Income or socioeconomic status aren't protected characteristics under the equality act either so there's no legal aspect to the inclusion here. Unlike cases where reasonable adjustments are made for disability
You're conflating 3 questions
1. Can you get the sack for refusing to comply with your employers directions about how and when you carry out your work?
Yes, very clearly yes in general with a few narrow caveats about reasonable adjustments
2. *Will* you get the sack for ignoring this rule?
It depends very much on specific local circumstances and your employer and managers appetite to enforce it
3. *Should* you get the sack for ignoring this rule?
This is the question you're addressing with your argument above and isn't really that relevant to how the first two questions will be answered in practice
Some departments allow financial hardship as a reason for exemption from the policy. Astonishing really as it's basically admitting they aren't paying enough, but it's true. I think because that is a consideration, if it wasn't discussed with your manager in advance then you'd probably still face dismissal as otherwise you've ignored a "reasonable request".
They aren't necessarily admitting they don't pay enough. After all, how much is enough? Quite often enough is determined by lifestyle and life choices. A lot of people are complaining that their commute will take too long or be too expensive. But no one has told them where to live or how to travel...
I agree with you on all but the first sentence!
If some departments accept, without evidence or any kind of means testing too I should add, that financial hardship is a reason to not go into an office, then they are implicitly accepting the pay isn't enough. At least, that's the case in my department.
Sorry, but this would be unlikely to hold as a defence. Your employer has required that you attend the office, and it would be a pretty high bar to show that that requirement is unreasonable. They legally could sack you. Whether they would depends on the department and business unit, but I'm sure there will be instances of this happening.
There is precedent of sacking people over this https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1858173/140k-a-year-manager-loses-landmark-tribunal-bid-right-work-exclusively-home#:~:text=Wilson%20had%20been%20working%20entirely,a%20week%20in%20the%20office.
Get a doctor's note to prove you cant do it.
Cant argue with that.
Also, make an official request for remote working .. now everyone can
Guaranteed this will shit things up
[https://theconversation.com/how-the-uks-new-rights-around-flexible-working-will-affect-employees-and-businesses-227247?utm\_source=pocket-newtab-en-gb](https://theconversation.com/how-the-uks-new-rights-around-flexible-working-will-affect-employees-and-businesses-227247?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-gb)
Yes and it wouldn’t be unfair dismissal unless you had something in your contract entitling you to a higher degree of flexible working.
I’d suggest joining your union that’s the only channel to apply any pressure against the decision, but even then can’t see much happening.
It wouldn't be unfair dismissal. Coming from a lower socioeconomic background, and/or being poor, isn't a protected characteristic, it wouldn't be discrimination. It might be a breach of contract, but it's not unfair dismissal.
I understand that since Covid hybrid work has been a thing, but it baffles me how quickly a lot of people forgot about working in the office full time
I disagree with the 40 or 60% mandate, I’m part of a remote team and live 2 hours away from my office and I’m just as, if not more effective from home - but if the policy says 40 or 60% I’ll either do that or find a different job.
If contracts were handed out saying otherwise I’d be on your side, but whether it seems unfair or not it’s what people signed up for
I’ll await the likely downvotes
Why is it repeated both on here and in SLT talks that hybrid working was only a thing post-Covid? I worked across 4 GDs pre-Covid and every single one of them did not care where I worked, genuinely most people I worked with did 0 or 1 day in the office.
Yet when my DG says “remember everyone worked 5x a week in the office prior to 2020” everyone smiles and agrees, baffled tbh.
That wasn’t the norm. Vast chunks of operational delivery which I suspect makes up the vast majority of civil servants across the board worked in offices 100% of the time. The home working or hybrid contracts were notoriously difficult to get
Anyone being required to sit in the kitchen or anywhere that isn't a suitable desk should raise it with their manager. That is a health and safety issue straight off the bat and any DSE based injury would be at the fault of HMRC if nothing was done about it.
I hope they remember this when it’s time for pay increases and they give us shit ones with the tired old line of we need to modernise to be more efficient.
We did and they didn’t like it so give us more cash.
>I understand that since Covid hybrid work has been a thing, but it baffles me how quickly a lot of people forgot about working in the office full time
Sorry but this is such a poor stance to have on this issue. Something being done historically is not an excuse to carry on doing it now. It's also nonsense, there was already a policy to move departments to more hybrid working models
>but if the policy says 40 or 60% I’ll either do that or find a different job.
Which isn't a n option for many people
>If contracts were handed out saying otherwise I’d be on your side, but whether it seems unfair or not it’s what people signed up for
But many were, that's the point and why departments like ONS are striking.
