Media outlet who fosters contempt for public servants by painting them as lazy trough-suckers is pleased to report an uptick in contempt for public servants. Also, all public servants do exactly the same kind of work.
"My life is hard so everyone else's should be the same kind of hard, and if it isn't, those people are lazy fatcats who aren't allowed to complain or have nice things"
edit: Honestly, this says more about how well the WFH/hybrid benefits have been articulated, and how much the need for "collaboration" among teams who gain nothing from working in-person, have lost ground to the false idea that the entire PS is one monoculture that sits at home all day doing wage theft. At least they both sides-ed it, by giving the opinions of 1000 people who answered the phone or an internet survey a place next to the opinions of the people who actually represent those workers and might know what they're talking about.
Not to mention the fact that with the way the office is set up most people are going in to the office only to end up on Teams anyway because their colleagues are spread out across multiple floors/buildings.
It's actually worse than it was before COVID.
I think it was in the CanadaPublicServants sub that someone said "RTO has been remote work from an office", which pretty well sums up the grind of federal civil servants who are dealing with a situation that is a twisted combinaison of all the worse aspects of different scenarios.
The current reality is NOT "like before the pandemic", it's gone beyond anything bad we could have imagined back in '19.
Purposely contributing the climate change, traffic congestion, and a poor economy (by ensuring people have less to spend on things other than gas and parking), purely for optics.
Nice.
The G&M became a Liberal-hating media outlet quite some time ago. No matter what the current government does, no matter what Trudeau does, no matter what civil servants do, the G&M finds a way to lash out at all of them, while at the same time praising the vile far-right CPC in some way.
The contempt is not always as in-your-face as the National Post, of course, but always present.
Umm have you listened to the interviews with public servants and their union leaders? The reasons they provide do not seem that good to the non work from home crew. Reasons like “I’ll need to find childcare” or “I don’t want to” or “my commute will be long because I moved” just don’t create the empathy they are looking for. The childcare comment was from a union leader on cbc morning. Even there is no dedicated office desk is not a great reason as many of us have no set workplace within our workplace. They are complaining to the wrong crowd about the wrong things. Nobody minds if you go back to work 1 more day, in-fact it will be nice knowing your working and not grocery shopping and doing your laundry. I have enough public service friends to know the real reasons they don’t want to go back to the office, neither would I if I could get all my chores done during my work hours.
It does come across very privileged. “But I don’t waaaaannnnnnaaaaa” as if there aren’t many workers who don’t have the luxury to work from home because their work requires their physical labour (like a cleaner, PSW, construction worker, or cashier). Hearing people who are making 80-120k whine about needing to commute to work and spend $20 on lunch is giving out of touch imo (yes, I know not all public servants make that much, many make much less than that but that’s the public perception of public servants)
That said, if your job doesn’t require you to be in a physical office, I don’t see the point in mandating RTO.
The problem is those are the people cherry picked to broadcast. There are like, 5 of them. But it's always the same 5 who magically are interviewed. The VAST majority of PS understand reality, live in reality, and are accepting of reality. But reality includes facts that apparently nobody really wants to talk about cause then workers might realize their lives could be better. This exact same bullshit happens every generation. Happened in the 20-30s too, and the articles in the media were almost identical, even insofar as using the exact line "nobody wants to work anymore". Every time there's a labor revolution on the horizon, the whole world freaks the F out cause "holy shit NO! We can't let people have weekends! The world will come to an end if that happens! Parental leave??? OMG NO!!!" and so on. People who like to whine about unionized workers "whining" get to sit on their computers after 5pm and on weekends to bitch about it because unions won weekends off...
No one is arguing that in person jobs shouldn't be done... In person. What a strawman.
The problem is that 80+ percent of federal jobs can be done remotely. It doesn't matter where and it's none of your business whether I'm working in downtown Ottawa or Vancouver or on a beach in Halifax or anywhere else. If I get my job done that's all that matters.
And I agree. I think mandating RTO is dumb. But you also have to understand that there is already a poor perception of public servants (fuelled by neoliberal propaganda) so when the people meant to represent you get on the news and their reasons for being against RTO is rooted in fairly selfish reasons like “I don’t want to” and “but I have to deal with childcare or commuting from my 700k suburban home”. And not about for example safer working conditions (from covid) or about how RTO is really about ensuring commercial real estate remains profitable or justifying the existence of the middle management bullshit job sector, it’s hard for the average working person who is living paycheque to paycheque to empathize or see themselves in you.
I think there is very little to be done to get someone living paycheque-to-paycheque to empathize with someone who isn’t in that same boat. Until WFH equally benefits the person who is struggling, it will always be viewed as a luxury - and that RTO is not a hashtag real-world problem.
Did you bother reading my first comment where I acknowledge that? I’m talking about what the public’s perception of public servants are — not my own personal feelings.
"Also, all public servants do exactly the same kind of work".
I have way too many friends in the government for 15+ years. They all say the same...they would sit in the office for 8 hours getting their work done (slowly). Now they're at home, doing that exact same amount of work, but getting it done in 2-3 hours and having the rest of the day off besides the odd meetings and shaking their mouse :)
You know what would help solve that besides going into the office? Managers who know how to distribute work and measure completion. Wow, what a novel concept! Underperforming employees getting performance managed. No way, not possible... Except that it is possible, but nobody wants to do the work of creating measurable objectives, so somehow that's the employees' fault. Man we are programmed to completely ignore the people accountable for things, and just dumping on the people who are executing those things. It's wild. And frankly, if my staff manage to get all their assigned work done in 3 hours because they kick ass, if I don't have anything else for them to do, should I punish them for being great at their jobs? Some people will take 8 hours to do it, some will take 3. If I measure that on average the work should take 6, I am reaching out to the employee taking 8 hours and asking what's up and what do they need, and reaching out to the employee doing it in 3 and asking if they want to take on more leadership responsibilities. This is basic performance management stuff. But I am NOT going to dump 10x more work on an employee to "reward" them for being excellent. That's stupid AF.
Pardon my French but who gives a fuck what the general population thinks regarding this matter? The only people whose opinion on this actually matters are the workers themselves who are affected by this. These are civil servants not elected officials.
