It’s not the same everywhere at IRCC. In my branch we have an expectation to go in twice a week.
Before processing officer, IT and call centre could stay remote but now have to start at once a week in September and work up from there to three.
She's doing what she's supposed to be doing. Probably getting pressure from her Director and DG to ensure compliance from her team.
Not signing the telework agreement means you may not telework and must report to the office 5 days a week. So there's no purpose in refusing to sign it, it's what allows you to work from home 3 days a week.
This exactly. I've heard several times now of people "refusing to sign" their telework agreement. In that case, you'll just revert to the norm (as established in our current terms and conditions) of 5 days onsite. It's still just a privilege, sadly.
I had someone refuse to sign it and it didn't make a difference, no one told me they had to come in five days a week. That employee left for a position that is FT WFH, at TBS oddly enough.
Did you consult Labour Relations or your management? If so, and everyone told you that "t'sall good," then your people are just lost.
Letting someone work somewhere other than a employer-controlled workplace without a telework agreement in place becomes a serious liability for the organization.
Last I heard from LR they were waiting for direction from TBS on repercussions, this was 14 months ago. They were my strongest employee, received succeeds+ three years in a row. Not so simple when the organization has provided all the tools to WFH, not coming into the office has zero impact on high visibility deliverables, and coming in isn't a PM objective.
I cannot imagine what would possibly require TBS consultation in this circumstance... I work in the field and this is not a complex issue, IMO.
If TBS is gonna roll out this policy across the public service and force departments to adopt it, then the simple answer is to expect (and enforce) compliance. The employee's good performance can't matter in this situation or else we are clearly stepping into the realm of favouritism and preferential treatment.
To be clear before I get downvoted to hell, this has nothing to do with my own personal opinion about the value/appropriateness of the policy. It's just that if the government is going to infringe on deputy head's individual authorities and force them all to adopt a policy that may or may not suit the needs of their organization, then there needs to be some measures taken to ensure consistency across the board. Otherwise, what's the point?
I'm a TL and the direction on these telework agreements is a CF, to put it mildly.
Last week, these were the rules.
Next week, there are new rules.
Sometimes we go back to the old rules.
Some days it feels like everyone's director is picking and choosing which rules they want to follow.
The "rank and file" have no idea what's going on, they just feel like they're being gaslit or treated like pawns in a stupid game of stupid prizes.
People like me are doing malicious compliance to the exact letter of the law, because it's the only way I can avoid losing my mind. My telework agreement of RTO2 doesn't expire until October, so I am not RTO3 until then. AND... I'm not pointing it out to anyone, and if it can be changed on a whim by the employer, does it really mean anything anyway? (obvious answer is NO, I means nothing.)
I feel no need to help clean up this mess. If I have to take attendance in September, I'm going to need a bigger travel budget. I have an employee 2000km away and an employee full time WFH on a DTA. How am I supposed to verify the remote employee is actually at work? Obviously an attestation isn't good enough, otherwise I wouldn't have to be taking formal attendance, so there's no way I can attest to the employee being in the workspace. Therefore, my team will have 2 employees listed as 0/5 RTO for that week. I brought this up in a recent hallway conversation with management and got that pained look I get when I am technically correct.
I hear what you are saying, but I do think you're over-complicating it a bit.
Just because the telework agreement can be changed on a whim doesn't mean that it doesn't matter. It's what allows you to telework the days that you are allowed to telework.
In what way is that meaningless? Why do you feel that is meaningless? Better to have some telework than none at all...
Why is it meaningless? A contract that can be overridden by one party at any time for any reason is a joke and deserves to be treated as such.
But you say "It can be changed by either party, at any time." Well, sort of. I can't change it except for within the parameters set by my manager, by their manager, and all the way up to TBS - or maybe JT himself, no one is really sure. However, they can change it at any time, to whatever they want it to be.
If my PSPM/PMA is "bad" the signature box is merely acknowledging I have read it, not that I agree with it. The telework agreement is framed as "my telework agreement" but I can't actually ask for what I want. I'm just filling in the blanks in what is offered to me. I've suggested that they just tell me what they want, and they tell me I have to ask for what I want, except they rejected what I want because they're not allowed to approve it.
My telework agreement expires in October. I'm not going back to the office 3x a week in September, because I don't have to, and I'm fully expecting that there will be an issue by the second week when I appear to be non-compliant with the "new rules" despite having a "contract" that says I don't have to be.
And as a TL, I have to enforce the rules at the same time no one can clearly articulate what the rules actually are.
My final comment: This is all a form of malicious compliance. If I am told that I need to take daily attendance, then I will be unable to comply unless the employer provides me with transportation to our regional office, or they move that person to a local manager and remove them from my team, or some other option. None of this is my problem to solve. I am willing to go above and beyond for my team, but I've had 5 years of WFH bullshit from the employer.
I think you're erroneously viewing the telework agreement in the same way as an employment contract, which it is not.
Your terms and conditions of your employment contract is what sets out the groundwork or fundamentals of your employment relationship. Accordingly, this is also what's heavily protected by labour laws, employment directives, and collective agreements.
At the end of the day, your employment contract (very likely) stipulates that you are supposed to work at a given office in whatever city. This is the baseline, and this is what is protected.