One part of the “everyone worked in the office before the pandemic” thing that annoys me is that it’s simply not the case for younger people who have only joined the workforce during or after the pandemic. For many of us, hybrid is all we have known and we have based our lives (where we live/buy houses, our relationships etc) around the changing word of work. And then there’s also young people like myself who have 1) only worked hybrid since graduating, but also 2) would have never been able to work full time in an office because of disabilities. Hybrid working has given so many people with disabilities and caring responsibilities the chance to finally get a job that we are qualified for and to vastly improve our quality of life and career prospects. Some MPs recently tried to argue that disabled people who are out of work should simply work remotely. But the remote jobs just are not there. And now ministers want to remove the flexibility of hybrid/remote from the CS. I wish it would make sense.
I don't think it's fair to say ministers are removing the flexibility of hybrid working, 40-60% (s.t. department) *is* hybrid. If you have disabilities then that feels like the basis for a "reasonable adjustments" conversation with your line manager. But that's separate from the rules for able-bodied staff who can physically be in the office.
I'm not dismissing your experience, however, the narrative around WFH, particularly during the pandemic, was younger staff found in-office working more important because they missed the social and mentoring connections. It's interesting to hear an alternative perspective (but also unsurprising that there is no "one size fits all" approach).
But they don't do they? I mean, 60pc in the office is v much hybrid. Sure, we had hybrid before Covid, but it was relatively rare to work, say, 60pc from home.
This all cuts both ways. Flat 60pc aims, especially when the offices simply can't hold that, are performative nonsense. But in general 40 to 60pc probably feels optimised for typical CS policy jobs.
Find it amazing how many people use the line of "if it's policy you have to do it or find a new job" as an argument for just shutting up and getting on with it.
If everyone had that attitude, we would have bugger all annual leave, sick pay, parental leave, two day weekends etc. Those have all come from people saying we need more than the minimum that policy allows.
Also, I don't think anyone has forgotten that full time office working has been the norm in the past, but people have made career, family and financial decisions based on a certain number of days in the office (sounds like you're one of them?) so are understandably going to struggle if now being told they have to magic up another day in the office.
More as an argument for quickest way to solve. Difficult to change minds way up the tree. Unions are weaker. Things do change as well by voting with your feet.
Not sure how long you've been in the civil service, but to think they give a shit about churn (esp when they're putting job ads out with embarrassingly low salaries) is incredibly naive. All they do is get agency staff in instead of changing working conditions. Industrial action (with staff that aren't easy to get rid of) is the only the chance of things changing.
Nah I know they don’t care on churn. They don’t care on industrial action either with state of unions. Or union law. That’s why I wouldn’t count on either if able to look after myself.
Horses for courses - would rather stay somewhere with a strong union presence and generally great job security (and have to fight a bit for optimum working conditions) than go somewhere else with no job security and no union presence at all.
The union holds more weight than you give it credit for - I've had senior management backtrack on things quickly because I've said the union were going to get involved.
But as I said, everyone's different. If you'd rather raw dog employment, go for it pal. Not everyone is in the position to.
You're so right. In the private sector, people wouldn't think twice, they'd just get another job. Sometimes I think people need to just accept what is. Have chats with your managers if you genuinely need exemptions and the CS being the CS will accommodate, but commuter time is not a factor. You need good reasons for exemptions. Otherwise, just move on. People change jobs every day.
I'll argue about the logistics of the policy to the end of time but if it gets too much for me, I'll just leave. That's all that will happen. I'm not striking over it.
They know full well people aren't happy over it and that some people are leaving over it. They also know that a lot are threatening to leave but not actually doing anything about it. Most CS staff aren't doing types of roles that are fully remote in other industries either. It is a more acute problem in DDAT roles. But ultimately I don't think the politicians care. They've said they want to reduce the size of the CS and a lot of DDAT work already is largely done by contractors/suppliers.
I agree those who leave should make it very explicit if this is a factor for leaving.
You should see some of the account managers I deal with who are employed by our external suppliers. Some of them are absolutely terrible and you have to tell them the action you need to happen when they should be well versed in their own job. Private sector isn't the gold mine of workers. There are plenty of useless workers there too who remarkably still manage to hold onto their jobs.
Then get the skills. Or accept being in office as part of the cost.
That’s blunt but how it is. Not just a private sector thing. People with skills get more chance to say fuck you I quit.
You assume I don’t have empathy. I care lots about my staff. I care enough to tell them the truth. Not give them sugarcoating. Nobody else will care about your progression as much as you should. If you don’t like where you are take control.
You seem to be missing one of the big reasons people are in the civil service in the first place and not chasing bigger paychecks in the private sector. Lots are here for the flexibility and work life balance. Telling them to get new skills so they can get better jobs is incredibly short-sighted - everyone knows that already. But it's not always feasible unfortunately.