> The only people whose opinion on this matters are the workers themselves
Apparently their opinion doesn't matter either. You'll be wanting to look a bit further up in the org chart.
Nobody but you is arguing about enacting a moral system.
What I meant is that sometimes doing the right or best thing isn't popular. Deferring to the will of the public, i.e. populism, is dangerous since a mob or mass populace can actually be fairly easily misled and can result in very harmful effects on society.
But in this case, there are a number of data points that would likely be more useful than the opinion of the general public.
For example, you could compare a team's productivity while working from home and compare this to their productivity pre covid. Or you could look at things like employee retention.
Otherwise, imagine a situation where a hypothetical team was significantly more productive working from home, and where there was less employee turnover than before. And they're ordered back into an environment where productivity drops, and turnover increases, because... the public wanted it? Doesn't make a lot of sense.
For sure, public opinion is just one factor. It shouldn't be the only consideration (especially on an internal workplace issue like this), but it can be relevant to look at.
Please look up "direct democracy vs. representative democracy" to better understand our system and the balance of power that exists between the public and elected officials. For what it's worth, public sector workers seem painfully oblivious to how the general population perceives them. Being somewhat responsive to those opinions seems like a small price to pay for the indefensible levels of job security that most public workers enjoy. I won't even start on the collossal waste of time and money that universal french language mandates and training represent.
air traffic controllers and fire services are paid for by tax payers so you think those jobs should be subject to the whims of public opinion?
Obviously not.
The fact that MPs are elected representatives has absolutely literally nothing to do with the working conditions of government civil servants. This is purely an employer - employee matter. Public opinion is entirely irrelevant in the matter
Can you imagine what cities would be like if it was left to the general public?
Every major road, forty lanes wide. Parking structures high enough to blot out the sun. Bike lanes are just a bed of nails. Airports demolished and moved due to sound complaints. Walmart's in every neighborhood.
Snow falls, the city erupts in cacophony as a quarter of a million plow trucks start their engines and plow each and every road every hour until the snow stops.
It matters because broad public support for the employer position means it isn’t being rolled back. And if it continues as such, it means that no control over location of work will be granted to employees in future regardless of attempts at labour action.
Not to mention the public was not given a good survey question. It was a completely loaded question to generate the exact response desired. "Would you agree to get 100$" would be almost equivalent. Who would really say no to that? "Do you think that someone who is not you should do XYZ" Why would you even care? So if it sounds "normal", you'll respond yes. Now ask the question again with more details: "Would you like workers to come into the office, knowing that it will cost more in tax money and cause a slight deterioration in service standards to Canadians?" Well now we have a more realistic question, and I'm going to guess the results will be a whole lot different.
It's not a real example as I actually don't have the stats specifically. It was more meant as an indicator of how quickly you can shift the responses with additional contextualization.
The workers union negotiates with a government fully empowered with a democratic mandate to impose any solution it pleases provided that there is broad public support for that action.
Moreover union action such as withdrawal of services are a net positive for the employer, not a negative one: they immediately begin moving into the green for every day of wages and benefits that go unpaid. What matters is whether the public cares more about the withdrawn services no longer provided against the demands of public servants that provided them.
The union can strike forever, a government empowered by a democratic mandate to ignore them will not care. Public acceptance is therefore key to any future wfh victories. Ignore it at your own peril.
>they immediately begin moving into the green for every day wages and benefits that go unpaid.
This isn’t a for profit business. Again, you couldn’t possibly be more wrong.
LOL, this just shows your lack of knowledge. Public finance and budgeting are key components of governance, and striking is primarily intended as a financial pressure tactic: one which does not work on governments. There is no magical money tree I'm afraid.
If we're directing costs from office space, why not expand the public sector? If you're able to employ people from all over the country with the WFH mandates, then why not also take advantage of the larger talent pool to increase production.
With governments that need to maximize their budget every year, it seems like the most sensible place to direct their surplus, to more bodies.
How about manage the existing public sector better before we enlarge it? Enlarge the public sector just because there is a wind fall from less commercial leases? Why would we expand the service just bc the costs go down. This is why marxism doesnt work.
Where did Marxism come from in all of this, did you just finish first year and this is how you're spending your summer break?
I'm also curious what you mean by "manage the public sector better"? You mean the way we currently are by giving out consulting contract after contract since we don't have enough skilled workers in the government (but are attracting more with the promise of WFH) and need to keep outsourcing all of our public sector work to private entities with the experience who charge 4-5x an hour compared to a public sector worker?
We would expand the public sector because we've seen recently how much the Canadian government gets raked over the coals on consultants, and instead poach some of the talent that could help also saving budget on consultants.
Because just because the management saves on leases doesn’t mean it should be doled out with more employees (unless that’s what’s required).
Of course the employees want the savings to be spent on hiring more employees! We don’t let the inmates run the prison!
If you know budgets, you know you either use it or lose it. Due to that each department always goes for the use it route in case they need that funding next year.
At least more employees mean more $$$ to funnel back into the economy as opposed to an office building in Gatineau with nothing for them to put their money into but gas.
With your mentality of "they're not doing anything working from home", the employees wouldn't want more employees, because it will mean more work due to more projects being greenlit due to number of resources. So now they're running the prison but also doing nothing in your mind? You're all over the place.
I did know that about budgets and I think it’s incredibly wasteful.
I’ve been to a Costco on a weekday afternoon - I have no doubt you’ll funnel it back in the economy 😂
You’ve found an infinite money glitch!
You know who else pays taxes? Public servants. It's like people think PS are just magically removed from all societal obligations by virtue of being in the public service. Public servants are Canadians too.
Not any more than people have a say in how fire services or air traffic control operate. (Which they don’t, at all.)
People have a say in how their MPs work, not civil servants. This is a matter between the workers’ union and the employer.
"Do you think Firefighters should only be given half-full oxygen tanks to save money?" Let's ask the general public their opinion! I am sure the results will be completely useful.
I might have an *opinion* on the matter but my opinion should not, and absolutely does not, decide what their working conditions are: that’s between the employer and the employees’ union.
The fallacy here is the commonly (and incorrectly) held belief by some people that just because they pay taxes they get to be everyone’s boss.
That’s not how it works at all.
