Repersonalizing the Office
Jan. 12th, 2023 02:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blogcutterFor folks on all sides of the "Let's get federal public servants back to the office" debate, here's a wild thought for you: What if we actually made the office an attractive place to work?
I know this may sound ridiculous to outsiders who think public servants are already a bunch of spoilt, idle fat cats with gold-plated pensions and benefits. "What more do they want?" these outsiders ask. "Are we expected to believe they can or will be productive when they're sitting at home?"
Well, that depends. The nature of the work that public servants do is so diverse - just like the Canadian population they serve - that there cannot possibly be a single one-size-fits-all solution. Some work may lend itself well to full-time telecommuting; some may require full-time availability on the employer's premises; some may be more conducive to a hybrid arrangement with a certain percentage of working hours allocated to mandatory in-person meetings and group work, while other time could be organized to suit the individual worker. There are labour issues, there are management issues, and often they operate at cross-purposes. But not always.
Collective bargaining, done right and in good faith on both sides, with dispute mechanisms to resort to if needed, can be a good way to resolve conflicts between employers and employees. But not everything has to be adversarial and I think many people would be pleasantly surprised at the number of areas in which the employer's and employee's visions converge. I'd love to see more labour-management committees, more bipartite and tripartite structures to flesh out matters of mutual concern. Happy employees and valued employees, generally speaking, are productive employees.
As I understand it, the latest order is that beginning January 16, some public servants must start going into the office two or three days per week. There will be a phase-in period lasting until the end of March at which point everyone (all full-time public servants) will be required to work on-site 2 to 3 days a week.
But here's what I don't know:
Will they make a choice between either 2 or 3 days a week? And can they choose WHICH days? Can they choose to work 4 or 5 days in the office if they prefer that kind of arrangement?
Believe it or not, I know plenty of people who actually WANT to work from the office. They want a clear separation between home and work. But if they're going to go in to work each day, they want their own space. None of this "hoteling" and "universal footprint" and having to depersonalize their space. For services that people WANT to get in person - maybe passports, Social Insurance Numbers, income tax matters, some library services, and so forth - I think it makes perfect sense for public servants to be in a central office somewhere.
I honestly believe that public servants used to be valued much more than they are today. I joined the public service in 1976 and retired in 2009 (with a few summer and part-time jobs in the pre-1976 period). The biggest attraction was job security. We were urged to accept any public service position we could get because once inside, we could apply for those types of permanent position we might aspire to. There were also some clear career paths. At university, recruiters appeared on campus every fall and most of us wrote standardized tests as a possible entry point to the Administrative Trainee and the Foreign Service Officer categories. And there were other paths specific to specific majors and specializations. People with degrees could start at specific prescribed salaries, depending on the level of the degree.
Even if you didn't have a degree or a diploma, you had excellent job security as well as a number of other favourable job conditions once you landed a permanent position in the public service. I remember the days when every federal building had its own (price-subsidized) cafeteria. Those days are long gone! We were entitled to severance payments if we opted to leave the public service. We were unionized. We had our own workspace. Many of us, even at relatively low levels, had our own office with a window that opened and a door that closed.
Then they got into the "open office" concept and we became a bewildering maze of impersonal cubicles. Then there was the "universal footprint". Cafeterias were closed or privatized; employees often had to pay if they wanted an on-site fridge or microwave for lunches they brought.
Some of the most egregious recent assaults on public servants have come since I retired: cancellation of severance payments; the incrediblibly awful Phoenix pay system - and more.
I don't regret the career I had, but I'm VERY glad to be retired!
I know this may sound ridiculous to outsiders who think public servants are already a bunch of spoilt, idle fat cats with gold-plated pensions and benefits. "What more do they want?" these outsiders ask. "Are we expected to believe they can or will be productive when they're sitting at home?"
Well, that depends. The nature of the work that public servants do is so diverse - just like the Canadian population they serve - that there cannot possibly be a single one-size-fits-all solution. Some work may lend itself well to full-time telecommuting; some may require full-time availability on the employer's premises; some may be more conducive to a hybrid arrangement with a certain percentage of working hours allocated to mandatory in-person meetings and group work, while other time could be organized to suit the individual worker. There are labour issues, there are management issues, and often they operate at cross-purposes. But not always.
Collective bargaining, done right and in good faith on both sides, with dispute mechanisms to resort to if needed, can be a good way to resolve conflicts between employers and employees. But not everything has to be adversarial and I think many people would be pleasantly surprised at the number of areas in which the employer's and employee's visions converge. I'd love to see more labour-management committees, more bipartite and tripartite structures to flesh out matters of mutual concern. Happy employees and valued employees, generally speaking, are productive employees.
As I understand it, the latest order is that beginning January 16, some public servants must start going into the office two or three days per week. There will be a phase-in period lasting until the end of March at which point everyone (all full-time public servants) will be required to work on-site 2 to 3 days a week.
But here's what I don't know:
Will they make a choice between either 2 or 3 days a week? And can they choose WHICH days? Can they choose to work 4 or 5 days in the office if they prefer that kind of arrangement?
Believe it or not, I know plenty of people who actually WANT to work from the office. They want a clear separation between home and work. But if they're going to go in to work each day, they want their own space. None of this "hoteling" and "universal footprint" and having to depersonalize their space. For services that people WANT to get in person - maybe passports, Social Insurance Numbers, income tax matters, some library services, and so forth - I think it makes perfect sense for public servants to be in a central office somewhere.
I honestly believe that public servants used to be valued much more than they are today. I joined the public service in 1976 and retired in 2009 (with a few summer and part-time jobs in the pre-1976 period). The biggest attraction was job security. We were urged to accept any public service position we could get because once inside, we could apply for those types of permanent position we might aspire to. There were also some clear career paths. At university, recruiters appeared on campus every fall and most of us wrote standardized tests as a possible entry point to the Administrative Trainee and the Foreign Service Officer categories. And there were other paths specific to specific majors and specializations. People with degrees could start at specific prescribed salaries, depending on the level of the degree.
Even if you didn't have a degree or a diploma, you had excellent job security as well as a number of other favourable job conditions once you landed a permanent position in the public service. I remember the days when every federal building had its own (price-subsidized) cafeteria. Those days are long gone! We were entitled to severance payments if we opted to leave the public service. We were unionized. We had our own workspace. Many of us, even at relatively low levels, had our own office with a window that opened and a door that closed.
Then they got into the "open office" concept and we became a bewildering maze of impersonal cubicles. Then there was the "universal footprint". Cafeterias were closed or privatized; employees often had to pay if they wanted an on-site fridge or microwave for lunches they brought.
Some of the most egregious recent assaults on public servants have come since I retired: cancellation of severance payments; the incrediblibly awful Phoenix pay system - and more.
I don't regret the career I had, but I'm VERY glad to be retired!