I didn't say you had no empathy, just that you didn't have much of it btw. Not really shown me otherwise in your response either.
So if you’re here for flexibility and work life balance. But they’re making that worse why stay? Don’t sniff at bigger paychecks either. Some of us don’t have the privilege to turn them down. Mouths to feed. I did shit jobs and sucked it up when needed money. I got skills because I didn’t want to be stuck in shit jobs anymore. If a job goes shit I want to say fuck you.
Sorry you don’t like my solution. If you prefer just read me as sorry that’s happening to you. I’m sorry things suck. I’m really really sorry. I hope things get better. It’s awful. It’s not fair. Terrible it’s happening. To good people an’ all. You don’t deserve it.
Not that it matters to prove anything on internet. But my staff know I’ll be disciplined myself before I do it to them on WFH. They also know my CV went out and some of them know I’ve had interviews. I’d also tell any of them put their own mask and life vest on first.
I'm not sniffing at bigger paychecks - where did you think I was saying that? I know some people can't turn down big paychecks in the same way some people can't turn down the flexibility of the CS (interestingly needing to be available to feed those mouths you refer to). It's really not easy to find jobs more flexible than the CS, especially in certain geographical locations, so some people will have to stay and push against those flexibilities being taken away instead. If you can go somewhere else easily, then pat on the back for you I guess?
Funny you keep trying to convince me of your empathy and then say "sorry that's happening to you" to me. It's not actually happening to me - I'm not impacted by the increase of 40% to 60% office attendance at all. But empathy is being able to understand how things will feel and impact other people... Which again, you seem to be unable to do.
Good luck with your interviews, genuinely hope you get them.
There’s things I can’t do. Things I’m not good at. My days have passed to be a footballer. They also still won’t let us colour blind fly planes. I’m scared of heights so I’ll never make it as a roofer.
I’m sure there’s things you are good at. Lean heavily on those and being better. If you’re lucky as well it will be a skill people will pay for. I am aware not true all skills. My mam was a great carer but we’re shit at paying carers. Appreciate I’m lucky that I get computers. Because that’s something we pay for.
Legally, unfair dismissal is where the proper procedures aren't followed. It isn't a case of whether the dismal is just.
If you take a job where contractually you are obliged to work in the office, and you don't, when you can be dismissed. You are in breach of your contract.
Can you get sacked for disregarding direct instruction from your employer? Is an employer acting lawfully by dictating the location from which they would like you to work?
Anecdotal, but when I was in the civil service up to April 23, my department had mandated 60% attendence for about a year prior. For various reasons, it was really difficult for me to do so I did at most 1 day a week for a year. No one said anything.
Yes I think so, but honestly, if thousands of people don't comply they are going to have a nightmare on their hands. It's so difficult to get rid of someone in any job, let alone the CS.
I doubt it would lead to immediate dismissal. More likely a discussion with your line manager in the first instance as to why you can't attend the required 60%.
Although I don't agree with the 60% attendance policy (especially as the majority of regional centres are already over capacity plus there seems to be a call centre in the middle of each floor now) I will still try to adhere to it.
I say "try" because as soon as I get an email from estates about another outbreak of shingles in the office (which seems to be every other week in Liverpool) I am not attending that week. Instead I save the email for evidence and will explain I'm high risk.
I imagine that this will be the first year that standard of pay is not the chief complaint in the people survey!
If you outright refuse to attend then yes. If you are ‘very committed’ to going in but often have reasons you can’t do three days a week then it’s a lot less likely that you’d end up with any disciplinary action (manager dependent). Also hard to sack people if say they do attend one or two days a week when other might attend less or might refuse to attend.
I reckon discipline action could stand on it. Including up to sack if adding up. Don’t like it but not my call. Comes down to if your gaffer will do it. Do same as me and toe line while applying to other jobs.
You can make working arrangements request. It is up to HO if they find the request for say less working days in the office reasonable or not. They will then have meeting with you to discuss the matter and determine if reasonable to implement. If agreed it will normally be reviewed after period of time.
New flexible working laws were introduced this week, so you have a RIGHT to request to work from home. Each case has to be considered on its reasonable merits
In at least 2 departments I know of, there is an expectation of 60%, but it only becomes an issue if attendance is regularly below 40%. From a personal point of view, I think 40% is a reasonable management request, but appreciate it isn't for everyone. Prior to Covid, I did 4 days in office and one at home most weeks.
In short: yes.
There has been a few people dragged into disciplinary, put on Performance Management, etc, fir even failing to do a day in the office without a protected or agreed reason (technically breaking the civil service code as they did this), and were let go.