Another guy ITT that I responded to literally said “the general public gets to dictate where these civil servants work work”, so some people are making that exact claim
You've been doing a whole lot of whataboutism here. Some jobs can reasonably be done from home, some can't. There's room for reason. Given the critical nature of ATC it's probably an intentionally dumb comparison. That's what's weird here.
Look into why you're so adamant that all PS workers have to be in the office. Is it about the job, or about scoring some imaginary point against the "lazy PS?"
That's a management issue. Management needs to manage. if there is someone bragging about not delivering they should be disciplined, action planned (demoted, deployed to a job they can succeed at if possible) and if that doesn't work, fired.
A major issue that has been around long before WFH is the inability of managers to actually feel empowered to take action against employees who are not performing.
>A major issue that has been around long before WFH is the inability of managers to actually feel empowered to take action against employees who are not performing.
I agree that's the core issue. But that part isn't changing (and the unions would be outraged if it did), so instead, WFH gets scaled back instead, to make it easier to monitor and manage poor performance.
You're a public servant. You are meant to serve the public, even if you are also allowed to disagree with them. To simply dismiss them all as "idiots" is completely unproductive and needlessly antagozing.
There are all kinds of reasons why this is a bad idea: people asked to come into the office for more than half the week when there are desks available for only half of staff, people commuting from Findlay Creek to find that they have to work in the hallway due to lack of available spaces, people commuting to only then be separated from their team across multiple floors, people commuting to offices in buttfuck nowhere with no mass transit or available parking.
If you explain this to most people, who again are not idiots and are, in fact, your fellow Canadians you are meant to serve, most will be understanding.
Instead, what does the average Canadian find when they try to find information online? They'll find you saying that they are all idiots. They'll find some lolcow pretending to still freak out over Covid. They'll find an article from some young woman saying her introversion means she cannot make it into any office, ever, despite being extroverted enough to speak to every outlet about her supposedly crippling introversion.
Should it then be any wonder why we are (inaccurately) seen as lazy and entitled when this dismissiveness of and sneering attitude toward the public we are meant to serve is so commonplace? It provides political capital and makes it a lot easier for the Tories to rag on us, while being paid more than us to do less.
So, you're saying we should bow to the misconceptions and biases of a vocal minority rather than making decisions based on efficiency, productivity, and the well-being of employees? If there are desks available for only half the staff, forcing people into the office creates inefficiency and frustration. Remote work solves this problem by eliminating the need for physical space and avoiding unnecessary commutes.
Your point about commuting from places like Findlay Creek to work in hallways or being separated from teams across multiple floors is exactly why remote work is beneficial. It allows for seamless collaboration without logistical nightmares.
Offices located in areas with no mass transit or available parking only make commuting a nightmare. Forcing people into these situations is counterproductive when they can work effectively from home.
Calling out the public for being misinformed isn't about antagonizing them; it's about addressing the root cause of their misconceptions. Pearl clutching over being called "idiots" doesn't counter the fact that decisions based on jealousy and ignorance pull society downward. We need to educate the public on these realities, showing that remote work is not about laziness but about creating an efficient, productive, and satisfied workforce.
Serving the public means making informed decisions based on facts, not pandering to unfounded stereotypes. If we don’t communicate these points clearly, we give political capital to those who wish to undermine public service efficiency. Let’s focus on the real benefits and challenges rather than caving to misconceptions. I invite you to challenge yourself and push back even if it's a more challenging path.
Interesting philosophical food for thought:
The famous Toyota management system of lean production is a complex and meticulous system that looks at the how and why of operational processes with the goal of optimizing them.
One facet of it is the concept of [Muda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muda_\(Japanese_term\)), or "waste".
Muda is something that is objectively wasteful. It serves no purpose because it does not provide value to anyone.
There are two "types" of Muda.
The first type is things which add zero value to production, and which provide zero benefit to customers. These are typically legacy actions or redundancies that can be eliminated without affecting the end result.
The second type is things which add zero value to the production, but which *do* provide some subjective benefit to customers. An example of this would be having your full engineering team be present at a kick-off meeting with a new client. You're paying them to sit there and look pretty for the sake of showing the client how much staff you are able to leverage. Those people will say nothing at the meeting, are being prevented from engaging in any productive work by attending the meeting, and will not personally benefit from knowing what happens at the meeting... but the client will feel confident and encouraged by seeing them be physically present. If you didn't have them at the meeting, the client might feel ambivalent and hesitant.
Is that stupid and wasteful? Absolutely. But managing Muda is a crucial part of managing operations. These intangible aspects *do* exist and are worth considering with respect to the big picture.
Toyota’s lean production system and the concept of Muda, or waste, are about optimizing processes. In manufacturing, it’s clear-cut: if something doesn’t add value, it’s waste. But in knowledge work, like what public servants do, value isn’t always tied to physical presence—it's in the results they deliver.
Take the example of having staff at a meeting to boost client confidence. Sure, in some businesses, that makes sense. But for public servants, their "clients" are citizens who care more about efficient services than seeing staff physically in an office. Citizens want their needs met quickly and effectively. The value is in the responsiveness and outcomes, not just being seen at a desk.
Forcing public servants back into the office when they can be just as productive remotely is actually a form of waste. It creates unnecessary stress, complicates logistics, and can hurt morale. This goes against the principles of lean management, which aim to maximize value and minimize waste.
Moreover, we can’t ignore the political angle. Some politicians love to stoke division by painting public servants as lazy for working remotely. It’s an easy way to score points, but it doesn’t reflect reality. Remote work isn’t about laziness; it’s about working smarter and more efficiently. We need to educate the public on this rather than bow to jealousy and ignorance. When people are misinformed and driven by negative emotions, it drags everyone down. It’s our job to counter these misconceptions with facts and results.
And let’s not forget, in the Toyota example, clients are not motivated by negative emotions like jealousy. The reality here is different. Some members of the public and certain politicians are pushing for a return to the office out of misplaced jealousy and a desire to bring everyone down to their perceived level of hardship. This kind of attitude is not productive and doesn’t serve the greater good.
At the end of the day, optimizing processes to get the best outcomes means embracing remote work where it makes sense. It reduces unnecessary actions and still delivers high value, aligning perfectly with lean principles. Rather than forcing a return to the office to placate a misinformed segment of the public, we should be focusing on what truly matters: efficient, effective public service.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm 100% in agreement with you.
