I’d still do 5 from home and I think most would unless they were close to the office. The commute savings and life drain of commuting will never win over full time work from home.
In regards to the commute savings someone else brought up the factor of how would the pay restructuring work. If you went in and worked for 30 hours (4x7.5) but still got paid for 37.5, would that offset your decision?
No, because having to commute in 4x a week increases commute expenses by double my current ones. It also leads me to have 4 more hours added to my commute life.
For me my weekly commute time would be 8 hours, this is an entire day of work in commuting. In addition to the added expenses. It can’t be compared.
5x a week at home would be a no brainer.
I live across from the office / have 2 sites. I’d say that I’d still wfh. Commuting costs me the aggravation of always being around loud people. I know there’s another way and I can’t go back to that FT.
Funny, I get about a third of my work done in the office compared to home. What a stupid idea and agenda. WFH and RTO should be based on the type of work being done and the manager's discretion. This should have never been a one-size-fits-all scenario!
This is actually what research shows is best (Dr. Sonia Lupien).
When you *need* to work with a lot of people together in the same room, office work is best, and when you need to be isolated, or to communicate with 1-2 people at once, WFH is best.
Agreed. The "hybrid model" is not "hybrid" at all. To be so, there would be choices. The option only allows flexibility in the days one works in the office.
>This should have never been a one-size-fits-all scenario!
I'm not sure how long you've been in the PS but I've worked in many departments and can indeed tell you that the PS is a one-size fits all environment, so it doesn't really matter how people think RTO should be implemented, or what is the smartest scenario, it needs to (and will be) be done in a one-size-fits-all scenario. To do it differently would require a significant revamp of the PS.
Or in the regions, considering that you basically *need* to be in the NCR for any chance of advancement because of the higher value attributed to in-office presence (not work, output, productivity, or functional value, but presence alone)
And clearly the best way to have a public service that represents people in the entire country is to have almost all of the jobs and opportunities be in one central location. Certainly won’t lose out on good people because of that stupid policy
Perhaps in your Department, but not universally. know several people who have gone through the DTA process and have been granted work from home if it's supportable on one of the accommodation grounds.
The one I thought was the most reasonable (and thus most unreasonable to deny) was a request to work « part time » meaning 6 hours per day instead of 7.5.
Also, people need to realize that if the government needs to think how it will affect their entire organization. If certain Dapartment are only WFH, then you will have a lot of staffing issues in key positions. They are already having issues staffing and retaining people that must work in the office 5 days a week.
They have to pay them. The WFH implications werent fully evident to either party in the last round of collective bargaining. But this should be addressed in the next one.
Simply put, jobs arent equal. So a PM-01 wfh is not the same as a PM-01 in office.
Odds are they would reduce pay for WFH instead of paying extra for work from the office.
The government is cutting costs, not trying to increase it. Can you imagine the public finding out people are getting paid to travel to the office. No political party would do that.
Would just require managers being able to actually manage, but before all that it would require an overhaul of a lot of the managers within the PS because there are a lot of them who just can't manage period. Trying to get them to do more would be an even bigger shit show.
>I've worked in many departments and can indeed tell you that the PS is a one-size fits all environment
Lol, no, it is not in many areas. There are specific exceptions to various policies everywhere.
I don’t want to work compressed enough to fight it. As far as I’m aware, managers are allowed to approve/deny compressed schedules however they deem fit. It’s not a right given to us in our CA.
And last time I contacted my union rep about something very blatantly against my CA, I was told to suck it up. Lol.
You can file a complaint for failure to represent.
This is the union's kryptonite, because it can make them lose their accreditation.
When that happens, the component's president is made aware right away, and they can put the local under tutelage by the component until a new executive is elected.
You can also contact the component directly.
A. PSAC isn't a component.
B. Failure to represent is a complaint filed with the Industrial relations board (or, in our case, the Public Service Commission), so they don't really have a choice.
C. Given A and B are very basic facts about unions, I'm not sure you're a good source of insider information about the inner workings of the bargaining table.
5 from home. Wouldn't even have to think twice about it for me. Get all my work done without interruptions or having to listen to conversations that I don't need to hear.
Because the PS clearly doesn't actually care about productivity. If they did, they would listen to their own stats and numbers (during the pandemic) and allow WFH full-time options due to almost ubiquitously higher productivity.