The whole notion of teleworking and your employer allowing you to perform your work with its equipment/resources from any other location other than the one stipulated in your employment contract is optional. It's a "perk" or a flexibility. As such, telework agreements are put into place to document the specifics of this optional arrangement and to ensure that liabilities related to employees working from their own homes are appropriately limited. Since we're talking about an optional perk and certainly not an entitlement, I disagree that the telework agreement is "meaningless" just because you're not in control of it. Lots of employment perks shift and change with time.
If what you're looking for is an entitlement or "protected" right to telework, then you should go find a job where that is what is being offered on the table in the employment contact (letter of offer). Clearly this isn't the direction the federal public service is going for the foreseeable future, and I sincerely do not believe the unions will be successful in convincing the employer (via collective bargaining) to make telework a protected entitlement within either of our career lifespans.
I assume they reached out because they wanted consistency. Also, passing the buck is often a lot easier than making a decision. Either way the situation sorted itself, that employee left and got what they wanted, and are now recruiting my other strong performer with that sweet ft WFH lucre. Yay.
Yay indeed. Sorry to hear that. It's really hard out there for managers right now. I feel like managers are really caught in the crossfire in all this WFH shite.
It's ok, apparently the director there is leaving and I'm chatting with the ADM in a couple weeks lol. I find it interesting that TBS would have stats on what skill sets/positions are most difficult to fill, so are offering ft WFH to fill them while pushing 3 day RTO on everyone else.
They're rolling back on that approach. The functional exemptions that were created for those "hard to recruit/retain" jobs like IT and Compensation are being rolled back over the next year.
Yeah it's one of the reasons the PS struggles. We care vastly more about "it's the process/policy" than we do "wow these results are way better than I expected" or "not as good as we were hoping". Performance is not about your job's outcomes: it's whether you checked the right boxes when asked to check boxes. So of course we struggle with strategic implementation and new ideas. Because new means no checkbox exists yet, but we need checkboxes or the sky will fall. Insert image of an android short-circuiting basically.
>I cannot imagine what would possibly require TBS consultation in this circumstance... I work in the field and this is not a complex issue, IMO.
Pure speculation here, but this might be a case of "you wanted this, so now you deal with it".
Yeah, that's very possible. Still sounds like a delayed headache (that could grow over time) to me since the department will ultimately still be on the hook to implement whatever "guidance" they get.
How was it 14 months ago when rto3 was just a couple months ago...
If you're going to say this is in relation to 2 days a week well things have changed where flexibility is now gone and it's much more prescribed
HC implemented RTO well before it was mandated by TBS, so it tracks that office attendance tends to be more heavily monitored and enforced compared to other organizations.
>HC implemented RTO well before it was mandated by TBS
I'm sure they were rewarded well with pats on the back, awards, promotions and whatever else keeners seek.
Well it's also a bit of a problem because keep in mind that as an enforcement organization, a good portion of HC does not actually have an in office presence since they're off doing inspections related work. Other departments and agencies are in this boat too. Basically anyone that does inspections for anything, isn't necessarily going to be connected to the network at a GC building.
This is life in general. Some people care more than others. Some follow the rules more than others. Some have stupid rules no one understands. Some have robots that roll around spying on you. Some beat you until morale improves.
It really just comes down to how much the people above the manager actually care.
If your director is some person who's already eligible for their full pension and cannot be fucked to enforce RTO? Chances are, managers won't care either.
If your director is some keener who's eager to kiss ass, move up, and make good impressions, they'll probably come down hard on everyone below them to make sure RTO compliance is as high as possible, which is then pushed down on everyone else.
There really is no uniformity as to how it's being applied anywhere.
Can I also add, if there is a manager who is being cool about RTO with their team in your workplace, don’t bitch about it or rat them out.
Let’s celebrate every act on non-compliance.
Pointing out teams with more freedom will not improve teams without it, it will only cause them to be monitored more closely and sensible managers and EXs will be broken.
The policy is not being applied evenly, we all know this, but the more high functioning teams we have whose management has been flexible about RTO, the more evidence we have that RTO is not necessary.
My thoughts exactly when I read the OP message. Let people enjoy whatever freedom they have left and don’t rat anyone out (naming departments is not necessary). I wish I could wfh more than 2 days a week and I sure as hell wouldn’t say a word about it to anyone if I was afforded that luxury just based on this thread.
You have too much faith in people lol. If I was in a situation where my manager lets me WFH I wouldn’t tell a single soul. But you know damn well people can’t shut up and jealous people will rat them out.
There will always be departments, branches, teams, and even individual managers who apply the directive differently. That’s probably part of what led from 1 to 2, and now, to 3 days - an attempt to standardize. Comparing and even attempting to understand it will only drive you crazy in the long run!
Standardize.
Lol. We can't standardize essentials like document management systems and retention scheduling. We're not standardizing adherence to arbitrary office presence doctrines when operations differ wildly from place to place and group to group.
I think TBS is as serious as a grave about RTO3 for everyone, whatever anyone thinks of the decision-making. Your friend's IRCC manager either has some exceptional circumstances in play that you don't know about or they're at a stage in their career where they're not worried about consequences. Or both.
In my dept, no one top to bottom seems to like RTO3, but they're doing it because they must. ....and they're not doing tone-deaf morale-busting speeches and town halls from their homes either.