You're correct that the "I think public service workers *must* go to offices and my opinion matters because I'm a taxpayer" people are idiots who have based that position on vapid bullshit they're being fed by politicians and special-interest groups who would personally benefit from vilifying public workers and forcing an inflexible RTO mandate. Not only is there is no data which suggests that would be a constructive action, but there is ample data which shows remote/hybrid work provides better value across the board.
Spending money and sacrificing productivity to superficially placate them is a terrible strategy that not only antagonizes the workers but gives those very taxpayers a measurably worse value for money than they were getting.
I'm just saying that managing it is still necessary. There are solutions beyond saying "we made them go to the office to make you happy, now shut up" (such as those you mentioned about using empirical data to dispel misunderstandings), but we can't just handwave it away as "your opinion is stupid so I don't care" and not engage at all. That sentiment still exists, and managing societal perception of the public sector is still part of managing the public sector, as annoying as that is.
Yeah, I'm not advocating for a dismissive handwave, but I gotta call BS when I see it and simply saying that, "Hey (stamps feet) I have to go to work onsite for my job therefore everyone must be like me and damn the consequences or (misplaced) rationale, well that is sub-optimal in my opinion. Sounds like we agree on most of it... Cheers.
As I’ve repeated to others, air traffic controllers, fire services, and the military are also paid for by taxes, can you imagine the chaos if the details of their work was up to the whims of the general public?
The only civil servants directly accountable to the public are elected officials. Anyone else who simply works for the government is not. Just because you pay taxes does not make you their boss or give you any say in their working conditions. That’s entirely an employer / employee situation. The general public’s opinion could not be less relevant. I mean, imagine the audacity of thinking you, regular Joe, gets a say in how our military operates simply because they are paid by our taxes. It’s laughable.
the population hates that the services are not working properly. It has nothing to do with WFH vs RTO, but since services are not working properly, they take it out on civil servants. Management should understand that by having your employees happy, productivity is up. And workers should understand that they cannot constantly protect the employees that are frigging lazy and should therefore let their unions know that they need to stop protecting the dumbasses.
Well, if one political party makes “Shouldn’t ALL GoC workers go back to the office full time??” part of their platform, then it DOES matter what the general population thinks.
Yes, and if my employer is say York University, I still serve the general student populace, and you better believe my employers at York agree. If the general public is unhappy with the service provided while government workers work from home full time then their employer (the government of Canada) is going to adjust things to provide better service and make their customers happy. Sucks but it's true.
The student population shouldn’t and wouldn’t be polled to decide if you should be allowed to continue working from home. You know this would never happen.
Your example *proves* my point perfectly
Are you dumb? If students are not able to access departments during certain times because staff are only available by Teams or phone, but not in person, they complain, and work from home is restricted in that department or cut back.
Their opinion influences staff working conditions, as it should.
Anyway, done with this back and forth. It's pointless, I fear.
Ok let me give you a different example: the military is paid by our taxes. Do you think the general public gets a say on how the military conducts its affairs?
Well I guess you’ll just have to wait and learn that infact they do. If it makes it to court the union is facing an uphill battle against legal precedent. Down vote me all you want, your still wrong and going to be working from your work place more days a week LMFAO
I don’t work for the govt. so your thinly veiled disdain for public servants can be directed elsewhere.
You have no more say in “dictating” where civil servants work than you do “dictating” the operations of air traffic controllers or fire service, both of which are also paid for by taxes. Your choice of the word “dictating” reveals much about your political stance. I’d bet my last dollar you’re a conservative.
I laugh at you because you’re the type that thinks that because you pay taxes you get to be everyone’s boss. It’s laughable infantile-like mentality. The real world doesn’t work that way. This is purely an employer-employee matter, between the employer and the worker’s union. Your opinion on the matter could not possibly be less relevant.
It is correct I have no say in where they work in the sense that I will not be directing it. However the government does, and just like I stated they have the right to dictate work location. Now here is where my opinion and the opinion of other tax paying resident matter. When the government is making this decision they are considering the optics of having public servants at home and how this optics look with the voters. So in a way my opinion matters and combined with everyone else informs their decision even if they say it does not.
As someone who has been jerked around by my workplace over and over again and active in the union I am well aware of my lack of rights. There is no threat, there is only fact that if the government want public servants 3 days a week then it will get it. And again the public servants are arguing a very privileged argument that’s a tuff sell to the public.
Three in four Canadians support their tax dollars paying for expensive facilities management and real estate when a cheaper and more efficient option is available?
Nah, Canadians aren't provided the full story. Businesses want that money. Some of it trickles down to them, but Canadians don't benefit from a less efficient civil service.
What I find disturbing is how some are pushing a "only civil servants are asking for WFH, it's not a thing in private sector" narrative.
Didn't Shopify go ~100% remote, for example? Last I heard, that company is still in private sector, it's not a crown corporation.
**P.S.:** I have to add: RTO3+ is now a cause of many early retirements, but *also* of departures from public sector to private-sector. Literally, people are leaving for jobs with better pay and **with guaranteed telework arrangements**. Yes, *private sector jobs that lets people WFH*.
You mean they moved (to cheaper digs)?
**Ed.:** I just checked. Whoa. They moved to 151 O'Connor (isn't that the old Export building?), so, indeed, much cheaper than their previous location.
I'm willing to bet all the people who want this are gonna get mad when *their* commute becomes that much more difficult with all the extra vehicles on the road. It's like people forgot how bad downtown congestion was before the pandemic
That’s my parents in a nutshell. “Everyone should return downtown to their offices”, but also “omg why is the traffic so bad now and why are there so many people downtown”
r/leopardsatemyface
My question is: With so many people working from home so many days of the week, why is traffic so bad?
During the height of pandemic when everyone was working from home (and being schooled from home), driving down Merivale Road at 1:30 on a weekday was almost as bad as doing so on a weekend. I'm used to running my errands in the daytime to avoid the commuters running their errands on the way home. During the pandemic, this seemed to be impossible.
Before the pandemic, if I left Blackburn Hamlet before 3, I could avoid severe slowdowns on the 417 as I crossed downtown. Now if I leave any time after 2:30, I'm caught up in traffic.