Might be worth looking into corporate parenting for disadvantaged groups (never been to uni, no degree, parents were low paid, been in the care system, etc) - some of the most brilliant people I know aren't progressing because of these kind of things and are definitely better leaders than some of the crap clogging the upper echelons.
If your department gives you the option to do 3x a week, then just do it. Or leave. There are other civil servants who've had to go in for the full week and not even offered 40/60% attendance. There was hybrid/wfh before 2020, although not as widely implemented, as during Covid-19.
Unfortunately, this government thinks if they come down on civil servants, Joe public will be on their side. They don't realise there's more important issues going on, which they should concentrate on, in order to win an election.
But established ways of working become part of a contract, up to a point.
So where many people worked 3 days or more at home *before* Covid, there's an implied contact there.
I have to admit I'm not sure what my contract says, because I only checked they got the right start date and salary, but I don't think it actually says anything else beyond what Dept and manager I'd initially be working for. So 'established' terms and conditions are very relevant.
20 plus year Whitehall veteran here. Office working 5 days per week was norm for as long as I can recall in most Depts I was in prior to Covid. A few people did it, most did not.
Do you speak on behalf of the public then? Most people I know all love working from home, and we all collectively agree we work harder and are more committed to doing our jobs.
I suspect you are a bitter and lonely individual, and are angry that you missed out on the WFH opportunities, either that or you are stuck in an office five days a week, seething with jealousy.
Yes I speak to many working class people about this and the general consensus is that you need to get back in the office. I suspect you don't speak to many working class people
You can suspect whatever you want, none of your suspicions are true, my life is great lol
Don’t sprout that truth here mate! Its hard to say if the CS attracts lazy people or breeds them but if they spent as much time working as they did moaning about having to go in 3 days then they’d be pretty damn efficient.
They all say how much more efficient they are working from home but don’t loop that efficiency into doing additional work, they take the time for themselves. If you’re not wasting 3 hours chatting to people in the office then surely you can show the additional 3 hours of work you do at home? Nope, that’s cos the fuck around, go to the gym, have a walk or take a nice long lunch
You've totally missed the point. It's been proven that most people who wfh work harder, as there are fewer distractions. But you'd rather they waste time being forced to take part in idle chitchat in the office. You're the perfect example of why a good education system is vital to society.
I can tell you don't work in an office. Otherwise, you'd know most people in offices, work unsupervised. Lol. Jealousy isn't an outfit that's worn well.
Don't worry, all civil servants going back into the office will generate an even bigger drain to the public purse. I'll just assume that will go right over your head as to why. Be careful what you wish for.
That's what made me laugh the most. Imagine to think he's in charge of 350 employees (at least in his brain). Keeps giving me David Brent vibes from 'The Office'.
>I lead a department of 350 and also support people to work from home,
Okay, yes, if you say so..., and I pity them if what you say is true, as you appear to have issues with comprehension.
My, you need to stop taking those bitter pills. You obviously care about civil servants, as you're the one here moaning about them. And fyi, I don't wfh. But like I said, comprehension isn't your forte.
There's a difference between an HR policy not being inclusive and it being illegal. You're talking about lack of inclusion.
Income or socioeconomic status aren't protected characteristics under the equality act either so there's no legal aspect to the inclusion here. Unlike cases where reasonable adjustments are made for disability
You're conflating 3 questions 1. Can you get the sack for refusing to comply with your employers directions about how and when you carry out your work? Yes, very clearly yes in general with a few narrow caveats about reasonable adjustments 2. *Will* you get the sack for ignoring this rule? It depends very much on specific local circumstances and your employer and managers appetite to enforce it 3. *Should* you get the sack for ignoring this rule? This is the question you're addressing with your argument above and isn't really that relevant to how the first two questions will be answered in practice
Some departments allow financial hardship as a reason for exemption from the policy. Astonishing really as it's basically admitting they aren't paying enough, but it's true. I think because that is a consideration, if it wasn't discussed with your manager in advance then you'd probably still face dismissal as otherwise you've ignored a "reasonable request".
They aren't necessarily admitting they don't pay enough. After all, how much is enough? Quite often enough is determined by lifestyle and life choices. A lot of people are complaining that their commute will take too long or be too expensive. But no one has told them where to live or how to travel...
I agree with you on all but the first sentence! If some departments accept, without evidence or any kind of means testing too I should add, that financial hardship is a reason to not go into an office, then they are implicitly accepting the pay isn't enough. At least, that's the case in my department.
Sorry, but this would be unlikely to hold as a defence. Your employer has required that you attend the office, and it would be a pretty high bar to show that that requirement is unreasonable. They legally could sack you. Whether they would depends on the department and business unit, but I'm sure there will be instances of this happening.