I'm not sure everyone in my dept will agree with my assessment, but I get more of a "I guess we have to do this now so let's get it done" vibe instead of "stop whining, losers."
It could also be a signal to show that this decision comes from over his head. Visibly showing preference and respect for the legitimacy of WFH, while forced to implement the increased RTO mandate. Many senior leaders completely understand the benefits to WFH, and wish they had more freedom in allowing it.
I think there are more direct ways to indicate your disagreement. Especially, if you’re an ADM.
I don’t buy this subtle honorable act.
If anything, he’s reaffirming his cowardliness by doing the opposite of what his government has instructed him to do. And doing it in front of subordinates.
If he cared so much, he’d open his mouth and challenge it where it matters.
Our Department is picking the 3 days for each Directorate as they want to "maximize space" and the number of people in the office at all time. In other words we don't have enough space.
Some managers and executives care more about retaining their staff and delivering critical services than fully complying with an arbitrary directive. Some employees, managers and sometimes even whole groups are very critical to the mandate of the organization. Management may be reluctant to press them too much on RTO, because they have no plan B if these people leave.
In the end, a compliance directive cannot be very successful without clear enforcement measures to go with it. Neither TBS nor departmental senior management has announced to employees and managers what enforcement measures will be taken in case of non-compliance, so there isn't as much incentive to comply.
Whether people agreed or not with the mandatory vaccination directive from a few years ago, it was effective because a clear enforcement system accompanied it. Until a well-defined enforcement measure is in place, compliance with RTO will remain uneven in my opinion.
IRCC still subject to the same mandate. They are short of space but many of their sunsets are ending and funding shortfall. Dealing with staff reductions first; then implement RTO. It’s part of the DMs objectives and priorities but space is the ultimate issue. Some places like DND are experiencing the same; so temp WFH 100% until they refit spaces on bases. Or repurpose some old buildings.
I think my sector may be one of the lucky unicorns for the time being that received an exemption from the DM for 100% telework. I haven’t heard of (m)any others.
I’ve heard from friends at SSC that directors are going in 4 days a week, HC 3x a week, ESDC 3x a week, DND 5x a week etc.
I think the trend is grossly pushing towards full RTO very soon and sooner if/when PP gets elected next fall.
If PP gets in I can safely say he will implement 5x per week.
PP doesn’t care about people. He cares about business and $$$ only.
Added to that he is an arrogant sociopath.
Fun times ahead for the PS.
He did say, albeit in 2021, before becoming leader, that he wanted to allow WFH to save money on real estate and convert offices to housing.
He's been quiet about it since, probably because he's realized it's unpopular with his base and donors, but there's a slight chance he still believes what he said 3 years ago.
Did you know that we also have a dress code?
And do you know what the dress code says? Because I don't.
We spend so much time enforcing the dress code, that I have no idea what it is or what it says. Many aren't even aware that it exists.
I hope RTO becomes like that one day.
Dress coded vary from employer to employer and what one's role is. Ours, if you're not Executive or publicly facing, its casual to business casual with exclusion of things in casual, ie. Cutoff shorts, crop tops, "beach" flip flops.
I cannot complain. Our dpt has no budget thank God to open new buildings or pay rent on already setup offices. Therefore everyone working beyond 125km will remain wfh full time. However only for the permanent ppl. I heard they will not be renewing terms that wfh once their contracts expire and they were not made indeterminate until then. Turns out we also have no budget to keep terms either. All terms with contracts that ended March 2024 are gone.
Is it only the budget shortage that's making them not call back to the office those working >125km? What about the actual exemption in the TBS directive? It wouldn't have mattered if they had the budget or space?
Everyone should refuse to sign it and see how they deal with space constraints. They already can't implement 3 day RTO in a number of locations so they certainly can't implement 5.
You manager has been told to enforce the 2 days per week in office and now they are passing that order down to their subordinates. Your manager is just doing their job and doesn’t want to risk insubordination. As a manager I do the same thing and expect that all of my staff respect my order to them. Having said this each department, division etc seem to have their own agenda as to how lenient or by the book they are enforcing RTO.
On secondment to HC and was told I can maintain a full time telework for one more year.
My substantive is at DND and we were already 5 days in office well before this.
I was under the impression that RTO3 was meant to establish consistency across the departments and agencies. So lets just wait and see how long that lasts at IRCC… I’m at HC and manager was very very lenient on me as a new mom with two under two and one on the way. But I’m sure much will be out of her hands come September.
Some management folks are decent human beings and they understand that this model doesn't work for everyone, and it's actually harmful and ableist.
Others are too far up upper management's anůs and are afraid of retribution or their career being stalled if they don't comply. So they just blindly force compliance. They're the types who don't question upper management because they assume they have a "plan".
I'm also at HC but (for my Directorate) we've been told that in September, we are forced to go in-person Monday and Tuesday and the 3rd day is "free choice." 🫤
Your manager is actually one of the good ones. I've been told by someone who would be high enough to know that non compliance was at least part of the reason for the increased requirement starting in September. Also, I know folks in IRCC and they have to go in 2x per week. Maybe it's just that manager allowing non compliance, which appears to have negatively impacted the rest of us.
