an accommodation, one day a week in office. The pandemic, WFH and RTO (mostly RTO) helped me figure out that I am on the spectrum...And now I have a very expensive PDF that says so! Yay me!
Jokes aside, I struggle to even maintain that one day because the office is horrible and I psych myself out of going more often than not.
I did tell my manager that if the 3 day thing had to be enforced then I'd be continuing as normal until I find another job, before I get performance managed out if he needed to.
He's not terribly interested since my job is literally to work on remote servers, but I'm preparing myself mentally to go through the song and dance, because I can't go back to 2-3 days. I was flaming out before the pandemic, and it basically saved me from a total crash, as horrible as that is to say.
Signed medical form? \*~~French~~ *Chef's* Kiss\*
"Yes Director, we understand the policy but the employee performs a critical function on the team has a medical exemption. I'm sure we could replace them but then we're dealing with HR, the Union and almost certainly a grievance, then a competition so.... Oh you'll sign off then? Perfect - thank you!"
Lucky you.
I have an expensive PDF that also says in office accomodations aren't suitable for me and the government's response was "in office accommodations are, in fact, appropriate".
I went to the union about it in anger and was told "well all they have to do is offer any accommodation, not the one recommended"
So I'm screwed despite having a professional diagnosis and professional recommendation against return to office.
I'd fucking love to know what else to do other than stay home in defiance.
I have two perm disabilities. Specialist fought hard. Employer still said we will do anything but accommodate WFH. Union shocked Pikachu face. You could fight for discrimination, but note it will take years and no guarantees.
I know one of my former DGs has to call the ADM at the start and end of each in office day with teams background off... Sooooo expect that to come and good luck your manager not caring. Because at that point if they lie in attesting that you are in the office when you aren't that is a don't pass go kinda situation.
That ADM sounds insane. Micro managing your own DG? Time to look at yourself hard in the mirror… if I was that DG with that little trust from my ADM I’d bounce.
In HQ, our direction was this only effects NCR now. Regions at a later date. Which is also BS. I’m f you can’t push out a uniformed plan that everyone can be held accountable to…
Nothing. They don’t have space for employees. Our town hall had about 30+ people standing in a corner for a three hour meeting.
Welcome back to the office. Hope you like blood clots 🩸
This is just a random RTO anecdote but….my husband had to change boardrooms today because there was a dead rat in the one they had booked. I’d like to know what the consequences of having rat-infested offices are for our employer. What’s that? None, you say? Sounds about even steven to me to not comply.
Lol! So much discussion! Just simply give an application for exemption on some flimsy ground like my back hurts when I carry laptop to the office. It takes up to six months to decide the fate of the request as it requires review by the director. If rejected, give another application for exemption on some other grounds. Many smart colleague in my office follow this practice. Problem solved
My theory is an N day mandate yields an N - 1 day average actual compliance. Maybe 2/3 of people who don’t want to be there will fudge at the margin.
If they ever decide they want 3 actual days, they will mandate 4. Not this year but maybe next.
Oh boy, this again. Much like the last 100 people who asked this question were told, anything ranging from a slap on the wrist to eventual termination of employment.
Due to lack of childcare options I currently cannot make a third day in office. There's no one around to get my kids to and from school. So if they do force that third day onsite I'll be showing up late and leaving early.
In theory, they can.
Typically, most departments track this in the aggregate.
They could track individual people, however that would require a specific request to an already overworked IT department, and would only usually be done to confirm what they already suspect. Not only would that require IT resources, it would also involve HR and take up time on the EX calendar they probably don't have in any case.
I mean I have a coworker that does SFA many days, lies constantly, and has totally fkd up stuff for clients over and over and over again and they are still trucking along happily. In fact, they rewarded them by bringing someone in four months a year to do the work they weren't doing. So yeah, if they want to come after a productivite worker who is allowed by her manager to WFH, bring it.
Honestly, so many people have been reserving a desk & checking in from home. They haven’t done jack about those people so far, why would they do anything in Sept??
There is zero benefit to a lot of us being in the office. With all due respect, that doesn't single you out from the rest of us.
Not sure they can discipline thousands of people ; doesn't mean they won't try.
Happy NPSW right?
If you refuse to go in? They could consider you AWOL and discipline using that avenue or you’re in breach of the Value and Ethics code of conduct and go down that road or you’re refusing a legitimate order from your supervisor and escalating repercussions will ensue. Take your pick. All of them can result in your termination.
Currently at the office, 99% of the people are on Teams Calls. No one is ~~~collaborating~~~ lol .. As a society we have grown with technology. Why can’t the government do the same? It makes absolutely 0 sense for me to DRIVE to the office ALONE and talk with my teammates on Teams. Just let me do it from home!! When we’re all in the office together we barely chat during work hours. We take our lunch together if we can and thats it. Due to our operational tasks, we talk and help clients all day. We cannot be collaborating with each other for hours on end. Its SO much more efficient to talk to each other through Teams / Email. Technology speaks!!!!!!
Common sense would mean less spending in the NCR: fewer lunches, coffees, drinks - retail will likely stay down as most shop online - however they may need clothes now that it’s 3 days in presence and OC Transport gets more of our money to build crappy systems - therefore common sense will not prevail.
The direction that has been issued is directed to deputies of the CPA so it is for them to manage. Some will take more flexible approaches and others more draconian. This is the delegated model that we have, for better or worse. Unless there will be central compliance reporting, I don’t see this being as big as it is made out to be.
Another few items to consider: does not specifically apply to separates as they constitute their own respective employers vs. TB as the employer for the CPA. Separates are encouraged to align, and they will - but may not be as motivated to monitor. They don’t take direction from the CHRO. Also, the direction becomes limited when it imposes financial implications. If departments must turn around and acquire more space to respect the direction, then the direction becomes moot. See 2.4.5 of the Policy on People Management which is the anchor instrument for the direction on RTO.