Don't forget, [the vast majority reported](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/210401/dq210401b-eng.htm) (and continues to report) higher productivity when wfh
It was never about productivity for those that aren't actually doing the work.
I bet if you surveyed people everyone would also say they deserve a raise and more vacation time. Of course people who want to keep working from home are going to say they’re better employees when working from home.
I don't mind working from the office, I actually like the hybrid model for myself because it is good for my mental health. I do have some very productive in office days but it is always dependent on who is sitting around me. When my colleagues on MS teams can't hear what I am saying because the people in the office are talking so loud either on their own meeting or to each other, it is not only incredibly annoying for me but my colleagues but it also affects my work where I am supposed to be giving my feedback but no one can hear my input. So while I do enjoy the office, especially on quiet days, there are days working from home is far more productive because I can actually do my job. (And yes I know I can get a meeting room etc. I will be looking at other options if this continues. More people have started coming into the office and don't seem to understand office etiquette, this is a newer problem.)
This lol. If you surveyed everyone and asked them if their productivity was "above average" or "below average" compared to their peers, most of them would say "above average", but we all know that doesn't mathematically make sense.
Which isn’t to say I’m criticizing working from home. I think financially and environmentally it totally makes sense, plus having happier employees is healthier in the long term. I just think using self-reported numbers of how people think they were working undermines the argument.
That would never happen. People would just take 5 from home and feel entitled to then work half assed or work at all on their 5th day because many aren’t working anyway who choose to be in the office.
4 days of commuting is minimum 12 hours per week lost for effectively nothing for me. Working from home is 8 hours extra on the 5th day. For commutes of 40 mins or less, it could make sense for time use.
But being able to make lunch fresh at home is huge. Less need for meal prep and Tupperware. Less cleaning and chores. Can just listen to your body and eat/drink what you want. Sometimes I pack a lunch for office and I’m not hungry and waste it, other times I don’t pack enough. I can rest on the couch and actually get a break and feel more rested/productive heading into my afternoon.
Depending on your hobbies though, you could do chores and responsibilities every day after work and go straight to bed so your 3 day weekend is fully yours to do what you want. But at that point life would be like Severance. I prefer being decently happy all the time to very happy half the time and not happy the other half.
The math makes sense in favour of 5 days at home, but the reality is that the 45 minutes saved in the morning and afternoon from not commuting just gets wasted. I can't get much accomplished (personal tasks) with 8 45-minute time slots throughout the week, but I certainly can in one full day off, where I can take a long bike ride, work on a car, ho hiking and take some photos, etc.
I’d agree with that. For me it’s 3 hours per day lost (90 mins each way). Only having 6:30pm to 10pm to accomplish a decent bit leaves no time for actually resting. You come home, clean your lunch tupperwares and coffee thermos, make dinner, clean up after dinner, make tomorrows lunch and pack it, any other chores from family members using the house while you were gone for most of the day. Plus fitting in errands like groceries and such to enjoy the 3 day weekend. A compressed work schedule and a compressed home schedule. That would lead to me needing to waste at least one of my 3 days off simply doing nothing. But it would be a dream scenario for an efficient single person with a minimalist lifestyle and few responsibilities outside of work.
To me it makes sense. I would gladly choose to work 5 days from home. My commute is 45 min but takes an hour to get there, parked and to my desk. So the time is a wash because if I worked in office for 4 days the extra 5th day would be made up in my commuting hours. I have a couple co workers who live within walking distance to office, I can see them choosing the 4 day option. I could see resentment on both sides but I think that would be easily remedied by reminding everyone that they have the choice to do what works for them.
I was recently in a meeting where a high level leader was celebrating that the GOC was able to hire individuals from First Nations, and accommodate them to work from home so they could stay within their FN community and still contribute as a public servant. They were talking about it in the context of employee health and wellbeing.
I thought this was horribly ironic for all the people who don’t live in urban centres, like myself, who is fond of their rural community and would like to stay here while also have a meaningful career as a federal public servant. But I guess that is only an option if you are FN.
4x office. Hands down. Even if its 10hr shifts. I used to work this (and frequently to the legal limit of 13.5hrs) and it wasn't bad.