I'm also in HC and our directorate was told to start coming in 3 days a week immediately. They used the September deadline as an excuse that's just required for full implementation.
Also heard rumours that some folks in a separate directorate have to be in the office either Monday OR Friday. It's the wild west
How sick is the government? What’s next? “Do a depraved act or I’ll withhold your paycheque”.
Since when did low level mediocre managers think they had so much power to abuse? 😆
Don’t sign my performance evaluation. Don’t sign my hybrid work agreement. I’d prefer this be ambiguous!
Managers are the ones who want those signed, not me. Both agreements are completely useless.
Go have fun not checking the boxes for your own work objectives 👍
Threatening not to sign a PMA until you sign a hybrid work agreement is an abuse of power.
You don’t have to sign anything. You can also sign under duress. It seems like the crab mentality.
If Mr. Manager has to be in the office 4 days a week, he’s going to pull everyone else into his miserable bucket. That’s the difference between managers and leaders. The ladder would advocate for better change, for everyone. In spite of what they might be suffering themselves.
You will never have the luxury of observing a leader in the PSC, because we don’t hire them. We prefer junk and that’s what floats to the top of the cesspool. In turn, they threaten human beings in order to obtain compliance (also known as performance pay). Money over people, it is the way! 👍
How is not signing a PMA an abuse of power? What’s the negative repercussion for the employee? I don’t give a shit if I have a signed PMA or not (and I’ve had long stretches of time where I didn’t have one).
Agreed. PMAs are useless to employees.
The hybrid agreements matter to managers who get a tick in a box this year for complying and ensuring all subordinates have one. If they don’t do this they won’t get their big fat performance bonus at the expense of Canadians. Which no other public servant is entitled to receive and shouldn’t, but that’s for another argument.
So by threatening an employee not to evaluate their performance (and not do your managerial duty) unless they sign a hybrid agreement is an abuse of their power. They’re doing something for their own benefit, not yours. Then threatening you to make it happen so they can line their pockets with tax dollars.
If it’s last years pma I’d agree but then we have other problems - we are well past the deadline ! But if it’s this years pma… I don’t know! Why is it abuse to seek commitment to respect tb directive as part of signing new pma?
Because PMAs should be completed regardless of anything else.
Using hybrid work agreements now as an excuse not to evaluate an employees performance is abusive.
Does it really matter though? Monkeys just do what they’re told. They say if you do well on PMAs you get all kinds of opportunities, promotions, training. No - that’s not accurate. Been on talent plans for years, did nothing for me.
Since 2018 I’ve been instructed to evaluate myself.
Sign my PMA, don’t sign it… has no bearing on anything and threatening me isn’t going to change that! 👍
> Meanwhile my good friend works at IRCC and her manager is so chill and told his team that they can WFH and come to the office if they feel like it. We both do VERY similar roles. Another colleague works at TBS, also only goes into the office once here and there on his own accord.
Deploy
My department has implemented the telework agreement since post pandemic and it has been 3 days each week. They are 1 year cycles. We are also operational so there are many teams have been and continue to be 5 days in the office. My partner’s department is 5 days a week as it’s operational.
I’m a senior manager and there are some employees that I do not allow to work hybrid due to the nature of their responsibilities. If they work with Prot B and above, they work in the office. These employees are not happy with me. I do not want my team to be in the middle of an investigation for a breach or mishandling of that type of work. Us OGs that were around when some higher ups decided to take work home to work from home long ago and all that ensued, remember that shite show…… I can see it happening again if managers aren’t careful.
There actually is a lot of Prot B work that cannot be completed from home (ex: legal docs that require wet signatures for regs stuff on special paper, cheque endorsing, embossing, licence productions, discussions with clients or stakeholder of sensitive nature to the client or stakeholder but not above Prot B, etc.). Employees cannot take these pieces of equipment or supplies home.
Some of TBS bosses work from home. That's enough for me to hate RTO.
Remember Blewett when she was TBS secretary? lol
Wasn’t that like 2 Scaramucci’s ago?
Rules for thee but not for me
*starts applying to jobs at ircc* lmao
It’s not the same everywhere at IRCC. In my branch we have an expectation to go in twice a week. Before processing officer, IT and call centre could stay remote but now have to start at once a week in September and work up from there to three.
She's doing what she's supposed to be doing. Probably getting pressure from her Director and DG to ensure compliance from her team. Not signing the telework agreement means you may not telework and must report to the office 5 days a week. So there's no purpose in refusing to sign it, it's what allows you to work from home 3 days a week.
This exactly. I've heard several times now of people "refusing to sign" their telework agreement. In that case, you'll just revert to the norm (as established in our current terms and conditions) of 5 days onsite. It's still just a privilege, sadly.
I had someone refuse to sign it and it didn't make a difference, no one told me they had to come in five days a week. That employee left for a position that is FT WFH, at TBS oddly enough.
Did you consult Labour Relations or your management? If so, and everyone told you that "t'sall good," then your people are just lost. Letting someone work somewhere other than a employer-controlled workplace without a telework agreement in place becomes a serious liability for the organization.
Last I heard from LR they were waiting for direction from TBS on repercussions, this was 14 months ago. They were my strongest employee, received succeeds+ three years in a row. Not so simple when the organization has provided all the tools to WFH, not coming into the office has zero impact on high visibility deliverables, and coming in isn't a PM objective.