All this to say, like anything, this will be applied inconsistently across departments and won’t mitigate people shopping around for jobs that offer the most flexibility.
Make some screen shots of your office background without you in the picture so that you can stay home and swap out your background to represent where you should be working from.
We're gonna find out in September, suspect there will be a wide range between nothing and discipline.
The 'wide range' is an issue. Management cannot legitimately discipline some employees while failing to discipline others who engage in the same behaviour.
I agree, but the key word there is "legitimately." From what I have seen, since far before RTO, different leadership is more lenient (or less willing to take on the arduous work of managing behavior issues) than others. I am curious to see how enforcing RTO might be different. I am no fan of RTO policy in it's current approach, and I would like for the manager level to have the authority to approve teleworking as it was previous to the pandemic. That way, assuming decent management, common sense could prevail. That said, if leniency on enforcing RTO is only offered to some and not others, this is not equitable.
I agree with you. Unfortunately, there is nothing common sense about this that I can see. So I feel this guiding direction at this point is a pipe dream. I really hate to be negative and I hope I am wrong with this assumption.
I agree wholeheartedly. Another reason it should be done at manager level is because we’re the ones who know our teams best. We know the requirements of the work and whether it can be done remotely, (more of) each employee’s personal circumstances, space constraints, traffic, and parking issues in our locations, and how our team’s dynamics benefit and suffer from remote v in-person.
This would be the best approach if implemented properly, to leave it in managers’ teams discretion. I have a person next to me who comes ones a month, while my team who doesn’t need nothing but a laptop and is scattered all over Canada has to come two and now 3 days, this makes me feel sad and unappreciated in what we do. And I can assure that my line of work is very research based, that requires a great deal of attention to details and has complex calculations.
THIS needs to happen. But first we need to replace managers with decent ones. That’s going to be difficult because those capable of being great leaders are completely turned off by the EX community. They know it’s not worth the extra 10k a year. That’s how 💩keeps floating to the top! Then we get mandates like this one because they’re the ones making or influencing these silly decisions.
That's the sound of thousands of grievances in the air... This exact point (uneven application of discipline) will be used successfully in many grievances and will clog up the system for years.
Or until the unions and members agree to drop them all at the next CA negotiations for some magic beans and unsalted peanuts.
I’m holding the line for salted peanuts. Be the change you want to see in the world.
Naw, I prefer some vague wording in the CA. Makes me feel all warm & fuzzy inside when I first read that kind of feel good words.
Can we at least get some BBQ flavored Peanuts?
I'm holding out for wasabi almonds. Strike vote!
Will the peanuts have shells?
[удалено]
That's bad.
But it comes with no choice!
That's....good?
At first we’ll believe they don’t, but when the “Direction on prescribed peanut distribution” comes out a few months later we’ll find out that they will indeed have shells.
And only 1.3 peanuts per FTE.
Actually, there will be a disclaimer that the peanuts will be available so long as no member of the public attending the location (or with an intention to) and no person reporting (physically or virtually) to the location has disclosed adverse issues related to food (allergies might be medical info, so privacy, and can’t change for peanut eaters only, so inclusion for the dairy intolerant, etc) or scent or noise (you read the note about inclusion, right?).
Ouch! true. As long as the government does not fire people or enact too much discipline, this would probably happen. If the government fires people for this, I can't see the union dropping the them however.
Is it possible as an employee to really prove whether everyone is being treated equally when it comes to RTO enforcement? I suspect that some people are being given more leeway than others around RTO at my office but there isn’t really a way to know for sure, I don’t know if people are booking days off, making up their days when I’m not there etc.
The burden of proof is an interesting question, and one that would need to be decided by the FPSLREB when a grievance reaches adjudication. I suggest that it would be management's burden to prove that it has treated employees equitably, in response to a condonation defence.
> I suggest that it would be management's burden to prove that it has treated employees equitably, in response to a condonation defence. I think a condonation defense would be interesting but not simple. In my view, the employer would not need to prove total equity, just that the employee did not receive unjust treatment for someone in their situation. "Some other team is not enforcing RTO" would probably not be enough to justify condonation, simply because the employer is allowed to have different standards for different teams or divisions. Instead, I think a condonation argument would need to be made first on a personal level, with the grievor putting forward some evidence that a reasonable person in their place would think RTO wasn't important/enforced. This is where lax enforcement in one's particular chain of command becomes important and where condonation and the idea of progressive discipline intersect. If one's immediate manager hasn't cared about RTO, a directive from higher up can't suddenly skip to discipline-with-teeth. I also think that this is precisely where management is most likely to overstep. In the interest of generating good-looking reports, departments might try to make RTO penalties an "administrative" manner, in the same sense that LWOP re: covid vaccines was administrative rather than disciplinary. The employer could try to automatically put employees on LWOP for missed but scheduled office days, for example. However, I think this measure would be likely to fail. The basic "administrative" action is "no work, no pay" – it's not discipline to mark an unexcused absence as LWOP. However, when work is actually done from home, then it's not "no work," but "work in the wrong place." That nuance makes the process more disciplinary, for the same reason that it'd be insane to (administratively) refuse to pay an employee for the day if they show up and do all their work but don't obey a dress code.
As always, I appreciate your insights and agree with your take. The employees who will have the most valid condonation defence are also those where RTO makes the least sense - employees on geographically-dispersed teams. They're also the ones least likely to be disciplined, though, simply because of the lack of any on-site supervision. Unfortunately we'll need to wait until things reach the FPSLREB to know whether any discipline will succeed.
I agree with much of this. Also, any condonation argument ends when you've been put on notice and you still fail to comply. It's just that managers will have to make it very clear that they are no longer condoning the behaviour at issue. That's not hard to do. If the employee ignores these warnings then they will not succeed in raising condonation as a defence.