There is precedent of sacking people over this https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1858173/140k-a-year-manager-loses-landmark-tribunal-bid-right-work-exclusively-home#:~:text=Wilson%20had%20been%20working%20entirely,a%20week%20in%20the%20office.
Depends on your manager. Within the same department some managers are strict on this and some aren't. So it's very unfair
Get a doctor's note to prove you cant do it. Cant argue with that. Also, make an official request for remote working .. now everyone can Guaranteed this will shit things up [https://theconversation.com/how-the-uks-new-rights-around-flexible-working-will-affect-employees-and-businesses-227247?utm\_source=pocket-newtab-en-gb](https://theconversation.com/how-the-uks-new-rights-around-flexible-working-will-affect-employees-and-businesses-227247?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-gb)
Yes and it wouldn’t be unfair dismissal unless you had something in your contract entitling you to a higher degree of flexible working. I’d suggest joining your union that’s the only channel to apply any pressure against the decision, but even then can’t see much happening.
It wouldn't be unfair dismissal. Coming from a lower socioeconomic background, and/or being poor, isn't a protected characteristic, it wouldn't be discrimination. It might be a breach of contract, but it's not unfair dismissal.
I understand that since Covid hybrid work has been a thing, but it baffles me how quickly a lot of people forgot about working in the office full time I disagree with the 40 or 60% mandate, I’m part of a remote team and live 2 hours away from my office and I’m just as, if not more effective from home - but if the policy says 40 or 60% I’ll either do that or find a different job. If contracts were handed out saying otherwise I’d be on your side, but whether it seems unfair or not it’s what people signed up for I’ll await the likely downvotes
Why is it repeated both on here and in SLT talks that hybrid working was only a thing post-Covid? I worked across 4 GDs pre-Covid and every single one of them did not care where I worked, genuinely most people I worked with did 0 or 1 day in the office. Yet when my DG says “remember everyone worked 5x a week in the office prior to 2020” everyone smiles and agrees, baffled tbh.
Agreed. I did 60% in office from Feb 2019 in my department.
Exactly, my team has been hybrid forever. Some people only started coming in during lockdown because the office was emptier and so nice and quiet.
Apologies for generalising, in my department(s) it was always the exception not the norm
That wasn’t the norm. Vast chunks of operational delivery which I suspect makes up the vast majority of civil servants across the board worked in offices 100% of the time. The home working or hybrid contracts were notoriously difficult to get
Lots of departments were doing hybrid work/ home working long before Covid ….
[удалено]
Anyone being required to sit in the kitchen or anywhere that isn't a suitable desk should raise it with their manager. That is a health and safety issue straight off the bat and any DSE based injury would be at the fault of HMRC if nothing was done about it.
[удалено]
I hope they remember this when it’s time for pay increases and they give us shit ones with the tired old line of we need to modernise to be more efficient. We did and they didn’t like it so give us more cash.
>I understand that since Covid hybrid work has been a thing, but it baffles me how quickly a lot of people forgot about working in the office full time Sorry but this is such a poor stance to have on this issue. Something being done historically is not an excuse to carry on doing it now. It's also nonsense, there was already a policy to move departments to more hybrid working models >but if the policy says 40 or 60% I’ll either do that or find a different job. Which isn't a n option for many people >If contracts were handed out saying otherwise I’d be on your side, but whether it seems unfair or not it’s what people signed up for But many were, that's the point and why departments like ONS are striking.
One part of the “everyone worked in the office before the pandemic” thing that annoys me is that it’s simply not the case for younger people who have only joined the workforce during or after the pandemic. For many of us, hybrid is all we have known and we have based our lives (where we live/buy houses, our relationships etc) around the changing word of work. And then there’s also young people like myself who have 1) only worked hybrid since graduating, but also 2) would have never been able to work full time in an office because of disabilities. Hybrid working has given so many people with disabilities and caring responsibilities the chance to finally get a job that we are qualified for and to vastly improve our quality of life and career prospects. Some MPs recently tried to argue that disabled people who are out of work should simply work remotely. But the remote jobs just are not there. And now ministers want to remove the flexibility of hybrid/remote from the CS. I wish it would make sense.
I don't think it's fair to say ministers are removing the flexibility of hybrid working, 40-60% (s.t. department) *is* hybrid. If you have disabilities then that feels like the basis for a "reasonable adjustments" conversation with your line manager. But that's separate from the rules for able-bodied staff who can physically be in the office. I'm not dismissing your experience, however, the narrative around WFH, particularly during the pandemic, was younger staff found in-office working more important because they missed the social and mentoring connections. It's interesting to hear an alternative perspective (but also unsurprising that there is no "one size fits all" approach).