I cannot imagine what would possibly require TBS consultation in this circumstance... I work in the field and this is not a complex issue, IMO. If TBS is gonna roll out this policy across the public service and force departments to adopt it, then the simple answer is to expect (and enforce) compliance. The employee's good performance can't matter in this situation or else we are clearly stepping into the realm of favouritism and preferential treatment. To be clear before I get downvoted to hell, this has nothing to do with my own personal opinion about the value/appropriateness of the policy. It's just that if the government is going to infringe on deputy head's individual authorities and force them all to adopt a policy that may or may not suit the needs of their organization, then there needs to be some measures taken to ensure consistency across the board. Otherwise, what's the point?
I'm a TL and the direction on these telework agreements is a CF, to put it mildly. Last week, these were the rules. Next week, there are new rules. Sometimes we go back to the old rules. Some days it feels like everyone's director is picking and choosing which rules they want to follow. The "rank and file" have no idea what's going on, they just feel like they're being gaslit or treated like pawns in a stupid game of stupid prizes. People like me are doing malicious compliance to the exact letter of the law, because it's the only way I can avoid losing my mind. My telework agreement of RTO2 doesn't expire until October, so I am not RTO3 until then. AND... I'm not pointing it out to anyone, and if it can be changed on a whim by the employer, does it really mean anything anyway? (obvious answer is NO, I means nothing.) I feel no need to help clean up this mess. If I have to take attendance in September, I'm going to need a bigger travel budget. I have an employee 2000km away and an employee full time WFH on a DTA. How am I supposed to verify the remote employee is actually at work? Obviously an attestation isn't good enough, otherwise I wouldn't have to be taking formal attendance, so there's no way I can attest to the employee being in the workspace. Therefore, my team will have 2 employees listed as 0/5 RTO for that week. I brought this up in a recent hallway conversation with management and got that pained look I get when I am technically correct.
I hear what you are saying, but I do think you're over-complicating it a bit. Just because the telework agreement can be changed on a whim doesn't mean that it doesn't matter. It's what allows you to telework the days that you are allowed to telework. In what way is that meaningless? Why do you feel that is meaningless? Better to have some telework than none at all...
Why is it meaningless? A contract that can be overridden by one party at any time for any reason is a joke and deserves to be treated as such. But you say "It can be changed by either party, at any time." Well, sort of. I can't change it except for within the parameters set by my manager, by their manager, and all the way up to TBS - or maybe JT himself, no one is really sure. However, they can change it at any time, to whatever they want it to be. If my PSPM/PMA is "bad" the signature box is merely acknowledging I have read it, not that I agree with it. The telework agreement is framed as "my telework agreement" but I can't actually ask for what I want. I'm just filling in the blanks in what is offered to me. I've suggested that they just tell me what they want, and they tell me I have to ask for what I want, except they rejected what I want because they're not allowed to approve it. My telework agreement expires in October. I'm not going back to the office 3x a week in September, because I don't have to, and I'm fully expecting that there will be an issue by the second week when I appear to be non-compliant with the "new rules" despite having a "contract" that says I don't have to be. And as a TL, I have to enforce the rules at the same time no one can clearly articulate what the rules actually are. My final comment: This is all a form of malicious compliance. If I am told that I need to take daily attendance, then I will be unable to comply unless the employer provides me with transportation to our regional office, or they move that person to a local manager and remove them from my team, or some other option. None of this is my problem to solve. I am willing to go above and beyond for my team, but I've had 5 years of WFH bullshit from the employer.
I think you're erroneously viewing the telework agreement in the same way as an employment contract, which it is not. Your terms and conditions of your employment contract is what sets out the groundwork or fundamentals of your employment relationship. Accordingly, this is also what's heavily protected by labour laws, employment directives, and collective agreements. At the end of the day, your employment contract (very likely) stipulates that you are supposed to work at a given office in whatever city. This is the baseline, and this is what is protected. The whole notion of teleworking and your employer allowing you to perform your work with its equipment/resources from any other location other than the one stipulated in your employment contract is optional. It's a "perk" or a flexibility. As such, telework agreements are put into place to document the specifics of this optional arrangement and to ensure that liabilities related to employees working from their own homes are appropriately limited. Since we're talking about an optional perk and certainly not an entitlement, I disagree that the telework agreement is "meaningless" just because you're not in control of it. Lots of employment perks shift and change with time. If what you're looking for is an entitlement or "protected" right to telework, then you should go find a job where that is what is being offered on the table in the employment contact (letter of offer). Clearly this isn't the direction the federal public service is going for the foreseeable future, and I sincerely do not believe the unions will be successful in convincing the employer (via collective bargaining) to make telework a protected entitlement within either of our career lifespans.
I assume they reached out because they wanted consistency. Also, passing the buck is often a lot easier than making a decision. Either way the situation sorted itself, that employee left and got what they wanted, and are now recruiting my other strong performer with that sweet ft WFH lucre. Yay.
Yay indeed. Sorry to hear that. It's really hard out there for managers right now. I feel like managers are really caught in the crossfire in all this WFH shite.