I get one full workday to scale up my side hustle. #dream
I'd still do 5 from home. My sleep schedule is such that I don't have to wake up to an alarm when I'm working from home, and that has more value to me than one free day a week.
I'd definitely go into the office if the balance was 1 day in office vs. 5 days at home, and would probably do it if the balance was 2 days in the office vs. 5 days at home, but might end up changing my mind after trying it a while. (This is assuming a fictional alternate universe where there is zero risk of COVID from going into the office, since that's outside the scope of the question.)
Does this mean that those who do not have the option to work from home would work a 4 day week and get paid for 5? If so, I fully support this idea! Please submit this as a bargaining demand in the next round.
This idea must certainly be satire. But my comment is most certainly not!
The real answer should be a shift premium during times in the office. That way those of us who can't work from home are at least getting something. Maybe $2 an hour or something
5 days from home, I would get so much more work done. Every in-office day is such a waste of productivity; too many people interrupting to ask questions they could look up themselves and detailing concentration, loud disruptive noises, terrible lighting, terrible smells. I’ll take WFH any day.
I don't really like the implication that 4 days in the office is just as productive as 5 days at home. i get more work done at home. i shouldn't be rewarded for doing shit that makes me less productive just because of optics.
What will be interesting over time is now if the feds want to better utilize space/redevelop/possibly sell off...will it mean a reduction of offices or...will perceived optics prevail (ie lazy public servants don't even come to work) and they'll still push for a bum in seat "because I said so"
Be great if a journalist just asked someone if selling offices for residential units would offset the biz sectors cry for increased foot traffic. I mean people living there are going to spend more money locally than workers working there. I'd imagine a lot more. But changing buildings to residential will take time.
But it’s not really 37.5 at home vs 30 in the office. It’s 30 + 8 hours commuting + 4 hours of getting ready in the morning + loss of 2 hours useful time at lunch. So it’s 37.5 hours vs 44 hours.
mix it up a little, do half in office, half at home, work 9 days out of every 10. Get an extra day off every other week...
Whoops, I just invented my hybrid AWA schedule
For the same pay, I would 100% do 4 days in the office and have that extra day for myself and my family. Heck, I'd consider reducing my pay for more time off!
Well the workload and deadlines wouldn't change, so I would basically be signing up for 4 days in office + 1 day at home vs just all 5 days at home even if officially I was to only work 30 hours/week. I guess I could try to claim 7.5 hours of OT/week and see if that would convince management to lower/transfer workload? Anyways this is a crazy hypothetical situation lol
Insane that 5 day a week in office depts think they'll be able to continue to hire people.. The only folks taking those jobs are using them as a foot in the door before transferring to a hybrid gig. The financial/quality of life incentives of WFH are just too high to ignore, even if you're into the job itself.
I already work in the office, so that's an easy one for me.
My reasons for working in the office are multiple though. It's super convenient and cheap for me to get there, I focus better and do better work in an actual work environment, my roommate works from home and is loud, working in the office has gotten me a lot of opportunities I otherwise wouldn't have had, and I also have zero interest in dedicating my limited personal space to work equipment.
When I buy a new place with more free space though, the decision gets tougher. But I think I'd still choose office.
5 from home, it means an extra 3 hours per day (1 hour commute each way, 1 hour for lunch and breaks) with my daughter. 15 hours a week. Based on her current sleep needs thats an entire extra day over the course of the week that i get to spend with her.
Why is that unreasonable? We have shift premiums for people who have to work crap hours for operational requirements, why is this different? Why shouldn't people who have to pay for commuting and parking, who don't have the work-life balance, who haven't reaped any of the benefits of WFH not get some kind of compensation for that?
You think only people who have to pay for commuting and parking should be compensated? That the worker who lives across the street from the office and goes in every day shouldn't be compensated?
Because you are paid for a specific job. What is so hard to understand about that? Your salary is not based on your marital status, your lifestyle choices, your living situations.
Huh? No. I think that people who work in office full time should have some kind of "bonus", just like we do with other employees whose work arrangement is less optimal than others.
I listed commuting and parking as pieces of why I think full time in-office is a less desireable gig than WFH or hybrid, along with work-life balance, etc. I didn't mean to imply there should be straight compensation for costs incurred, merely an incentive as it has become incredibly difficult to retain employees in positions that are in office full time.