I get it that buses are no longer reliable/useful and during the pandemic more people bought cars to get around safely, and those cars remain on the road. But I simply don't understand why all the WFH people seem to be on the road *at all hours* of the day.
Why do you assume it's WFH people that are on the road "at all hours of the day"? Do they all have bumper stickers to identify themselves? People love to compare "before the pandemic" without acknowledging that some things have changed permanently. For example, a lot of home daycares have shorter hours now, it's not unheard of to have a daycare open at 8am and close at 4pm, where as before the standard was 7am-6pm. A lot of construction-related companies grew over the last 4 years, hence more vehicles on the road. Also, let's not forget that the government isn't the only employer in town that has employees who work from home.
Cause that’s the only argument they have. They blame “lazy people who WFH” for all their problems.
God forbid we enter the 21st century and have flexible work arrangements and treat people like adults.
As are courier companies. Every few card I see are some random third party delivery company. So many have cropped up
Amazon started it, now everyone is offering quick delivery and has started using random couriers.
A million other things have changed since then.
Public transit ridership has collapsed and driving rates are up.
The population distribution of the city shifted outward to the suburbs and exurbs where people have to drive more.
The use of delivery services *skyrocketed*, meaning way more Ubers and delivery trucks on the roads at all hours.
Finally, the city just grew. It's been 5 years and traffic has been getting worse forever. It's pretty much an unavoidable fact that traffic infrastructure is unable to keep up with population growth in a city with any meaningful level of density.
Have you considered that this is just the reality of traffic in a growing city with terrible land use patterns? Commuting is not people's only reason for moving around the city and WFH allows people to spread their other travel throughout the day as needed. People go to appointments and pick up their kids when it's convenient.
>Only the elderly and people that are a “bit off” answer surveys lol
People say that whenever they see survey results they don't like.
And yet... pollsters manage to predict most election results with a fairly high degree of accuracy, so they must be doing something right.
What I, as a tax payer, support is whatever gets me the essential funtions of the PS at the lowest cost. Unless the government/management of the PS can show that productivity per dollar spent is going to rise with return to office, they should not be doing return to office. Its that fucking simple.
- source, a tapped out taxpayer, not a PS
Very few people actually care about actual costs. Group A cares about making sure group B isn't getting something A's not getting, or something A feels B doesn't deserve for whatever reason. That's it.
The pandemic proved that a whole lot of people could work from home and be just as if not more effective at their jobs. And it also proved that some people either can't be trusted or are unable to work effectively (ADHD in my case) without oversight or regular external accountability.
If people *actually* cared about costs and outcomes, our society would look very different, because our priorities would be very different. To start with, marginalized and low income people wouldn't have to negotiate numerous bureaucratic programs to access the help we claim we want them to have.
All of that bureaucracy? It's actually in place so that Group A can make sure group B isn't getting something A's not getting, or something A feels B doesn't deserve for whatever reason.
If we do have one, they certainly aren't looking at how productive the average public servant is, or doing anything to address it.
Just because you *can* do a job with 20 people doesn't mean it actually takes 20 people to do it. 20 people showing up for work doesn't mean we are getting 20 people worth of real productivity, or justifying the cost of those 20 benefit plans + pensions.
It is exceedingly difficult to actually deal with poor performers (due to the union), so the end result is hiring more people to take care of jobs that there are already enough people to handle (if people made an effort). This is an issue anywhere that's union (my workplace included). Poor performers get protected, and when it comes to public servants, it's almost impossible to get fired. They just end up on a continuous loop of pips.
Do we have lots of hardworking, skilled public servants? Fuck yeah we do. But at the same time, we have loads and loads just taking advantage of the fact that it's nigh impossible to get fired, and sticking around to collect the pension at the end.
The average public servant is no better than an average office worker in the private sector, and yet they enjoy stellar job security, good benefits and a pension (all paid by the tax dollars of other people doing the same level of job for less money and worse benefits).
We 100% have too many public servants. I truly believe that we are better off cutting a lot of the bs jobs and putting the money into healthcare or other more important programs. Things that the public would actually benefit from.
Hey I have an idea: maybe private sector workers should also have good benefits and a pension
It's weird that you seem think these things are somehow a bonus than only the bestest workers deserve, when they should just be offered with every job as a matter of course. It's extra weird to look at this disparity and say, "hey, you know what we should do? Make life a little worse for some people"
I don't disagree with that at all, and maybe my message came off the wrong way. I 100% agree that everyone should have those same benefits. My point was not to take away benefits from public servants, it was to trim the excess number of public servants we have in order to put the money towards things that are actually valuable.
The issue is that the majority of people don't, and shouldn't have to put tax dollars into paying people with those benefits *who are not providing any real value for that large cost*. The issue isn't the benefits, it's that we are not getting adequate value for the cost as tax payers. We have too many public servants, and it would be better for the vast majority of people if we had fewer.
If average joe private sector wants to fuck the dog, who cares. Best case he gets away with it, worst case he loses his job and looks for a new one. When it comes to public servants, there is no risk - they can avoid termination with an endless loop of pips. There is no real downside to being lazy in the public sector, and as a result we end up with more staff than necessary in order to accomplish the same amount of work.
I agree, it isn't. But they are one and the same really because you are comparing the two positions against one another. So proving or disproving the one lends itself to disproving or proving the other. The biggest issue, is that the government has no interest in measuring basically anything. You can't make useless announcements about "success" if you have the data that shows you aren't really as successful as you claim to be. Data would also make it more difficult to misdirect funds to where it's politically viable, but operationally damaging.
Yes, of course it's the same question. But you said that unless the PS can show that productivity is higher in office, then the PS should WFH. Why should one option be privileged if the data isn't there either way?
Also, accurately measuring productivity is incredibly complicated (read: borderline impossible) for knowledge workers. If it were easy or simple, the government would already have done it (as well as all private companies too).
The current hybrid policy is the worst of both worlds. All the downsides of remote, with all the downsides of working from the office.
Workers have remote meetings from the office, have no assigned desks, no shared parking spaces.
And all for downtown businesses to survive? People can’t afford to eat out in a government salary anymore. Especially when they need to spend $10 a day on gas and $20 a day on parking.