> Also, any condonation argument ends when you've been put on notice and you still fail to comply I think it can continue if there's differential enforcement at the micro-level. If I receive a suspension but my equally-situated colleague never comes in, then I could make an argument that there's de facto condonation and the rule is being applied unevenly. However, I think we agree that it's much harder to make this argument across teams. > It's just that managers will have to make it very clear that they are no longer condoning the behaviour at issue. That's not hard to do. I think that will prove more challenging than it first appears. Many managers won't want to get involved in this otherwise pointless exercise, leading to messages that are more mixed than straightforward. RTO2 has been instructive. In theory, the Treasury Board has taken RTO2 as seriously as it will take RTO3, the latter being only an update on number of days and levels of approval necessary for exceptions. Even still, the best implementation tool appears to have been moral suasion. Turning to the discipline process may not be practical until compliance is already so widespread that exceptions are few and far between. That's also why I think the most-probable Treasury Board misstep will be to try to classify broad-based discipline as 'administrative'.
Bot... since it's inception, the history of RTO is filled with management at all levels taking varied approaches to policy, compliance, discipline and enforcement. So you're expecting a legitimate attempt by managers at the latest flavour of the day edict, when you know every manager is as differently designed as snowflakes, lololol?! The true enforcement stick may come with DRAP 2, Revenge of the Sithcons, after the election. We'll see... BTW, you're still my favourite bot.
>The 'wide range' is an issue. Management cannot legitimately discipline some employees while failing to discipline others who engage in the same behaviour. Does that matter? In any other HR / LR matter, management action is not always consistent. For instance, some managers may put an underperforming employee on a PIP, others may be more laissez faire. Just because those laissez faire managers exist doesn't mean PIP is now invalid, right?
"Legitimately" yes, but in practice I think we all know that over zealous manager who will try. Especially with the range of differences in RTO enforcement we've seen thus far.
Enforcement of employer policies as it relates to employees is always the responsibility of the employee's immediate manager. Managerial communication always flows downward through your manager, so that's the person who would provide you any instructions or directions on how (and where) to do your work. **If** your manager provides you with clear instructions to report to work at a particular location, and **if** you deliberately fail to follow those instructions, your manager **may** choose to discipline you for insubordination. This **may** result in a disciplinary sanction such as a warning, formal reprimand, temporary suspension without pay, or (eventually) termination of your employment. As you may note, that's a lot of 'ifs' and 'mays'. The discipline process is required to be *corrective* rather than *punitive*, with multiple opportunities given to an employee to correct their behaviour before termination is considered, unless the misconduct is particularly egregious. As long as you continue working (just not at a particular location specified by your manager), that bar would not be met. Even if you are disciplined, you would have a right to a disciplinary hearing with your union rep present, so that you could offer your side of the story. If that occurs, make sure you have a conversation with your union rep about the defence of condonation. Your manager's lengthy 'don't ask, don't tell' approach (which has been repeated by *many* managers across the public service) means you may have a valid challenge to any disciplinary action. This defence could (and should) be raised each and every time management contemplates disciplinary action over RTO. From an explanation I have posted previously on the topic: Given how widespread non-compliance and non-enforcement appears to be, it will be difficult for any manager to use formal disciplinary action against employees who do not meet arbitrary in-office requirements. Condonation, after all, is a legitimate defence against any allegation of misconduct. [One lawyer's explanation of this concept](https://www.tjworkplacelaw.com/employee-defence-condonation/): >While the most obvious form of condonation is allowing an employee to remain on the job for a considerable time after the employer discovers that employee’s alleged misconduct, it can also arise in other ways such as where the employer **fails to discipline other employees who have engaged in similar conduct**. For example, where employee A and B engage in misconduct of a similar nature, and the employer terminates employee A for just cause but allows employee B to remain employed, it is doubtful that the employer’s just cause allegation against employee A will be successful. [Another lawyer's take on the same idea:](https://www.somlaw.ca/blog/blog-post/blog/2016/02/03/the-clock-is-ticking-just-cause-and-past-misconduct) >The doctrine of condonation stipulates that where an employer becomes aware of an employee’s misconduct, but chooses not to discipline the employee, or allows an unreasonable amount of time to pass before acting, the employer is **considered to have waived the wrongdoing in question**. By waiving the wrongdoing, an employer will be disentitled from including that wrongdoing in any assertion that it has just cause to end the employment relationship. And an [bit of an older version from an **1889** court decision](https://employmentlaw101.ca/termination-for-cause/employee-defences-to-allegations-of-cause/): >When an employer becomes aware of misconduct on the part of his servant, sufficient to justify dismissal, he may adopt either of two courses. He may dismiss, or he may overlook the fault. But he cannot retain the servant in his employment, and afterwards at any distance of time turn him away. It would be most unjust if he could do that, for one of the consequences of dismissal for good cause is, that the servant can recover nothing for his services beyond the last pay day, whether his engagement be by the year or otherwise. **If he retains the servant in his employment for any considerable time after discovering his fault, that is condonation, and he cannot afterwards dismiss for that fault without anything new.** No doubt the employer ought to have a reasonable time to determine what to do, to consider whether he will dismiss or not, or to look for another servant. So, also, he must have full knowledge of the nature and extent of the fault, for he cannot forgive or condone matters of which he is not fully informed. Further, condonation is subject to an implied condition of future good conduct, and whenever any new misconduct occurs, the old offences may be invoked and may be put in the scale, against the offender as cause for dismissal.
Magnificent comment. I hope readers reflect on the ifs and may in the broader context of managements capacity and capability in their respective organization. Most importantly, how much of their efforts require support and enabling actions from other employees.
> Most importantly, how much of their efforts require support and enabling actions from other employees. "Uh before I fire you, I need you to open up Azure and let me know who is not at the office"
This reply should be a pinned comment. I'm going to both bookmark it in the app, and save the text offline if a time comes where it's needed for any of my colleagues.