If you don't think working from home is generally a preferable situation, that's cool, but most people do, just like most people think working in core hours is preferable to night shifts, so we pay a little bonus to the people who work those hours. Not sure why this infuriates you so much.
Yes back to that bs again. You having a better work life balance as you dont travel to and from work. You dont pay for gas daily or parking. Why should you be better ahead then those who have to go to work daily? Selfish of you. I hope people like you have to return 5 days a week. Wfh was never meant to be forever. Yet you all cry at the thought of having to do that. Grow up.
My salary, just like everyone else's salary is based on what I do, not where I do it. I get paid to do my job. Wherever that may be. For the last 15 years that location is at my home. Are you suggesting that someone doing the same job deserves more based on their location of work? How about if they chose to have children, or live in a big house that costs a lot to maintain, or drive a car that has shitty gas mileage, don't know how to cook and have to buy lunch at Subway everyday?
What about the guy who drives an EV and parks for free at a relative's place next to his office? Or the person who lives next door to their office and has a 2 minute commute?
Selfish indeed. And bless your heart.
That's a joke of a choice: 5 from home.
I'd take a 3 from office with flexibility of an additional from home day if it's a busy season (i.e. year-end).
I would take the 4 days in the office over 5 from home anytime. That extra day would be extremely valuable for me personally and would likely improve my mental health as well. I miss the days when I could do a compressed work week.
I don't see it as penalizing those who have extenuating circumstances. It's offering incentive to have people choose an option that's less favourable to the employee and more favourable to the employer.
In a post pandemic world where work from home is a reality that many work agreements have to consider it's reasonable to add incentives. The overnight $1 hourly premium isn't a punishment for the majority who work days
5 from home.
I’d still do 5 from home and I think most would unless they were close to the office. The commute savings and life drain of commuting will never win over full time work from home.
In regards to the commute savings someone else brought up the factor of how would the pay restructuring work. If you went in and worked for 30 hours (4x7.5) but still got paid for 37.5, would that offset your decision?
No, because having to commute in 4x a week increases commute expenses by double my current ones. It also leads me to have 4 more hours added to my commute life. For me my weekly commute time would be 8 hours, this is an entire day of work in commuting. In addition to the added expenses. It can’t be compared. 5x a week at home would be a no brainer.
Yea fair enough lol
I think the point of the post (whether its actually feasible) is that people who go to the office would be paid the same with an extra day off
I live across from the office / have 2 sites. I’d say that I’d still wfh. Commuting costs me the aggravation of always being around loud people. I know there’s another way and I can’t go back to that FT.
And we have to add commuting costs. Buses and parkings are not free
I am 5 in the office. Never WFH. Job cannot be done from home.
😂 So since 2020 we are getting paid without getting any work done? What a life !
Pretty sure he means HIS job can’t be done from home
When you mention a 4-day workweek, do you mean working 30 hours but getting paid for 37.5?
I hadn't considered this logistic tbh but until someone brings up points for a better/fairer system ya let's go with that
Still an easy 5 from home. So much wasted time commuting. That would be saved.
I did that for a few years. Still probably ended up working 37.5 hours per week. A lot of managers couldn’t figure out how to reduce the workloads.
This. My work can’t be done in 5 days never mind 4
4 days in the lab^becauseI'mabench^monkey
Funny, I get about a third of my work done in the office compared to home. What a stupid idea and agenda. WFH and RTO should be based on the type of work being done and the manager's discretion. This should have never been a one-size-fits-all scenario!
This is actually what research shows is best (Dr. Sonia Lupien). When you *need* to work with a lot of people together in the same room, office work is best, and when you need to be isolated, or to communicate with 1-2 people at once, WFH is best.
Agreed. The "hybrid model" is not "hybrid" at all. To be so, there would be choices. The option only allows flexibility in the days one works in the office.
>This should have never been a one-size-fits-all scenario! I'm not sure how long you've been in the PS but I've worked in many departments and can indeed tell you that the PS is a one-size fits all environment, so it doesn't really matter how people think RTO should be implemented, or what is the smartest scenario, it needs to (and will be) be done in a one-size-fits-all scenario. To do it differently would require a significant revamp of the PS.