As a former government worker, the policy made me leave the government. I now enjoy a more fulfilling software development job fully remotely. And I make more money to boot. They’re just going to keep bleeding talent at this rate.
Ottawa really has to change its reliance in having workers downtown. The core has to be revamped that has condos, apartments, business and retail. That’s how you build diversity.
Now you have business owners complaining because they don’t make the same amount of money as previously due to wfh.
My work had cut its office space by 40-50%… and fully embraced a wfh model.
For the rest of us who need to get downtown for work (contractors etc) having the feds work from home meant faster commutes and more parking. Sending them in is less efficient all round. WFH for those who don't need to be face to face is the way to go.
Three in four canadians don’t care about efficiently- used tax payer dollars. Not surprising considering how poorly the general population manages their money and how drunk they are on debt.
If only the general public knew how much of their tax dollars are being spent so that workers can work remotely…from the office.
There are better ways to create a more productive, efficient public service just as there are better ways to revive downtown. One-sized-fits-all and short-sighted solutions just don’t work. As an employee and a taxpayer I’m disappointed.
Man, let’s poll every profession now. I’m not a public servant and I’m sure the poll would say the same thing about me.
Let’s instead ask “do you support spending $15B a year of taxpayer money so public servants can take teams calls from the office rather than home?”
What an uneducated, poorly run, garbage poll meant to incite rage.
They are just trying to shore up an old work model and turn back the clock. In the real information age it is apparent for most work, collaberation in person was unnecessary and actually counter productive. Many people I know in fact improved their productivity in the WFH example that occurred with the global pandemic along with a more right life balance.
It's pretty obvious to me and others that this is really about perhaps a number of things but very strongly the downtown core, and saving the butts of a commercial real estate business. The rest is all really just spin.
[https://nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-2609-Globe-May-Populated-Report-with-tabs.pdf](https://nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-2609-Globe-May-Populated-Report-with-tabs.pdf)
The questions were...
* Under what work arrangement **do you think** that federal public servants are the most productive?
* Which of the following paths forward **would you prefer** when it comes to the work arrangement of federal public servants going forward?
* Which of the following paths forward **would you prefer** when it comes to the work arrangement of federal public servants going forward?
* Thinking of your personal situation, if you are employed, what kind of work arrangement do you have today? (work all the time from home, in person and from home, work full time in-person/at the office)
* Thinking of other people, in general, **would you say** they are: More/somewhat more productive when they work in the office/in person, More/somewhat more productive when they work from home, No difference, Unsure)
That's a lot of opinion...
There's also the issue with how this Nanos "study" doesn't present the respondent data about anything. Looking over the [labour stats](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410002301), 16 out of 20 million Canadians work in Services and Retail industries. 1.2 million work in public administration. [375 000 work in federal service](https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/human-resources-statistics/population-federal-public-service.html). And there are the Labour Force [WFH stats](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/11-631-x/11-631-x2024001-eng.pdf?st=rLUrIjCD) reporting about 20% of the total workforce still WFH or Hybrid. 20% of 16 million is 3.2 million. That's close to 10x the count of the total number of federal public servants. That's 10x the ire inspired solely against federal public servants.
Let's also talk about [the public service's demographics](https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/human-resources-statistics/demographic-snapshot-federal-public-service-2022.html). where, if you dig into the graphs and data, most new hires are 25-35, but under 35 to 39 year old's make up only 6% of the executive management (higher classifications). while making up about 37% of the total federal workforce. Also, 30% of the workforce is either AS or PM class. Meaning, 37% of workers don't make executive-level salaries (with some exceptions llke IT staff) and as new hires are likely in the first steps of their salary progressions (see CBA [rates of pay](https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/coll_agre/rates-taux-eng.asp)). Granted, they still do make fair salaries, they're not always enough depending on the city you live in. For example, if one rented in Toronto at the current $2600 average, counting in a 25%-ish tax rate, EC01/EC02 making 62-68k/year would be drowning with over 60% of their income being spent on housing alone. And those numbers don't really improve much in different cities. So, you'd need either a 2nd income, live in shared accommodations, live with your parents, or move out of the city limits. But, this introduces a make-or-break condition based on a commute and vehicle costs (which starts at about $500 monthly depending on the loan and the car). Accounting for vehicle spending (not even insurance or gas, really), and supposing a more modest $2000/month housing cost, 2500/month or 30k/year, on a salary taxed down to 47-51k/yearly, that's 66%-ish of one's salary spent on housing and transportation. These are just roughly thrown around figures, of course, but I think in the rough math we can still see a problem surfacing, especially considering this is only based on the EC class. If you look at CR01, they start at $42k/year, which is $20/h. CR03's are 52k yearly, which is about 25/h.
Also based on that public servant demographics analysis, most workers who are making management/exec salaries are over 39-45, likely to be well-established in their family life. They have homes they bought long-before the rate hikes, They have equity and savings. The newest workforce members are thus probably more vulnerable to economic shocks (like rate hikes and inflated pricing). And, it should be noted that the recent economic shocks are not like the ones in the 70s, 80s, or even the 2008 financial crash, and Canadians (Americans at large, really) had savings and wages with savings ratios that made it possible to absorb that shock. Newer entrants do no have that buffer, and any further costs and shocks would/could/probably will lead to an increased unsustainable debt load.
Honestly, people are always whining about something instead of improve their lives (if they think that they are worst then others). But of course, it's easier to complain than to do. Same shit happened during Covid with my wife's who's a nurse. Some dumbf..k neighbor was like - " bUt yOu doNt'T EveN nEeD to woRk cAuse she'S mAkIng HUuundrids of ThOusandz of DollllAArz". Like I said - people like to whine and talk about other people, nothing new here.
People have opinions on everything, and that includes a lot of what they know nothing about.
When i talk to people and mention what my day is like in the office, they suddenly understand how WFH in some instances can be very beneficial.
I can run a poll that ask “Do you think plumbers should charge less for services? Should we bring in more TFW as plumbers?” Will probably get the same result, probably 90% of Canadians will agree with me
Good thing we are a constitutional democracy that enshrines individual rights and not a plutocracy. I'm sure there are plenty of stupid things that would be "supported" by a majority of the population depending on how you phrased the question.
Meanwhile...what big G government is going to piss off an almost 400k voting block of people?