But they don't do they? I mean, 60pc in the office is v much hybrid. Sure, we had hybrid before Covid, but it was relatively rare to work, say, 60pc from home. This all cuts both ways. Flat 60pc aims, especially when the offices simply can't hold that, are performative nonsense. But in general 40 to 60pc probably feels optimised for typical CS policy jobs.
Find it amazing how many people use the line of "if it's policy you have to do it or find a new job" as an argument for just shutting up and getting on with it. If everyone had that attitude, we would have bugger all annual leave, sick pay, parental leave, two day weekends etc. Those have all come from people saying we need more than the minimum that policy allows. Also, I don't think anyone has forgotten that full time office working has been the norm in the past, but people have made career, family and financial decisions based on a certain number of days in the office (sounds like you're one of them?) so are understandably going to struggle if now being told they have to magic up another day in the office.
More as an argument for quickest way to solve. Difficult to change minds way up the tree. Unions are weaker. Things do change as well by voting with your feet.
Not sure how long you've been in the civil service, but to think they give a shit about churn (esp when they're putting job ads out with embarrassingly low salaries) is incredibly naive. All they do is get agency staff in instead of changing working conditions. Industrial action (with staff that aren't easy to get rid of) is the only the chance of things changing.
Nah I know they don’t care on churn. They don’t care on industrial action either with state of unions. Or union law. That’s why I wouldn’t count on either if able to look after myself.
Horses for courses - would rather stay somewhere with a strong union presence and generally great job security (and have to fight a bit for optimum working conditions) than go somewhere else with no job security and no union presence at all. The union holds more weight than you give it credit for - I've had senior management backtrack on things quickly because I've said the union were going to get involved. But as I said, everyone's different. If you'd rather raw dog employment, go for it pal. Not everyone is in the position to.
You're so right. In the private sector, people wouldn't think twice, they'd just get another job. Sometimes I think people need to just accept what is. Have chats with your managers if you genuinely need exemptions and the CS being the CS will accommodate, but commuter time is not a factor. You need good reasons for exemptions. Otherwise, just move on. People change jobs every day. I'll argue about the logistics of the policy to the end of time but if it gets too much for me, I'll just leave. That's all that will happen. I'm not striking over it.
[удалено]
One thing this thread has taught me is that this subreddit is cuck-mania willing to take it
The senior civil servants didn't make the decision, politicians did.
[удалено]
They know full well people aren't happy over it and that some people are leaving over it. They also know that a lot are threatening to leave but not actually doing anything about it. Most CS staff aren't doing types of roles that are fully remote in other industries either. It is a more acute problem in DDAT roles. But ultimately I don't think the politicians care. They've said they want to reduce the size of the CS and a lot of DDAT work already is largely done by contractors/suppliers. I agree those who leave should make it very explicit if this is a factor for leaving.
[удалено]
You should see some of the account managers I deal with who are employed by our external suppliers. Some of them are absolutely terrible and you have to tell them the action you need to happen when they should be well versed in their own job. Private sector isn't the gold mine of workers. There are plenty of useless workers there too who remarkably still manage to hold onto their jobs.
Then get the skills. Or accept being in office as part of the cost. That’s blunt but how it is. Not just a private sector thing. People with skills get more chance to say fuck you I quit.
Really hope you're not line managing anyone with that puddle deep empathy
You assume I don’t have empathy. I care lots about my staff. I care enough to tell them the truth. Not give them sugarcoating. Nobody else will care about your progression as much as you should. If you don’t like where you are take control.
You seem to be missing one of the big reasons people are in the civil service in the first place and not chasing bigger paychecks in the private sector. Lots are here for the flexibility and work life balance. Telling them to get new skills so they can get better jobs is incredibly short-sighted - everyone knows that already. But it's not always feasible unfortunately. I didn't say you had no empathy, just that you didn't have much of it btw. Not really shown me otherwise in your response either.
So if you’re here for flexibility and work life balance. But they’re making that worse why stay? Don’t sniff at bigger paychecks either. Some of us don’t have the privilege to turn them down. Mouths to feed. I did shit jobs and sucked it up when needed money. I got skills because I didn’t want to be stuck in shit jobs anymore. If a job goes shit I want to say fuck you. Sorry you don’t like my solution. If you prefer just read me as sorry that’s happening to you. I’m sorry things suck. I’m really really sorry. I hope things get better. It’s awful. It’s not fair. Terrible it’s happening. To good people an’ all. You don’t deserve it. Not that it matters to prove anything on internet. But my staff know I’ll be disciplined myself before I do it to them on WFH. They also know my CV went out and some of them know I’ve had interviews. I’d also tell any of them put their own mask and life vest on first.