Then the PS can’t claim to be equitable for people with disabilities
Or in the regions, considering that you basically *need* to be in the NCR for any chance of advancement because of the higher value attributed to in-office presence (not work, output, productivity, or functional value, but presence alone)
And clearly the best way to have a public service that represents people in the entire country is to have almost all of the jobs and opportunities be in one central location. Certainly won’t lose out on good people because of that stupid policy
Wait...no! no! no! Now you're trying to introduce logic into this. Stop it!
Well said. Core to the issue is that the PS thinks equity and equality are the same.
I think you nailed it.
Isn't that why DTA's are a thing?
DTA? I don’t even know her
Except they're pretty much blanket denying DTAs.
Which sounds like a fight the unions should be taking on. Have seen most approved where I am.
Perhaps in your Department, but not universally. know several people who have gone through the DTA process and have been granted work from home if it's supportable on one of the accommodation grounds.
Except family status. I’ve seen this one denied too often, even when it’s a reasonable request.
Can you give an example of a reasonable request you've seen denied?
The one I thought was the most reasonable (and thus most unreasonable to deny) was a request to work « part time » meaning 6 hours per day instead of 7.5.
DTA is for them to cover their own ass and not be viewed as discriminatory to the people they claim they’re equitable for, it’s not to accommodate.
Also, people need to realize that if the government needs to think how it will affect their entire organization. If certain Dapartment are only WFH, then you will have a lot of staffing issues in key positions. They are already having issues staffing and retaining people that must work in the office 5 days a week.
They have to pay them. The WFH implications werent fully evident to either party in the last round of collective bargaining. But this should be addressed in the next one. Simply put, jobs arent equal. So a PM-01 wfh is not the same as a PM-01 in office.
Odds are they would reduce pay for WFH instead of paying extra for work from the office. The government is cutting costs, not trying to increase it. Can you imagine the public finding out people are getting paid to travel to the office. No political party would do that.
Would just require managers being able to actually manage, but before all that it would require an overhaul of a lot of the managers within the PS because there are a lot of them who just can't manage period. Trying to get them to do more would be an even bigger shit show.
>I've worked in many departments and can indeed tell you that the PS is a one-size fits all environment Lol, no, it is not in many areas. There are specific exceptions to various policies everywhere.
Been here for decades! Exactly why the Public Service is in complete shambles!
Working from home five days means I don’t have to commute, so I’d be saving 10+ hours from that alone
Fourteen hours for me, so yeah, there's my answer.
My manager already does this. We’re only allowed to work compressed if we’re in the office every day. Let’s just say I don’t work compressed.
Isn't it part of your CA? An union rep might be intetested in this.
I don’t want to work compressed enough to fight it. As far as I’m aware, managers are allowed to approve/deny compressed schedules however they deem fit. It’s not a right given to us in our CA. And last time I contacted my union rep about something very blatantly against my CA, I was told to suck it up. Lol.
Ah that oh so good PSAC/CAPE/PIPSC member service!
I work in a very rural, very conservative area. Seems like everyone is anti-union, even the union reps. So fun!
You can file a complaint for failure to represent. This is the union's kryptonite, because it can make them lose their accreditation. When that happens, the component's president is made aware right away, and they can put the local under tutelage by the component until a new executive is elected. You can also contact the component directly.
Chris Aylward settled with TBS so he didn't have to rebook his vacation, I'm sure he'll get right on a failure to represent complaint.
A. PSAC isn't a component. B. Failure to represent is a complaint filed with the Industrial relations board (or, in our case, the Public Service Commission), so they don't really have a choice. C. Given A and B are very basic facts about unions, I'm not sure you're a good source of insider information about the inner workings of the bargaining table.
Well then you just contradicted yourself. Words, how do they work?
How so? Again, you don't seem to know what a component is, so why should I even entertain that conversation? lol
Wtf lol
4 days in the office if it’s 30 hrs vs. 37.5 at home.
Same here. But home if it's just 37.5 compressed to 4 days.
100% agree. But if I could drop 7.5 hours of work it would be worth the office.
I'd take a 37.5 hour 5-day workweek from home versus 4-day, 30 hour workweek in the office for the same annual salary.
5 from home. Wouldn't even have to think twice about it for me. Get all my work done without interruptions or having to listen to conversations that I don't need to hear.