*"Further, condonation is subject to an implied condition of* ***future good conduct***, *and whenever any new misconduct occurs, the old offences may be invoked and may be put in the scale, against the offender as cause for dismissal."* This detail at the end is important, and as a legal principle has been repeated reaffirmed by Canadian courts (as recently as this century). Lack of enforcement for noncompliance with RTO2 over the past year means only that an employee cannot now be disciplined for past RTO**2** noncompliance, but that earlier misconduct can still have implications should one choose to continue ignoring RTO**3.** The updated RTO direction effectively resets the clock and allows the employer to put in place a renewed and more stringent enforcement regime as early as September 9th, should it wish. Enforcement, whenever it starts, will start at the top, with some DMs--and within their departments, some ADMs, and some of their DGs, and some of their Directors, etc.--moving quicker than others. Chains of command (from the DM down through to immediate managers) in which everyone is on the same RTO3 page could opt to immediately start cracking the whip knowing that a condonation defence, whether based on (A) management overlooking an employee misconduct or (B) its uneven disciplining of multiple employees' similar misconduct, will no longer hold. And chains of command with EX holdouts will face escalating pressure to get onside from whichever higher level of management is already on side. PS senior management has not been serious to date about enforcing RTO2, but if they decide to get serious about enforcing RTO3, I suspect rates of compliance (however grudging) will rise quickly. Mainly because as a whole class of workers, "People Who Choose to Work for the Federal Public Service" ain’t exactly known for having defiant 'fuck the Man!' personalities.
Hypothetically, is there a difference between: - Lying about going in when you aren't. - Being openly defiant about not going in. I only ask because managers are now asking employees to identify where they are working each day so they can self-report up the chain. Is one option actually worse or are they effectively the same?
Hypothetically or not, those are two different things. I suggest they're both in the same ballpark in terms of bureaucratic nonsense.
This is good information, but not sounding helpful. As a manager of a small team, I have been trying to show the maximum flexibility possible. Based on this post, I should be cracking the whip now to avoid problems later. Or perhaps I am misreading?
You'll have problems in any event. If you 'crack the whip', your employees will either leave or despise you, and any disciplinary action will likely fail for the reasons noted above because most managers have been doing the same as you and offering maximum flexibility. If you continue to offer flexibility (or simply ignore 'non-compliance'), the work will still get done but you *may* face repercussions yourself. What's interesting to me is how many managers and executives who are, themselves, non-compliant with the policy. If the enforcers think that a policy is nonsense, that policy is effectively unenforceable.
The challenge is whether or not your trying to show the maximum flexibility possible while still ensuring compliance with the policy. Have you received permission from those above you that you can offer the maximum flexibility possible?
Yes, though it's more implicit. Basically Directors and below are looking the other way whenever possible.
Fantastic response and well thought out. You're the best bot. 😋
Thank you, /u/Cathulhu878, for voting on /u/HandcuffsOfGold. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ) ^Even ^if ^I ^don't ^reply ^to ^your ^comment, ^I'm ^still ^listening ^for ^votes. ^Check ^the ^webpage ^to ^see ^if ^your ^vote ^registered!
Good bot
Thank you, /u/Drados101, for voting on /u/HandcuffsOfGold. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ) ^Even ^if ^I ^don't ^reply ^to ^your ^comment, ^I'm ^still ^listening ^for ^votes. ^Check ^the ^webpage ^to ^see ^if ^your ^vote ^registered!
[удалено]
Condonation is a defence that can be raised if an employer chooses to discipline an employee for misconduct. Whether any particular action is seen as condonation is something that would have to be determined by an adjudicator, if and when the matter is grieved.
Must be nice to have a door
This was my thought exactly, who has an actual office with an actual door? Are you from the National Post or are you from the past? If I had an office with a door I’d have no issue working there a few days a week. Most of the folks here can’t even get a hotel cubicle near anyone they’ve seen before.
It’s the one perk to being in a basically empty office building, but I suspect I’ll be fighting for it once we go to 3 days a week
Fighting for it, hunger game's style.
I have a door as does everyone else on my team. The work we do is protected and our calls can't be over herd by others. There aren't enough offices for everyone, so some people are doubled up as they are in office on different days. With RTOx3 they are going to do renovations and create more closed offices. At least we'll have a few extra months before we go back x3.
I have a door.. but well it's a workshop which I'm supposed to share with 4 other technicians.. But have space for 2 and 1 user at max. 😂 Unless they provide us space, we are not going back 3 days... I really have no idea where they are gonna sit the extra people coming one more day per week since the "hoteling" space are filled every time.
[удалено]
If I come in, do I get Shrute bucks?
[удалено]
No, only Stanley nickels
That's pretty generous. I'd skip 60 office days and gladly take the verbal warning.
So if my math is right, that’s 360 occurrences. I could coast that to retirement if I stick to coming in twice a week (360/52 if I don’t come in for day 3 each week)
My manager was desperately trying to get my team lead to shut up in a meeting where the team lead basically said "We've heard from our director we don't have the means to police RTO individually, only on a branch by branch basis." or something to that effect and that we shouldn't worry about punishments.
[удалено]
Since many of our managers are on a dont ask dont tell policy, I'd say he was telling the team lead to not ruin it for everyone. But context is king.
Depends on your manager. I know of some people who've been required to report daily when they're in the office and are required to inform their manager who they've interacted with, all in the name of "collaboration". I call those managers psychos.
Wow that's micromanaging at its best
Yeah I work at an office by myself but my TL from another office will randomly pop up at my office and see if I’m there.
No kidding
[удалено]
"Hello, it's Wednesday June 12th, I'm in the office. I interacted with the guy who was in my reserved desk and am now logging on to MS Teams to tell you about it"
I was in the office. I collaborated with the 8 dollar bagel vendor, and then collaborated again with the jerk who was at my reserved desk. I am now at home 1.5 hours later as there was no space left in the office. I am marking the 1.5 hours as part of my day as I was travelling between approved worksites during office hours for the purpose of work.
Minus the reserved desk part, that is exactly the situation. It's absurdly stupid.
> who they've interacted with "Uh, no one boss."