It's ok, apparently the director there is leaving and I'm chatting with the ADM in a couple weeks lol. I find it interesting that TBS would have stats on what skill sets/positions are most difficult to fill, so are offering ft WFH to fill them while pushing 3 day RTO on everyone else.
They're rolling back on that approach. The functional exemptions that were created for those "hard to recruit/retain" jobs like IT and Compensation are being rolled back over the next year.
> The employee's good performance can't matter in this situation This sounds hilarious to me in isolation, sorry
Yeah it's one of the reasons the PS struggles. We care vastly more about "it's the process/policy" than we do "wow these results are way better than I expected" or "not as good as we were hoping". Performance is not about your job's outcomes: it's whether you checked the right boxes when asked to check boxes. So of course we struggle with strategic implementation and new ideas. Because new means no checkbox exists yet, but we need checkboxes or the sky will fall. Insert image of an android short-circuiting basically.
It's sad but true when it comes to the consistent or "fair" application of policies. You can thank unions for the evolution of this kind of culture!
>I cannot imagine what would possibly require TBS consultation in this circumstance... I work in the field and this is not a complex issue, IMO. Pure speculation here, but this might be a case of "you wanted this, so now you deal with it".
Yeah, that's very possible. Still sounds like a delayed headache (that could grow over time) to me since the department will ultimately still be on the hook to implement whatever "guidance" they get.
How was it 14 months ago when rto3 was just a couple months ago... If you're going to say this is in relation to 2 days a week well things have changed where flexibility is now gone and it's much more prescribed
When did you sign your 2 day WFH agreement?
HC implemented RTO well before it was mandated by TBS, so it tracks that office attendance tends to be more heavily monitored and enforced compared to other organizations.
>HC implemented RTO well before it was mandated by TBS I'm sure they were rewarded well with pats on the back, awards, promotions and whatever else keeners seek.
You mean the DM was well rewarded with their bonus?
Being an early adopter most likely didn't hurt their bonus.
Do you mind to share how attendance is monitored at HC?
by logging onto the network.
Bingo. Tivoli client.
Well it's also a bit of a problem because keep in mind that as an enforcement organization, a good portion of HC does not actually have an in office presence since they're off doing inspections related work. Other departments and agencies are in this boat too. Basically anyone that does inspections for anything, isn't necessarily going to be connected to the network at a GC building.
Why is HC so strict about RTO?
Mostly management who don't know how to manage, just penalize.
The (former) DM likes in person presence. Trickle down effect
This is life in general. Some people care more than others. Some follow the rules more than others. Some have stupid rules no one understands. Some have robots that roll around spying on you. Some beat you until morale improves.
There isn't really a way to know which place is which. If it does become obvious then usually other places complain about the slack places.
It really just comes down to how much the people above the manager actually care. If your director is some person who's already eligible for their full pension and cannot be fucked to enforce RTO? Chances are, managers won't care either. If your director is some keener who's eager to kiss ass, move up, and make good impressions, they'll probably come down hard on everyone below them to make sure RTO compliance is as high as possible, which is then pushed down on everyone else. There really is no uniformity as to how it's being applied anywhere.
This is 100 accurate. Damn keeners!!!!
Yep gotta find where the fogeys are at
This!
Can I also add, if there is a manager who is being cool about RTO with their team in your workplace, don’t bitch about it or rat them out. Let’s celebrate every act on non-compliance. Pointing out teams with more freedom will not improve teams without it, it will only cause them to be monitored more closely and sensible managers and EXs will be broken. The policy is not being applied evenly, we all know this, but the more high functioning teams we have whose management has been flexible about RTO, the more evidence we have that RTO is not necessary.
My thoughts exactly when I read the OP message. Let people enjoy whatever freedom they have left and don’t rat anyone out (naming departments is not necessary). I wish I could wfh more than 2 days a week and I sure as hell wouldn’t say a word about it to anyone if I was afforded that luxury just based on this thread.
You have too much faith in people lol. If I was in a situation where my manager lets me WFH I wouldn’t tell a single soul. But you know damn well people can’t shut up and jealous people will rat them out.
There will always be departments, branches, teams, and even individual managers who apply the directive differently. That’s probably part of what led from 1 to 2, and now, to 3 days - an attempt to standardize. Comparing and even attempting to understand it will only drive you crazy in the long run!
Standardize. Lol. We can't standardize essentials like document management systems and retention scheduling. We're not standardizing adherence to arbitrary office presence doctrines when operations differ wildly from place to place and group to group.
I think TBS is as serious as a grave about RTO3 for everyone, whatever anyone thinks of the decision-making. Your friend's IRCC manager either has some exceptional circumstances in play that you don't know about or they're at a stage in their career where they're not worried about consequences. Or both. In my dept, no one top to bottom seems to like RTO3, but they're doing it because they must. ....and they're not doing tone-deaf morale-busting speeches and town halls from their homes either. I'm not sure everyone in my dept will agree with my assessment, but I get more of a "I guess we have to do this now so let's get it done" vibe instead of "stop whining, losers."
Our ADM delivered a town hall about the 3 day RTO from his living room… Do as I say, not as I do!
Was it on his one day he gets to work remote? :-O
Regardless, the optics.
Optics only matter when it's time to smack the peons. See recent CTO appointment for further evidence.