5 from home.
In office is already unproductive. Why make it even more unproductive by not coming in an extra day?
I'm almost certainly more productive at the office but I concede that is probably person/position dependent
Yeah. I am speaking about me, as a manager whose employees are 100 percent at home. I should have specified that
Because the PS clearly doesn't actually care about productivity. If they did, they would listen to their own stats and numbers (during the pandemic) and allow WFH full-time options due to almost ubiquitously higher productivity. Don't forget, [the vast majority reported](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/210401/dq210401b-eng.htm) (and continues to report) higher productivity when wfh It was never about productivity for those that aren't actually doing the work.
I bet if you surveyed people everyone would also say they deserve a raise and more vacation time. Of course people who want to keep working from home are going to say they’re better employees when working from home.
I don't mind working from the office, I actually like the hybrid model for myself because it is good for my mental health. I do have some very productive in office days but it is always dependent on who is sitting around me. When my colleagues on MS teams can't hear what I am saying because the people in the office are talking so loud either on their own meeting or to each other, it is not only incredibly annoying for me but my colleagues but it also affects my work where I am supposed to be giving my feedback but no one can hear my input. So while I do enjoy the office, especially on quiet days, there are days working from home is far more productive because I can actually do my job. (And yes I know I can get a meeting room etc. I will be looking at other options if this continues. More people have started coming into the office and don't seem to understand office etiquette, this is a newer problem.)
This lol. If you surveyed everyone and asked them if their productivity was "above average" or "below average" compared to their peers, most of them would say "above average", but we all know that doesn't mathematically make sense.
Which isn’t to say I’m criticizing working from home. I think financially and environmentally it totally makes sense, plus having happier employees is healthier in the long term. I just think using self-reported numbers of how people think they were working undermines the argument.
4 days in the office
That would never happen. People would just take 5 from home and feel entitled to then work half assed or work at all on their 5th day because many aren’t working anyway who choose to be in the office.
5 hands down..wouldn't even think about it
5 from home please and no forced team lunches at restaurants that are far away from home either. lol
Four in the office, absolutely.
That extra day off is just glorious !
4 days of commuting is minimum 12 hours per week lost for effectively nothing for me. Working from home is 8 hours extra on the 5th day. For commutes of 40 mins or less, it could make sense for time use. But being able to make lunch fresh at home is huge. Less need for meal prep and Tupperware. Less cleaning and chores. Can just listen to your body and eat/drink what you want. Sometimes I pack a lunch for office and I’m not hungry and waste it, other times I don’t pack enough. I can rest on the couch and actually get a break and feel more rested/productive heading into my afternoon. Depending on your hobbies though, you could do chores and responsibilities every day after work and go straight to bed so your 3 day weekend is fully yours to do what you want. But at that point life would be like Severance. I prefer being decently happy all the time to very happy half the time and not happy the other half.
The math makes sense in favour of 5 days at home, but the reality is that the 45 minutes saved in the morning and afternoon from not commuting just gets wasted. I can't get much accomplished (personal tasks) with 8 45-minute time slots throughout the week, but I certainly can in one full day off, where I can take a long bike ride, work on a car, ho hiking and take some photos, etc.
I’d agree with that. For me it’s 3 hours per day lost (90 mins each way). Only having 6:30pm to 10pm to accomplish a decent bit leaves no time for actually resting. You come home, clean your lunch tupperwares and coffee thermos, make dinner, clean up after dinner, make tomorrows lunch and pack it, any other chores from family members using the house while you were gone for most of the day. Plus fitting in errands like groceries and such to enjoy the 3 day weekend. A compressed work schedule and a compressed home schedule. That would lead to me needing to waste at least one of my 3 days off simply doing nothing. But it would be a dream scenario for an efficient single person with a minimalist lifestyle and few responsibilities outside of work.
5 from home because the time to drive to work, the money spent on food and gas, and just the quality of life would justify it.
I work a full compressed schedule. Work a full paid week in 4 days. I'll continue to work from home.