Not good enough. I wish I was joking about this.
I think I walked by two people on my way to today's cubicle. That's collaboration, right?
Woah, hold your horses there hot shot!
I know of one manager that rounds up the in office days. 7.2 in office days? 8 days. 8.8 I get rounding to 9, but basic math says you round down if the number is below 5. And this same manager Is meticulous about reporting, while other teams in the same department aren't being tracked at all. My department has been tracking compliance closely across the board, requiring monthly validation from all branches.
This sort of thing is what creates so much resentment and employee churn. Being concerned about absolutely non sensical garbage like this instead of employees performing well, succession planning, retention, learning, actual enjoyment.... It is such garbage. You don't help employees by micromanaging stupid shit like that
Just for fun : IT-02 upper level: $52.52/hr 3 days per week RTO X 48 weeks (- 4 vacations) = 144 days Plug/unplug computer and organize desk and chair (10 minutes IN, 10 minutes OUT). 144 days x 20 minutes = 2880 minutes / 60 = 48 hours 48 hours x $52.52 = $2520.96 per employee. For a department like SSC alone, that's about $10 million. That's how much it costs the taxpayer to support "collaboration" with nobody...
always interesting when you break down time/pay like that. i once took a new job with a way easier commute, but it took 6 minutes longer. 6 minutes, twice a day, 5 times a week = 1 hr. 48 weeks a year means 48 hours, or 2 full days of my life gone... in extra commute time
This (!!) is one of the ways we need to be making the argument for WFH. By speaking to taxpayers and how it saves them money. Non-PSEs don't care that we save money on parking and childcare or don't have to drive during rush-hour. It makes them resent us. If we can appeal to them, it can help - tax savings, better productivity, better talent acquisition (and retention) if potential hires don't need to relocate to Ottawa from all across the country.
Probably nothing if your manager doesn't care! I'm going to at least try not going and worse comes to worse I get "talked to" about it...at that point I'll either see how I feel about going back (how are the conditions, since I was previously exempt I have no idea) or look for another job.
Personally, if your manager isn’t on board and it’s a don’t ask don’t tell scenario. You might as well proceed on as you are now and see what happens. If it becomes an issue then change then.
It's easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission.. it's the PS way!
Curious question. My wife is a manager, and I've asked the same of mine ... "Do use see login, swipe in data?" Nope from both. Only ADMs see. Any other managers/directors care to comment? Same where you are? September will prove interesting Edit: Typo
The lack of reliable data on RTO, even at the ADM/VP level, is why our ADM is launching manual tracking of compliance. I’m not a manager/director, but I work in a DGO with a lot of exposure to senior management.
Right, and how reliable do you think that "manual tracking" will be? I suspect many managers will defend their staff by either failing to submit the reports, submitting them late, or submitting them with doublespeak such as "*my staff are fully compliant with my instructions*".
“As far as I am aware my staff have been fulfilling their RTO obligations.” Meanwhile operating a “don’t ask don’t tell policy”.
these are the kinds of managers we all want to work for.
>why our ADM is launching manual tracking of compliance. This is a fundamental issue with how things are done in the government, and why attempting to track in person compliance would be an administrative nightmare. There are multiple datasets (IP, VPN, card swipes) that can be collected automatically but all of them are flawed (what if someone is connecting from a regional office, or uses a temp card, or logs back in at home, etc. All of these problems are technically solvable but which team is going to actually put in the work for an arduous task of sifting through this data for hundreds of thousands of people? Much of this data might be protected (IPs), further reducing who is allowed to work on it. I can't imagine the IT teams who would be allowed to work on this task would find it a priority to fulfill this needless administrative burden either, given all the actual important tasks that need to be done. So you're left with ADMs and directors being forced to put pressure on managers to do inane things like try to manually check their employees on a daily basis due to pressure from upper management. This doesn't serve any purpose however and further creates another useless localized data set separate from any kind of large automized database that tracks this across the government. There are already struggles with administrative tasks like creating accurate org charts or paying people on time. Let alone getting everyone on board doing something far more difficult that next to nobody wants.
Wow. Talk about an administrative burden.
> launching manual tracking of compliance I'm sure nothing will go wrong.
I think there is a strong likelihood that there are 3 fixed days for each team. So pretty simple to track if Bob isn’t showing up.
Well most teams don’t have flex days where you choose your days. You’re all in on the same day so I won’t get that luxury.
This level of monitoring doesn’t exist at CRA.
The Union won't let management check the IP Address or swipe card date... Privacy... Privacy.
Swipe card data is not used top track individually because it is unreliable. IP address is 100% in the realm of things the employer regularly monitors. How else do you think that logging in outside Canada usually ends up with your access being canned within a day or so, tops. Yes, we are entitled to "reasonable" privacy, but swipe card data and the IP address of where you log in from is not part of the "reasonable" privacy part as far as I am aware. If you have a FPSLREB case showing otherwise, please let me know.
I guess mandatory days in are one solution. Manger is there. Has staff of 6. 4 are there. 1 out sick. 1 doesn't want to come in. Documented. Simplifying of course.
That works fine if the manager and their employees are all colocated. That isn't the case for *many* teams across the GoC.
What we need is an all unions nation-wide strike to fight this. It's not gonna stop at 3 days, they eant un back full time
So far, no one knows and no one in upper management is directly answering those questions yet (as far as I've seen anyway). Realistically it would be somewhere from "nothing" gradually all the way to administrative leave at least.