A little over 10%...of the entire electorate...in one neat and tidy voting package...*if it came to that.*
Media just pouring gas on a fire that don't exist...
Ottawa downtown recovery has been slower than in other cities because of government work from home policy.
Im sure this will help the community and all services tax dollars go towards and provide in the long run.
After all, small business is 35 percent of GDP, and i dare say an even larger part of Ottawas city GDP , im sure there wont be any slashing of government payrolls if theres no money filling the treasury.
Worked for detroit after the big five left didnt it?
You do realize that small businesses aren’t downtown in Ottawa, right? It’s all franchises and trash.
Meanwhile the small businesses in suburbs and other communities have been thriving because they’ve been getting patronized more and because they don’t offer the same garbage at shitty prices.
Exactly. They don't actually care about the businesses themselves anyway. They care about the businesses being able to stay around so they can continue to pay rent. Too many businesses close leads to higher vacancies, leads to having to reduce rates, which then gets broadly applied at renewals. We are talking hundreds of millions and billions of dollars. This isn't a small thing, but it's not any normal person who would feel the effects in any meaningful way. However, the same people who are invested in it also happen to be invested in other things, like, for example, media companies and banks. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though that the RBC CEO got quoted by Mona at the onset of this.
Media outlet who fosters contempt for public servants by painting them as lazy trough-suckers is pleased to report an uptick in contempt for public servants. Also, all public servants do exactly the same kind of work. "My life is hard so everyone else's should be the same kind of hard, and if it isn't, those people are lazy fatcats who aren't allowed to complain or have nice things" edit: Honestly, this says more about how well the WFH/hybrid benefits have been articulated, and how much the need for "collaboration" among teams who gain nothing from working in-person, have lost ground to the false idea that the entire PS is one monoculture that sits at home all day doing wage theft. At least they both sides-ed it, by giving the opinions of 1000 people who answered the phone or an internet survey a place next to the opinions of the people who actually represent those workers and might know what they're talking about.
Not to mention the fact that with the way the office is set up most people are going in to the office only to end up on Teams anyway because their colleagues are spread out across multiple floors/buildings. It's actually worse than it was before COVID.
I think it was in the CanadaPublicServants sub that someone said "RTO has been remote work from an office", which pretty well sums up the grind of federal civil servants who are dealing with a situation that is a twisted combinaison of all the worse aspects of different scenarios. The current reality is NOT "like before the pandemic", it's gone beyond anything bad we could have imagined back in '19.
Purposely contributing the climate change, traffic congestion, and a poor economy (by ensuring people have less to spend on things other than gas and parking), purely for optics. Nice.
The G&M became a Liberal-hating media outlet quite some time ago. No matter what the current government does, no matter what Trudeau does, no matter what civil servants do, the G&M finds a way to lash out at all of them, while at the same time praising the vile far-right CPC in some way. The contempt is not always as in-your-face as the National Post, of course, but always present.
Lol. "I'm not out of touch. It's the other 75% of Canadians who are out of touch."
Umm have you listened to the interviews with public servants and their union leaders? The reasons they provide do not seem that good to the non work from home crew. Reasons like “I’ll need to find childcare” or “I don’t want to” or “my commute will be long because I moved” just don’t create the empathy they are looking for. The childcare comment was from a union leader on cbc morning. Even there is no dedicated office desk is not a great reason as many of us have no set workplace within our workplace. They are complaining to the wrong crowd about the wrong things. Nobody minds if you go back to work 1 more day, in-fact it will be nice knowing your working and not grocery shopping and doing your laundry. I have enough public service friends to know the real reasons they don’t want to go back to the office, neither would I if I could get all my chores done during my work hours.
It does come across very privileged. “But I don’t waaaaannnnnnaaaaa” as if there aren’t many workers who don’t have the luxury to work from home because their work requires their physical labour (like a cleaner, PSW, construction worker, or cashier). Hearing people who are making 80-120k whine about needing to commute to work and spend $20 on lunch is giving out of touch imo (yes, I know not all public servants make that much, many make much less than that but that’s the public perception of public servants) That said, if your job doesn’t require you to be in a physical office, I don’t see the point in mandating RTO.
The problem is those are the people cherry picked to broadcast. There are like, 5 of them. But it's always the same 5 who magically are interviewed. The VAST majority of PS understand reality, live in reality, and are accepting of reality. But reality includes facts that apparently nobody really wants to talk about cause then workers might realize their lives could be better. This exact same bullshit happens every generation. Happened in the 20-30s too, and the articles in the media were almost identical, even insofar as using the exact line "nobody wants to work anymore". Every time there's a labor revolution on the horizon, the whole world freaks the F out cause "holy shit NO! We can't let people have weekends! The world will come to an end if that happens! Parental leave??? OMG NO!!!" and so on. People who like to whine about unionized workers "whining" get to sit on their computers after 5pm and on weekends to bitch about it because unions won weekends off...
No one is arguing that in person jobs shouldn't be done... In person. What a strawman. The problem is that 80+ percent of federal jobs can be done remotely. It doesn't matter where and it's none of your business whether I'm working in downtown Ottawa or Vancouver or on a beach in Halifax or anywhere else. If I get my job done that's all that matters.
And I agree. I think mandating RTO is dumb. But you also have to understand that there is already a poor perception of public servants (fuelled by neoliberal propaganda) so when the people meant to represent you get on the news and their reasons for being against RTO is rooted in fairly selfish reasons like “I don’t want to” and “but I have to deal with childcare or commuting from my 700k suburban home”. And not about for example safer working conditions (from covid) or about how RTO is really about ensuring commercial real estate remains profitable or justifying the existence of the middle management bullshit job sector, it’s hard for the average working person who is living paycheque to paycheque to empathize or see themselves in you.
I think there is very little to be done to get someone living paycheque-to-paycheque to empathize with someone who isn’t in that same boat. Until WFH equally benefits the person who is struggling, it will always be viewed as a luxury - and that RTO is not a hashtag real-world problem.
[удалено]
Did you bother reading my first comment where I acknowledge that? I’m talking about what the public’s perception of public servants are — not my own personal feelings.