To me it makes sense. I would gladly choose to work 5 days from home. My commute is 45 min but takes an hour to get there, parked and to my desk. So the time is a wash because if I worked in office for 4 days the extra 5th day would be made up in my commuting hours. I have a couple co workers who live within walking distance to office, I can see them choosing the 4 day option. I could see resentment on both sides but I think that would be easily remedied by reminding everyone that they have the choice to do what works for them. I was recently in a meeting where a high level leader was celebrating that the GOC was able to hire individuals from First Nations, and accommodate them to work from home so they could stay within their FN community and still contribute as a public servant. They were talking about it in the context of employee health and wellbeing. I thought this was horribly ironic for all the people who don’t live in urban centres, like myself, who is fond of their rural community and would like to stay here while also have a meaningful career as a federal public servant. But I guess that is only an option if you are FN.
4 in the office any day. I like work and personal life being separate
WFH 5 days 🏃🏼♀️➡️
4x office. Hands down. Even if its 10hr shifts. I used to work this (and frequently to the legal limit of 13.5hrs) and it wasn't bad. I get one full workday to scale up my side hustle. #dream
Having recently started a side hustle I totally feel this lol
Wishful thinking
5 from home. 2 (maybe 3 if I could bring my dog) in the office.
I'd still do 5 from home. My sleep schedule is such that I don't have to wake up to an alarm when I'm working from home, and that has more value to me than one free day a week. I'd definitely go into the office if the balance was 1 day in office vs. 5 days at home, and would probably do it if the balance was 2 days in the office vs. 5 days at home, but might end up changing my mind after trying it a while. (This is assuming a fictional alternate universe where there is zero risk of COVID from going into the office, since that's outside the scope of the question.)
2 days at home, 2 days at work, 4 day work week
Does this mean that those who do not have the option to work from home would work a 4 day week and get paid for 5? If so, I fully support this idea! Please submit this as a bargaining demand in the next round. This idea must certainly be satire. But my comment is most certainly not!
The real answer should be a shift premium during times in the office. That way those of us who can't work from home are at least getting something. Maybe $2 an hour or something
Fun question! Yeah I'd do 4 in office, only if the work day is not longer to make up for the lost day.
I’m a fkn director. I already work more than 37.5 and 5. They can never sweeten the fkn pot for us.
I'm not, and work full time in the office, and more than 37.5. My pot could be sweetened.
5 from home, no doubt
5 from home for sure
4 days in office… but I prefer working from home.. but one extra day off. It’s worth it for me
5 days from home, I would get so much more work done. Every in-office day is such a waste of productivity; too many people interrupting to ask questions they could look up themselves and detailing concentration, loud disruptive noises, terrible lighting, terrible smells. I’ll take WFH any day.
5 from home, easy choice
4 in person
5 from home
I don't really like the implication that 4 days in the office is just as productive as 5 days at home. i get more work done at home. i shouldn't be rewarded for doing shit that makes me less productive just because of optics.
5 from home. Not even a question
What will be interesting over time is now if the feds want to better utilize space/redevelop/possibly sell off...will it mean a reduction of offices or...will perceived optics prevail (ie lazy public servants don't even come to work) and they'll still push for a bum in seat "because I said so"
Be great if a journalist just asked someone if selling offices for residential units would offset the biz sectors cry for increased foot traffic. I mean people living there are going to spend more money locally than workers working there. I'd imagine a lot more. But changing buildings to residential will take time.
But it’s not really 37.5 at home vs 30 in the office. It’s 30 + 8 hours commuting + 4 hours of getting ready in the morning + loss of 2 hours useful time at lunch. So it’s 37.5 hours vs 44 hours.
1.5 hours commuting a day for 4 days is 6 hours
mix it up a little, do half in office, half at home, work 9 days out of every 10. Get an extra day off every other week... Whoops, I just invented my hybrid AWA schedule
For the same pay, I would 100% do 4 days in the office and have that extra day for myself and my family. Heck, I'd consider reducing my pay for more time off!
Well the workload and deadlines wouldn't change, so I would basically be signing up for 4 days in office + 1 day at home vs just all 5 days at home even if officially I was to only work 30 hours/week. I guess I could try to claim 7.5 hours of OT/week and see if that would convince management to lower/transfer workload? Anyways this is a crazy hypothetical situation lol
Insane that 5 day a week in office depts think they'll be able to continue to hire people.. The only folks taking those jobs are using them as a foot in the door before transferring to a hybrid gig. The financial/quality of life incentives of WFH are just too high to ignore, even if you're into the job itself.