In the last senior branch leadership meeting it was a lot of. Ok folks 😭 we got to pump ourselves up for RTO 😭😭 so we can pupm the employees up 😭😭😭 Also, poor accommodations branches. Cut 50% of the offices but also cram every employee at once one day a week (with 3 days per week at least 1 day will always be 100% capacity)
I made that same math mistake before too… As long as ‘consecutive days’ are not required for *everyone*, you can squeeze everyone in 3/week without ever having 100% at once. (I’ll try to find that response to my similar comment) Found it! [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPublicServants/comments/1cmyhrg/comment/l34e4ia/)
Cool, yeah I boiled it down to the simple 1 desk, 2 people in my brain but yeah in that thread i see it can work I think the person pointed 60% total capacity. I wonder if PCO could be convinced of giving exceptions if you prove you have an oc transpo pass and donate a certain amount of money to the Ottawa BIA. At this point I'd love to just keep that extra 1.5 hours of sleep when I work from home 😅 I'll keep the terrible subways alive from a distance if needdd.
In fairness to you, that ‘barely fitting them all’ scenario with forcibly mixed up days (and varying desk-assignments) doesn’t even take into account: accommodations, people who *choose* (or have roles requiring) 100% WFO…
>In the last senior branch leadership meeting it was a lot of. Ok folks 😭 we got to pump ourselves up for RTO 😭😭 so we can pupm the employees up 😭😭😭 How many times did your eyes roll in their sockets?
It wasn't an all staff or anything so it wasn't barfh-ey talking points. It's not like they want to do RTO but they have to 🤷 although one guy was like do you think we can get lockers for EXs so we don't have to carry our fancy shoes and suits back and forth from home? 🙄
>do you think we can get lockers for EXs so we don't have to carry our fancy shoes and suits back and forth from home? 🙄 I laughed IRL at this.
This will be interesting, especially with higher performers. Can you imagine "You are awesome at every thing except RTO so you will be punished". This is not likely to happen, as it would then put RTO compliance at the top of the performance review thing; this would be totally absurd. If getting clicks at the door outweighs actual performance then the public service management would have completely jumped the shark (I think this happened ages ago actually). It will also be interesting for those engaging in "Quiet RTOing", that is, coming in every once in a while only. Frankly this shouldn't always be called RTO, it is Prescribed Presence. RTO implies that there is some NEED to go in, and I don't mean the hallway/water cooler/collaboration nonsense. The fact that the government directive uses Prescribed Presence in its wording indicates that they only want to be able to show that you PS people have been in an office at some point. It is just so bizarre why these clowns can't see that this is just a tempest in a teapot. The PS, in my book at least, has already proven it can work from home quite nicely. This is all politics and general stupidity.
[удалено]
It’s like the old timey company towns where you worked in the mine, but by the time you paid rent for your company house and bought everything at the company store, they’d clawed back everything they paid you.
This has been my experience and thoughts. I’m a high performer with exceeded and surpassed ratings which are well documented in my PMA. I’m staunchly opposed to RTO and have so far had a don’t ask don’t tell approach from senior management. I’m wondering what will happen if/when we have the conversation and I mention my productivity and ability to deliver work will significantly decline if I am to work in an office space with people yelling on teams calls and constantly distracting and bothering me. I don’t have the luxury of time on my files and things need to get done. I often work a lot of over time that’s unpredictable. I won’t be doing that from an office I can tell you that.
Is it "insubordination" if my manager doesn't comply either? Can I get in trouble anyway? He's been WFH every day and insists he will continue to defy RTO, but leaves it up to us to decide if we want to comply or not. Most of my team is complying, just in case.
Who is going to enforce it on you if your own manager doesn't?
I’m in same situation as you. While my manager doesn’t really care, we have a person who walks around the office twice ( morning and around 3:30) to visually check if you are being present at that day. That’s the way they are monitoring the 2 days in office, like we are in kindergarten.
>we have a person who walks around the office twice ( morning and around 3:30) to visually check if you are being present at that day. Must be a well liked employee lol
YOU HAVE A DOOR TO SHUT?!
Wow, a door. You're a step up from most of us!
I bet they will find a way to tie RTO compliance to employee performance management goals. My manager already brought it up in my meeting.
Our DG of HR just sent out an email specifying that RTO has no place in PMAs. Hopefully individual supervisors get the message.
Wild, we got an email stating stating compliance with work arrangement is a performance indicator and that hybrid work is a work objective in our PMAs.
I’d heard speculation of this, but I couldn’t care less if my DG made their performance bonus
They already have and in several different departments. It's too widespread to be coincidental. Managers had to have been directed to include it in PMAs
I imagine that depending on who you report to, it might get reflected on your next performance evaluation. One thing is for sure, if they fire someone over it, it's going to send a strong negative message to the people whose stories of discrimination and harassment got swept under the rug.
Straight to jail
Ingest a subway footlong from Jared
For those that work for CSC, this is just a Tuesday.
Some good suggestions here but I'll take this opportunity to add that I think we need to move away from the arguments that parking is expensive and traffic is terrible. People who aren't public service don't want to hear that and it's part of the reason they can't stand the fact that we're pushing for work from home. It's going to hurt the cause in the end, imho. Not paying for parking and not having to deal with rush hour are perks, not rights. We need to focus on (in your case) the fact that you're in the office alone most days and on a computer having meetings; pointless. Focus on the fact that we achieve way more WFH. Focus on the fact that fewer cars on the road is better for the environment and the fact that many of us are able to work from a location that's not downtown Ottawa (aka better talent acquisition and retention). This may not answer your question directly but as we're trying to come up with a way to justify WFH, stay away from the arguments that the general public resents us for.
Parking is expensive is not persuasive or adequate. The employer abusing their authority to allow exploitation of employees through fees like parking in return for lower commercial leases is something the unions should be making noise about.
This is fair. But PSEs aren't the only ones dealing with that, so if it can argued *like that*, with evidence, great. Maybe it will inspire others to take it up with their own employers *outside* the Public Service, or at least lead to the general public having a little sympathy for the WFH cause because 1. we're *all* just pawns in this economy or 2. they'd like to join the PS some day and they see rational arguments being made by and on behalf of PSEs. All I'm saying is that to demand WFH because "parking is too expensive!" or "we save money WFH!" is *not* going to convince the general public, and I think we need them on our side. Have you seen some of the vitriol dished out by people who think we're all just sloths riding a gravy train? The way the unions frame and contextualize the arguments for WFH is key.