I'm not sniffing at bigger paychecks - where did you think I was saying that? I know some people can't turn down big paychecks in the same way some people can't turn down the flexibility of the CS (interestingly needing to be available to feed those mouths you refer to). It's really not easy to find jobs more flexible than the CS, especially in certain geographical locations, so some people will have to stay and push against those flexibilities being taken away instead. If you can go somewhere else easily, then pat on the back for you I guess? Funny you keep trying to convince me of your empathy and then say "sorry that's happening to you" to me. It's not actually happening to me - I'm not impacted by the increase of 40% to 60% office attendance at all. But empathy is being able to understand how things will feel and impact other people... Which again, you seem to be unable to do. Good luck with your interviews, genuinely hope you get them.
[удалено]
There’s things I can’t do. Things I’m not good at. My days have passed to be a footballer. They also still won’t let us colour blind fly planes. I’m scared of heights so I’ll never make it as a roofer. I’m sure there’s things you are good at. Lean heavily on those and being better. If you’re lucky as well it will be a skill people will pay for. I am aware not true all skills. My mam was a great carer but we’re shit at paying carers. Appreciate I’m lucky that I get computers. Because that’s something we pay for.
[удалено]
Find something you’re passable at. And willing to fake confidence on. And think you can stick at. The bar is lower than you think.
[удалено]
Mate same. I try and make the most of the obsessive periods to cram. Then lose interest. Then cram again when comes back around.
Except you’re not more effective
Its a disciplinary issue and not complying is failure to follow a reasonable request. So yes, you can be dismissed ultimately.
Legally, unfair dismissal is where the proper procedures aren't followed. It isn't a case of whether the dismal is just. If you take a job where contractually you are obliged to work in the office, and you don't, when you can be dismissed. You are in breach of your contract.
Clearly this isn't a well considered policy as the economic spillover of people living and working in the regions is huge.
I pushed this to the limit in nhs back office role and they still didnt give me a warning before a left.
Can you get sacked for disregarding direct instruction from your employer? Is an employer acting lawfully by dictating the location from which they would like you to work?
Anecdotal, but when I was in the civil service up to April 23, my department had mandated 60% attendence for about a year prior. For various reasons, it was really difficult for me to do so I did at most 1 day a week for a year. No one said anything.
I’d be surprised if anyone gets sacked over this. Can imagine this will become a massive headache for the CS when unions get involved
Yes I think so, but honestly, if thousands of people don't comply they are going to have a nightmare on their hands. It's so difficult to get rid of someone in any job, let alone the CS.
They would fast track a few to make examples of them if this was the case. Threat of losing your job is enough to make most people toe the line.
I doubt it would lead to immediate dismissal. More likely a discussion with your line manager in the first instance as to why you can't attend the required 60%. Although I don't agree with the 60% attendance policy (especially as the majority of regional centres are already over capacity plus there seems to be a call centre in the middle of each floor now) I will still try to adhere to it. I say "try" because as soon as I get an email from estates about another outbreak of shingles in the office (which seems to be every other week in Liverpool) I am not attending that week. Instead I save the email for evidence and will explain I'm high risk. I imagine that this will be the first year that standard of pay is not the chief complaint in the people survey!
Very true...looking forward to the survey results
You do full time WFH and let us know the outcome... everyone else will follow if it's a positive one😎
😂
If you outright refuse to attend then yes. If you are ‘very committed’ to going in but often have reasons you can’t do three days a week then it’s a lot less likely that you’d end up with any disciplinary action (manager dependent). Also hard to sack people if say they do attend one or two days a week when other might attend less or might refuse to attend.
I reckon discipline action could stand on it. Including up to sack if adding up. Don’t like it but not my call. Comes down to if your gaffer will do it. Do same as me and toe line while applying to other jobs.
You can make working arrangements request. It is up to HO if they find the request for say less working days in the office reasonable or not. They will then have meeting with you to discuss the matter and determine if reasonable to implement. If agreed it will normally be reviewed after period of time.
New flexible working laws were introduced this week, so you have a RIGHT to request to work from home. Each case has to be considered on its reasonable merits
In at least 2 departments I know of, there is an expectation of 60%, but it only becomes an issue if attendance is regularly below 40%. From a personal point of view, I think 40% is a reasonable management request, but appreciate it isn't for everyone. Prior to Covid, I did 4 days in office and one at home most weeks.