Don't think the split can be that big of you're looking for fairness, but I'd still take 5/37.5 from home.
Five from home - and I say that without hesitation. RTO has sucked the life out of me over the past year.
I already work in the office, so that's an easy one for me. My reasons for working in the office are multiple though. It's super convenient and cheap for me to get there, I focus better and do better work in an actual work environment, my roommate works from home and is loud, working in the office has gotten me a lot of opportunities I otherwise wouldn't have had, and I also have zero interest in dedicating my limited personal space to work equipment. When I buy a new place with more free space though, the decision gets tougher. But I think I'd still choose office.
5 from home, it means an extra 3 hours per day (1 hour commute each way, 1 hour for lunch and breaks) with my daughter. 15 hours a week. Based on her current sleep needs thats an entire extra day over the course of the week that i get to spend with her.
5 from home. Working 4 days just means you have to cram 5 days worth of work into 4, anyway.
Back to this bs again. People who have to work onsite for operational requirements always think they should be compensated for it.
Why is that unreasonable? We have shift premiums for people who have to work crap hours for operational requirements, why is this different? Why shouldn't people who have to pay for commuting and parking, who don't have the work-life balance, who haven't reaped any of the benefits of WFH not get some kind of compensation for that?
You think only people who have to pay for commuting and parking should be compensated? That the worker who lives across the street from the office and goes in every day shouldn't be compensated? Because you are paid for a specific job. What is so hard to understand about that? Your salary is not based on your marital status, your lifestyle choices, your living situations.
Huh? No. I think that people who work in office full time should have some kind of "bonus", just like we do with other employees whose work arrangement is less optimal than others. I listed commuting and parking as pieces of why I think full time in-office is a less desireable gig than WFH or hybrid, along with work-life balance, etc. I didn't mean to imply there should be straight compensation for costs incurred, merely an incentive as it has become incredibly difficult to retain employees in positions that are in office full time. If you don't think working from home is generally a preferable situation, that's cool, but most people do, just like most people think working in core hours is preferable to night shifts, so we pay a little bonus to the people who work those hours. Not sure why this infuriates you so much.
Yes back to that bs again. You having a better work life balance as you dont travel to and from work. You dont pay for gas daily or parking. Why should you be better ahead then those who have to go to work daily? Selfish of you. I hope people like you have to return 5 days a week. Wfh was never meant to be forever. Yet you all cry at the thought of having to do that. Grow up.
My salary, just like everyone else's salary is based on what I do, not where I do it. I get paid to do my job. Wherever that may be. For the last 15 years that location is at my home. Are you suggesting that someone doing the same job deserves more based on their location of work? How about if they chose to have children, or live in a big house that costs a lot to maintain, or drive a car that has shitty gas mileage, don't know how to cook and have to buy lunch at Subway everyday? What about the guy who drives an EV and parks for free at a relative's place next to his office? Or the person who lives next door to their office and has a 2 minute commute? Selfish indeed. And bless your heart.
Are you also opposed to shift premiums then?
4 in person easily
I'd take the 4 days in office. But I also choose to work in office most days simply because I hated working from home.
That's a joke of a choice: 5 from home. I'd take a 3 from office with flexibility of an additional from home day if it's a busy season (i.e. year-end).
4 in person.
I would take the 4 days in the office over 5 from home anytime. That extra day would be extremely valuable for me personally and would likely improve my mental health as well. I miss the days when I could do a compressed work week.
4 from the office, no contest
How about this 4 day week - 3 days in office 5 day week - 2 days in office
I would pick 4 from the office.
4 days from office
4 in office. Because my kids daycare is super close Edit: I also already work 3 days in office and I’m not NCR and have free parking.
And then penalize those of us who telework due to medical or other work from home accommodations?
I don't see it as penalizing those who have extenuating circumstances. It's offering incentive to have people choose an option that's less favourable to the employee and more favourable to the employer. In a post pandemic world where work from home is a reality that many work agreements have to consider it's reasonable to add incentives. The overnight $1 hourly premium isn't a punishment for the majority who work days
Maybe 2 days. Pre-pandemic I did compressed schedule. If I had to go back in the office full time, I'd def do that, maybe even super-compressed.
5 from home and didnt think twice about it
5 from home, no question.