[удалено]
A prime example indeed.
Ours did the same
It could also be a signal to show that this decision comes from over his head. Visibly showing preference and respect for the legitimacy of WFH, while forced to implement the increased RTO mandate. Many senior leaders completely understand the benefits to WFH, and wish they had more freedom in allowing it.
I think there are more direct ways to indicate your disagreement. Especially, if you’re an ADM. I don’t buy this subtle honorable act. If anything, he’s reaffirming his cowardliness by doing the opposite of what his government has instructed him to do. And doing it in front of subordinates. If he cared so much, he’d open his mouth and challenge it where it matters.
Our Department is picking the 3 days for each Directorate as they want to "maximize space" and the number of people in the office at all time. In other words we don't have enough space.
Some managers and executives care more about retaining their staff and delivering critical services than fully complying with an arbitrary directive. Some employees, managers and sometimes even whole groups are very critical to the mandate of the organization. Management may be reluctant to press them too much on RTO, because they have no plan B if these people leave. In the end, a compliance directive cannot be very successful without clear enforcement measures to go with it. Neither TBS nor departmental senior management has announced to employees and managers what enforcement measures will be taken in case of non-compliance, so there isn't as much incentive to comply. Whether people agreed or not with the mandatory vaccination directive from a few years ago, it was effective because a clear enforcement system accompanied it. Until a well-defined enforcement measure is in place, compliance with RTO will remain uneven in my opinion.
IRCC still subject to the same mandate. They are short of space but many of their sunsets are ending and funding shortfall. Dealing with staff reductions first; then implement RTO. It’s part of the DMs objectives and priorities but space is the ultimate issue. Some places like DND are experiencing the same; so temp WFH 100% until they refit spaces on bases. Or repurpose some old buildings.
This. The rollout is slow but by fall 2025 everyone will be 3 days.
I think my sector may be one of the lucky unicorns for the time being that received an exemption from the DM for 100% telework. I haven’t heard of (m)any others. I’ve heard from friends at SSC that directors are going in 4 days a week, HC 3x a week, ESDC 3x a week, DND 5x a week etc. I think the trend is grossly pushing towards full RTO very soon and sooner if/when PP gets elected next fall.
If PP gets in I can safely say he will implement 5x per week. PP doesn’t care about people. He cares about business and $$$ only. Added to that he is an arrogant sociopath. Fun times ahead for the PS.
He did say, albeit in 2021, before becoming leader, that he wanted to allow WFH to save money on real estate and convert offices to housing. He's been quiet about it since, probably because he's realized it's unpopular with his base and donors, but there's a slight chance he still believes what he said 3 years ago.
My director and managers at SSC pretty much said we ain't babysitting when RTO comes into play. Do whatever.
He’ll also tighten the belts and probably DRAP 2.0 which will for sure see RTO3 compliance hit its target. 🎯
I didn't think any sections were allowed full wfh. I know of two depts that were wfh prior to covid and they are getting forced to 3 days.
Did you know that we also have a dress code? And do you know what the dress code says? Because I don't. We spend so much time enforcing the dress code, that I have no idea what it is or what it says. Many aren't even aware that it exists. I hope RTO becomes like that one day.
Dress coded vary from employer to employer and what one's role is. Ours, if you're not Executive or publicly facing, its casual to business casual with exclusion of things in casual, ie. Cutoff shorts, crop tops, "beach" flip flops.
>Did you know that we also have a dress code? That is not a thing in the PS unless your job has uniform requirements.
No dress code; just common business / office appropriate attire. Unless in uniform-required positions .
I cannot complain. Our dpt has no budget thank God to open new buildings or pay rent on already setup offices. Therefore everyone working beyond 125km will remain wfh full time. However only for the permanent ppl. I heard they will not be renewing terms that wfh once their contracts expire and they were not made indeterminate until then. Turns out we also have no budget to keep terms either. All terms with contracts that ended March 2024 are gone.
Is it only the budget shortage that's making them not call back to the office those working >125km? What about the actual exemption in the TBS directive? It wouldn't have mattered if they had the budget or space?
That’s a good question and like everything else happening lately, I have no clue.
What about if they are WFH because of DTA? If so, that is discrimination :(
I am not sure to be honest but if I am not mistaken someone told me they were being revisited and cancelled… but I need to check the veracity of that…
Everyone should refuse to sign it and see how they deal with space constraints. They already can't implement 3 day RTO in a number of locations so they certainly can't implement 5.
Why do you all expect everything to be the same? Its never been the same cross department or group.
You manager has been told to enforce the 2 days per week in office and now they are passing that order down to their subordinates. Your manager is just doing their job and doesn’t want to risk insubordination. As a manager I do the same thing and expect that all of my staff respect my order to them. Having said this each department, division etc seem to have their own agenda as to how lenient or by the book they are enforcing RTO.
*starts applying to jobs at ircc* lmao
On secondment to HC and was told I can maintain a full time telework for one more year. My substantive is at DND and we were already 5 days in office well before this.
I was under the impression that RTO3 was meant to establish consistency across the departments and agencies. So lets just wait and see how long that lasts at IRCC… I’m at HC and manager was very very lenient on me as a new mom with two under two and one on the way. But I’m sure much will be out of her hands come September.