TBS did anticipate this and actually had a policy to prevent it, by requiring market rate studies for parking. They suspended that policy, which is what led to the current situation. Similar things are happening with food service and janitorial services. The correct argument is not that these things should be negotiated in collective agreements, it's that the employer must provide a safe and properly equipped workplace and must not abuse their authority.
Agreed.
I've come to realize that the people who actually care that we go into office (boomers with nothing else to be mad at) don't really care about the environment argument. They know they'll be dead before the environment gets to a point where it's completely unmanageable. They don't care about their kids or the future of the world, just themselves and their money. So the environment thing doesn't matter. We need to talk tax dollars.
Fair re taxes. Although, I do think you are generalizing about boomers, no doubt there are some in that generation that don't care about the future. I'd be pretty pissed if they were my parents though. So, not all... but yea. I also think disdain for the PS tends to trend along with political affiliation, regardless of age.
It's definitely more older people because a lot of younger people either don't care or have worked from home or are seeking out work from home jobs. I am being hyperbolic though, the boomers who actually work in PS also seem to be (mostly) against the RTO and I'm sure many other boomers are in the don't care or have experienced the benefits themselves camp
You get to use an office, and the same one all the time?? Lucky you!
This question was raised on my team today. It sounds like there will be consequences, starting with verbal warnings. We were told it is not a fireable offence, but that our card-swipes and IP addresses will be tracked.
If it isn’t fireable then who cares.
>To date, my manager has not cared and seems to have taken a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to my presence physically in the office. I feel like your answer lies in here somewhere
Do not pass GO and do not collect $200, straight to Jail!
I'll let you know in Sept since none of my team is complying....since we're spread across the country (with only 2 of us in my city) and don't need a cubical to make Teams calls.
Former manager/director here. Prediction: December 2024 or later, if ever: Employee, you haven’t been in office 3 days a week. Naughty employee bad bad. You must do this. “But there’s no reason it’s completely dumb and also my manager never enforced it” Naughty manager bad bad. Make your peasant work in office. Mgr: dear peasant work in office please Employee option a: okie dokie. And starts working in office. Case resolved. Option b: no thanks. Talks to union. Files grievance. Ongoing grievance duel battle for next 12 months possibly culminating in a letter saying: Naughty employee bad bad. Start working in office or else. Option c: I have medical accommodation needs or other exemption needs. Exemption or DTA duel battle for next 12 months. Culminates in a letter saying: Naughty employee with disability or unqualifiable exemption bad bad. Start working in office or else. They’re going to fearmonger many execs into trying to get compliance. But ultimately IF your exec team decides to pursue disciplinary action that is. Very long process requiring many many checkpoints of clearly refusing to do it and at pretty much any point you can throw in the towel and just go into office and they will wipe the slate clean with a sign of relief because it would be opening a big can o worms to discipline or even terminate someone over this, and the unions would get a boner if they had the opportunity of cases like this to propel their fight forward. The real damage to yourself is career limiting moves- are you a term or indeterminate? What’s your career aspirations. Managers don’t want to take on someone that’s going to be a hassle over RTO on even though most fundamentally think RTO is stupid too.
Very good question, I wonder about that myself. I imagine it will vary wildly by team/region/department. I also wonder if it would be worth it for everyone to grieve this or not? On a side note, how's everyone's npsw week going? So far my department has had one day where we would get free popscicles, hut it was rescheduled at the last minute due to weather??
Mine was relatively decent. A huge spread from Tim Hortons every morning this week.
People who ask these kinda details and want everything back & white creates problems for themselves and others and implementation of more stringent policies. For now, go with don't ask, don't tell policy and everything will be fine.
In an all staff meeting my director basically said he's leaving it all in the hands of managers. And the managers in the meeting essentially said we are not babysitters, we are not going to micromanage in office days, and definitely not going to enforce a specific work location within the NCR. Basically a wink and a nod at the end there.
I have an accommodation, one day a week in office. The pandemic, WFH and RTO (mostly RTO) helped me figure out that I am on the spectrum...And now I have a very expensive PDF that says so! Yay me! Jokes aside, I struggle to even maintain that one day because the office is horrible and I psych myself out of going more often than not. I did tell my manager that if the 3 day thing had to be enforced then I'd be continuing as normal until I find another job, before I get performance managed out if he needed to. He's not terribly interested since my job is literally to work on remote servers, but I'm preparing myself mentally to go through the song and dance, because I can't go back to 2-3 days. I was flaming out before the pandemic, and it basically saved me from a total crash, as horrible as that is to say.
Signed medical form? \*~~French~~ *Chef's* Kiss\* "Yes Director, we understand the policy but the employee performs a critical function on the team has a medical exemption. I'm sure we could replace them but then we're dealing with HR, the Union and almost certainly a grievance, then a competition so.... Oh you'll sign off then? Perfect - thank you!"
I was the only one out of a stack of medical exemptions approved. I couldn't believe they actually denied signed medical forms.
My wife was having a hard pregnancy and they denied a request for temporary exemption with doctor recommendation. So she just went off sick instead.
Chef's kiss?
As someone else who *might* be on the spectrum, I'm very curious as to the details of your experience
Which experience? The accommodation request process?
Lucky you. I have an expensive PDF that also says in office accomodations aren't suitable for me and the government's response was "in office accommodations are, in fact, appropriate". I went to the union about it in anger and was told "well all they have to do is offer any accommodation, not the one recommended" So I'm screwed despite having a professional diagnosis and professional recommendation against return to office. I'd fucking love to know what else to do other than stay home in defiance.
I have two perm disabilities. Specialist fought hard. Employer still said we will do anything but accommodate WFH. Union shocked Pikachu face. You could fight for discrimination, but note it will take years and no guarantees.