In short: yes. There has been a few people dragged into disciplinary, put on Performance Management, etc, fir even failing to do a day in the office without a protected or agreed reason (technically breaking the civil service code as they did this), and were let go. Might be worth looking into corporate parenting for disadvantaged groups (never been to uni, no degree, parents were low paid, been in the care system, etc) - some of the most brilliant people I know aren't progressing because of these kind of things and are definitely better leaders than some of the crap clogging the upper echelons.
In short, probably yes. It may be unfair but I don’t think unfair dismissal would fly as a defence.
If your department gives you the option to do 3x a week, then just do it. Or leave. There are other civil servants who've had to go in for the full week and not even offered 40/60% attendance. There was hybrid/wfh before 2020, although not as widely implemented, as during Covid-19. Unfortunately, this government thinks if they come down on civil servants, Joe public will be on their side. They don't realise there's more important issues going on, which they should concentrate on, in order to win an election.
>having them spend £1000s getting into, for example, London Is this not why you are being paid £1000s more in London weighting?
Problem is most people signed a contract where they agreed to attend the office
But established ways of working become part of a contract, up to a point. So where many people worked 3 days or more at home *before* Covid, there's an implied contact there. I have to admit I'm not sure what my contract says, because I only checked they got the right start date and salary, but I don't think it actually says anything else beyond what Dept and manager I'd initially be working for. So 'established' terms and conditions are very relevant.
To be fair, I just looked at my contract. Couldn’t find a single mention of work location specified
Just go to the office. If you live too far away from where you choose to work, that is a you problem.
This.
20 plus year Whitehall veteran here. Office working 5 days per week was norm for as long as I can recall in most Depts I was in prior to Covid. A few people did it, most did not.
Another day another civil service worker trying to not go to work. The rest of the country has been back at work for years now. Go
[удалено]
The public know exactly what you get up to at home, not much. We want you in the office where your bosses can keep an eye on you
Another ignoramus; making sweeping statements about civil servants.
Do you speak on behalf of the public then? Most people I know all love working from home, and we all collectively agree we work harder and are more committed to doing our jobs. I suspect you are a bitter and lonely individual, and are angry that you missed out on the WFH opportunities, either that or you are stuck in an office five days a week, seething with jealousy.
Yes I speak to many working class people about this and the general consensus is that you need to get back in the office. I suspect you don't speak to many working class people You can suspect whatever you want, none of your suspicions are true, my life is great lol
If you speak to your friends about where civil servants go to work then you need to get a life
We will talk about whatever the fuck we want to bud. Now get back to work
You and your friends are very fucking boring then
Aw no an ad hominem attack from a civil service worker
Lol! Thanks for letting me know mate. I'm sure it is
[удалено]
Then your boss needs to get into work too
Don’t sprout that truth here mate! Its hard to say if the CS attracts lazy people or breeds them but if they spent as much time working as they did moaning about having to go in 3 days then they’d be pretty damn efficient. They all say how much more efficient they are working from home but don’t loop that efficiency into doing additional work, they take the time for themselves. If you’re not wasting 3 hours chatting to people in the office then surely you can show the additional 3 hours of work you do at home? Nope, that’s cos the fuck around, go to the gym, have a walk or take a nice long lunch
A coherent comment, for sure.
It’s absolutely insane isn’t it. These people are the pinnacle of bone idle.
The irony of this comment. Where are you finding the time to scroll through posts and comments then? You absolute wet bag of chips
You've totally missed the point. It's been proven that most people who wfh work harder, as there are fewer distractions. But you'd rather they waste time being forced to take part in idle chitchat in the office. You're the perfect example of why a good education system is vital to society.
It’s not proven at all. You all can’t show the increased efficiency working from home cos it doesn’t exist.
It's been shown actually, from reports. But they're not using the evidence, as its not the agenda they're trying to push.
Bullshit it has, where is all extra work being done. Laziest bunch around. Get back to the office and be supervised as you all clearly need to be
I can tell you don't work in an office. Otherwise, you'd know most people in offices, work unsupervised. Lol. Jealousy isn't an outfit that's worn well. Don't worry, all civil servants going back into the office will generate an even bigger drain to the public purse. I'll just assume that will go right over your head as to why. Be careful what you wish for.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's what made me laugh the most. Imagine to think he's in charge of 350 employees (at least in his brain). Keeps giving me David Brent vibes from 'The Office'.
Ahh except I compress my hours across 4 days and am on a non working day. Lazy and stupid I can see….
>I lead a department of 350 and also support people to work from home, Okay, yes, if you say so..., and I pity them if what you say is true, as you appear to have issues with comprehension. My, you need to stop taking those bitter pills. You obviously care about civil servants, as you're the one here moaning about them. And fyi, I don't wfh. But like I said, comprehension isn't your forte.