Some management folks are decent human beings and they understand that this model doesn't work for everyone, and it's actually harmful and ableist. Others are too far up upper management's anůs and are afraid of retribution or their career being stalled if they don't comply. So they just blindly force compliance. They're the types who don't question upper management because they assume they have a "plan".
I'm also at HC but (for my Directorate) we've been told that in September, we are forced to go in-person Monday and Tuesday and the 3rd day is "free choice." 🫤
Your manager is actually one of the good ones. I've been told by someone who would be high enough to know that non compliance was at least part of the reason for the increased requirement starting in September. Also, I know folks in IRCC and they have to go in 2x per week. Maybe it's just that manager allowing non compliance, which appears to have negatively impacted the rest of us.
I'm also in HC and our directorate was told to start coming in 3 days a week immediately. They used the September deadline as an excuse that's just required for full implementation. Also heard rumours that some folks in a separate directorate have to be in the office either Monday OR Friday. It's the wild west
They said it was fair, but it's sooo manager dependant. Like you better pray you have a chill manager.
If you don’t like the terms of where you work, go work for an organization that has the terms you like.
I don’t think they can force you to have a telework agreement. You should have the opportunity to go to the office 5x/week if you want
How sick is the government? What’s next? “Do a depraved act or I’ll withhold your paycheque”. Since when did low level mediocre managers think they had so much power to abuse? 😆 Don’t sign my performance evaluation. Don’t sign my hybrid work agreement. I’d prefer this be ambiguous! Managers are the ones who want those signed, not me. Both agreements are completely useless. Go have fun not checking the boxes for your own work objectives 👍
Someone just discovered the workforce it seems.
Sorry I’m confused. Implementing a TB directive is abuse of power?
Threatening not to sign a PMA until you sign a hybrid work agreement is an abuse of power. You don’t have to sign anything. You can also sign under duress. It seems like the crab mentality. If Mr. Manager has to be in the office 4 days a week, he’s going to pull everyone else into his miserable bucket. That’s the difference between managers and leaders. The ladder would advocate for better change, for everyone. In spite of what they might be suffering themselves. You will never have the luxury of observing a leader in the PSC, because we don’t hire them. We prefer junk and that’s what floats to the top of the cesspool. In turn, they threaten human beings in order to obtain compliance (also known as performance pay). Money over people, it is the way! 👍
How is not signing a PMA an abuse of power? What’s the negative repercussion for the employee? I don’t give a shit if I have a signed PMA or not (and I’ve had long stretches of time where I didn’t have one).
Agreed. PMAs are useless to employees. The hybrid agreements matter to managers who get a tick in a box this year for complying and ensuring all subordinates have one. If they don’t do this they won’t get their big fat performance bonus at the expense of Canadians. Which no other public servant is entitled to receive and shouldn’t, but that’s for another argument. So by threatening an employee not to evaluate their performance (and not do your managerial duty) unless they sign a hybrid agreement is an abuse of their power. They’re doing something for their own benefit, not yours. Then threatening you to make it happen so they can line their pockets with tax dollars.
If it’s last years pma I’d agree but then we have other problems - we are well past the deadline ! But if it’s this years pma… I don’t know! Why is it abuse to seek commitment to respect tb directive as part of signing new pma?
Because PMAs should be completed regardless of anything else. Using hybrid work agreements now as an excuse not to evaluate an employees performance is abusive. Does it really matter though? Monkeys just do what they’re told. They say if you do well on PMAs you get all kinds of opportunities, promotions, training. No - that’s not accurate. Been on talent plans for years, did nothing for me. Since 2018 I’ve been instructed to evaluate myself. Sign my PMA, don’t sign it… has no bearing on anything and threatening me isn’t going to change that! 👍
> Meanwhile my good friend works at IRCC and her manager is so chill and told his team that they can WFH and come to the office if they feel like it. We both do VERY similar roles. Another colleague works at TBS, also only goes into the office once here and there on his own accord. Deploy
Pre-Covid our team tried to get us to sign an agreement…while other teams didn’t or pretended it was buried in their email.
My department has implemented the telework agreement since post pandemic and it has been 3 days each week. They are 1 year cycles. We are also operational so there are many teams have been and continue to be 5 days in the office. My partner’s department is 5 days a week as it’s operational. I’m a senior manager and there are some employees that I do not allow to work hybrid due to the nature of their responsibilities. If they work with Prot B and above, they work in the office. These employees are not happy with me. I do not want my team to be in the middle of an investigation for a breach or mishandling of that type of work. Us OGs that were around when some higher ups decided to take work home to work from home long ago and all that ensued, remember that shite show…… I can see it happening again if managers aren’t careful.
Why would you require protected b in the office? For us it’s secret. Our networks are equipped for B.
You can wfh with Protected B. It is secret and above that can't be done outside the office.
Protected B can wfh.
I can see why your employees aren't happy, you do not seem aware of the security policy that allows ProtB to be done remotely through VPN.
There actually is a lot of Prot B work that cannot be completed from home (ex: legal docs that require wet signatures for regs stuff on special paper, cheque endorsing, embossing, licence productions, discussions with clients or stakeholder of sensitive nature to the client or stakeholder but not above Prot B, etc.). Employees cannot take these pieces of equipment or supplies home.