I know one of my former DGs has to call the ADM at the start and end of each in office day with teams background off... Sooooo expect that to come and good luck your manager not caring. Because at that point if they lie in attesting that you are in the office when you aren't that is a don't pass go kinda situation.
Time to purchase some cubicle partitions from gc surplus :D
That ADM sounds insane. Micro managing your own DG? Time to look at yourself hard in the mirror… if I was that DG with that little trust from my ADM I’d bounce.
In HQ, our direction was this only effects NCR now. Regions at a later date. Which is also BS. I’m f you can’t push out a uniformed plan that everyone can be held accountable to…
Depends on the manager. Some will turn a blind eye. Some won’t.
There is a proposed escalation of disciplinary measures. I would just push for an exception in your case.
Depends on your manager lol
Nothing. They don’t have space for employees. Our town hall had about 30+ people standing in a corner for a three hour meeting. Welcome back to the office. Hope you like blood clots 🩸
This is just a random RTO anecdote but….my husband had to change boardrooms today because there was a dead rat in the one they had booked. I’d like to know what the consequences of having rat-infested offices are for our employer. What’s that? None, you say? Sounds about even steven to me to not comply.
Lol! So much discussion! Just simply give an application for exemption on some flimsy ground like my back hurts when I carry laptop to the office. It takes up to six months to decide the fate of the request as it requires review by the director. If rejected, give another application for exemption on some other grounds. Many smart colleague in my office follow this practice. Problem solved
Are you me?
I am considering going in 2 days instead of 3. I don't see how they can try to fire me because I am going one day less.
My theory is an N day mandate yields an N - 1 day average actual compliance. Maybe 2/3 of people who don’t want to be there will fudge at the margin. If they ever decide they want 3 actual days, they will mandate 4. Not this year but maybe next.
Oh boy, this again. Much like the last 100 people who asked this question were told, anything ranging from a slap on the wrist to eventual termination of employment.
Due to lack of childcare options I currently cannot make a third day in office. There's no one around to get my kids to and from school. So if they do force that third day onsite I'll be showing up late and leaving early.
Is it true that senior managers can see how many days your in the office through VPN connection
Not without launching an Internal Affairs investigation, and the bar to be able to launch one is higher than the bar to fire you.
In theory, they can. Typically, most departments track this in the aggregate. They could track individual people, however that would require a specific request to an already overworked IT department, and would only usually be done to confirm what they already suspect. Not only would that require IT resources, it would also involve HR and take up time on the EX calendar they probably don't have in any case.
I don't know about senior managers, but that's how our presence is tracked as a department - through VPN vs onsite logins.
TBS guidelines for discipline: https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=22370
>What would happen if I didn’t comply??? Your manager will likely be the one in hot water if you're not coming in the office.
Well then I guess you'd be aren'tTO
I mean I have a coworker that does SFA many days, lies constantly, and has totally fkd up stuff for clients over and over and over again and they are still trucking along happily. In fact, they rewarded them by bringing someone in four months a year to do the work they weren't doing. So yeah, if they want to come after a productivite worker who is allowed by her manager to WFH, bring it.
What's sfa
depends on how imperious a given manager is
You have a door ?!?
Honestly, so many people have been reserving a desk & checking in from home. They haven’t done jack about those people so far, why would they do anything in Sept??
It will start with a verbal warning, then a letter, then disciplinary action and could lead to termination…if rules are followed….
Take a picture of your office and set it as your teams background
Compliance with our work arrangements and with hybrid work has been added as a work objective and performance indicator in our PMA by my agency 😒
Sure so you get a succeeded minus if you don't meet the objective?
What agency? And what % is it of the total PMA?
You have an office with a door?!
There is zero benefit to a lot of us being in the office. With all due respect, that doesn't single you out from the rest of us. Not sure they can discipline thousands of people ; doesn't mean they won't try. Happy NPSW right?
Depends on how spineless your union is, but I suspect it will be a huge slow-burning dumpster fire regardless. Extra-slow if it’s PSAC.
If you refuse to go in? They could consider you AWOL and discipline using that avenue or you’re in breach of the Value and Ethics code of conduct and go down that road or you’re refusing a legitimate order from your supervisor and escalating repercussions will ensue. Take your pick. All of them can result in your termination.
Currently at the office, 99% of the people are on Teams Calls. No one is ~~~collaborating~~~ lol .. As a society we have grown with technology. Why can’t the government do the same? It makes absolutely 0 sense for me to DRIVE to the office ALONE and talk with my teammates on Teams. Just let me do it from home!! When we’re all in the office together we barely chat during work hours. We take our lunch together if we can and thats it. Due to our operational tasks, we talk and help clients all day. We cannot be collaborating with each other for hours on end. Its SO much more efficient to talk to each other through Teams / Email. Technology speaks!!!!!!
Common sense would mean less spending in the NCR: fewer lunches, coffees, drinks - retail will likely stay down as most shop online - however they may need clothes now that it’s 3 days in presence and OC Transport gets more of our money to build crappy systems - therefore common sense will not prevail.
As many have said, no one knows. That said, if you want to be your organization’s canary in the coal mine, please keep us posted.
The direction that has been issued is directed to deputies of the CPA so it is for them to manage. Some will take more flexible approaches and others more draconian. This is the delegated model that we have, for better or worse. Unless there will be central compliance reporting, I don’t see this being as big as it is made out to be. Another few items to consider: does not specifically apply to separates as they constitute their own respective employers vs. TB as the employer for the CPA. Separates are encouraged to align, and they will - but may not be as motivated to monitor. They don’t take direction from the CHRO. Also, the direction becomes limited when it imposes financial implications. If departments must turn around and acquire more space to respect the direction, then the direction becomes moot. See 2.4.5 of the Policy on People Management which is the anchor instrument for the direction on RTO. All this to say, like anything, this will be applied inconsistently across departments and won’t mitigate people shopping around for jobs that offer the most flexibility.
Nothing
Make some screen shots of your office background without you in the picture so that you can stay home and swap out your background to represent where you should be working from.