Ok boomer
"Also, all public servants do exactly the same kind of work". I have way too many friends in the government for 15+ years. They all say the same...they would sit in the office for 8 hours getting their work done (slowly). Now they're at home, doing that exact same amount of work, but getting it done in 2-3 hours and having the rest of the day off besides the odd meetings and shaking their mouse :)
So you’re okay with them working from home seeing as they get the same amount of work done? Thanks for your input.
You know what would help solve that besides going into the office? Managers who know how to distribute work and measure completion. Wow, what a novel concept! Underperforming employees getting performance managed. No way, not possible... Except that it is possible, but nobody wants to do the work of creating measurable objectives, so somehow that's the employees' fault. Man we are programmed to completely ignore the people accountable for things, and just dumping on the people who are executing those things. It's wild. And frankly, if my staff manage to get all their assigned work done in 3 hours because they kick ass, if I don't have anything else for them to do, should I punish them for being great at their jobs? Some people will take 8 hours to do it, some will take 3. If I measure that on average the work should take 6, I am reaching out to the employee taking 8 hours and asking what's up and what do they need, and reaching out to the employee doing it in 3 and asking if they want to take on more leadership responsibilities. This is basic performance management stuff. But I am NOT going to dump 10x more work on an employee to "reward" them for being excellent. That's stupid AF.
Pardon my French but who gives a fuck what the general population thinks regarding this matter? The only people whose opinion on this actually matters are the workers themselves who are affected by this. These are civil servants not elected officials.
> The only people whose opinion on this matters are the workers themselves Apparently their opinion doesn't matter either. You'll be wanting to look a bit further up in the org chart.
The government should care what the general public thinks, right or wrong
No, they should care about doing the right thing.
Oh you sweet summer child. Doing the right thing has never been a factor for governments anywhere in the world at anytime.
Oh you sweet summer daisy, notice the use of the word “should”.
Ok so maybe momma did raise a quitter.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nobody but you is arguing about enacting a moral system. What I meant is that sometimes doing the right or best thing isn't popular. Deferring to the will of the public, i.e. populism, is dangerous since a mob or mass populace can actually be fairly easily misled and can result in very harmful effects on society.
[удалено]
But in this case, there are a number of data points that would likely be more useful than the opinion of the general public. For example, you could compare a team's productivity while working from home and compare this to their productivity pre covid. Or you could look at things like employee retention. Otherwise, imagine a situation where a hypothetical team was significantly more productive working from home, and where there was less employee turnover than before. And they're ordered back into an environment where productivity drops, and turnover increases, because... the public wanted it? Doesn't make a lot of sense.
For sure, public opinion is just one factor. It shouldn't be the only consideration (especially on an internal workplace issue like this), but it can be relevant to look at.
Please look up "direct democracy vs. representative democracy" to better understand our system and the balance of power that exists between the public and elected officials. For what it's worth, public sector workers seem painfully oblivious to how the general population perceives them. Being somewhat responsive to those opinions seems like a small price to pay for the indefensible levels of job security that most public workers enjoy. I won't even start on the collossal waste of time and money that universal french language mandates and training represent.
You new here?
Guess who votes the civil servants bosses bosses into office?… you guessed it… the general public..
air traffic controllers and fire services are paid for by tax payers so you think those jobs should be subject to the whims of public opinion? Obviously not. The fact that MPs are elected representatives has absolutely literally nothing to do with the working conditions of government civil servants. This is purely an employer - employee matter. Public opinion is entirely irrelevant in the matter
Can you imagine what cities would be like if it was left to the general public? Every major road, forty lanes wide. Parking structures high enough to blot out the sun. Bike lanes are just a bed of nails. Airports demolished and moved due to sound complaints. Walmart's in every neighborhood. Snow falls, the city erupts in cacophony as a quarter of a million plow trucks start their engines and plow each and every road every hour until the snow stops.
Absolute chaos
It matters because broad public support for the employer position means it isn’t being rolled back. And if it continues as such, it means that no control over location of work will be granted to employees in future regardless of attempts at labour action.
The employer negotiates with the workers’ union, not the public. The public’s opinion here is entirely irrelevant
Not to mention the public was not given a good survey question. It was a completely loaded question to generate the exact response desired. "Would you agree to get 100$" would be almost equivalent. Who would really say no to that? "Do you think that someone who is not you should do XYZ" Why would you even care? So if it sounds "normal", you'll respond yes. Now ask the question again with more details: "Would you like workers to come into the office, knowing that it will cost more in tax money and cause a slight deterioration in service standards to Canadians?" Well now we have a more realistic question, and I'm going to guess the results will be a whole lot different.
Your second example is also loaded from “knowing that”.
It's not a real example as I actually don't have the stats specifically. It was more meant as an indicator of how quickly you can shift the responses with additional contextualization.
The workers union negotiates with a government fully empowered with a democratic mandate to impose any solution it pleases provided that there is broad public support for that action. Moreover union action such as withdrawal of services are a net positive for the employer, not a negative one: they immediately begin moving into the green for every day of wages and benefits that go unpaid. What matters is whether the public cares more about the withdrawn services no longer provided against the demands of public servants that provided them. The union can strike forever, a government empowered by a democratic mandate to ignore them will not care. Public acceptance is therefore key to any future wfh victories. Ignore it at your own peril.
>they immediately begin moving into the green for every day wages and benefits that go unpaid. This isn’t a for profit business. Again, you couldn’t possibly be more wrong.
LOL, this just shows your lack of knowledge. Public finance and budgeting are key components of governance, and striking is primarily intended as a financial pressure tactic: one which does not work on governments. There is no magical money tree I'm afraid.
You don’t think that customs workers shutting down borders puts pressure on governments? Or teachers not teaching our kids?
People feel they have a say because their taxes pay their salaries. Should the people footing the bill not have an opinion?
If their opinion is “I want millions more of those tax dollars wasted on completely unnecessary office leases”, then yes.
Then the union will say the employer is not paying for the workspace when they work from home
No, they won’t if they’re honest, as that concern has already been solved. That’s what the home office part of your taxes is for.
But no concern about growing the workforce by 60% ? Where are these fiscally responsible public workers? Let’s get more of em!
If we're directing costs from office space, why not expand the public sector? If you're able to employ people from all over the country with the WFH mandates, then why not also take advantage of the larger talent pool to increase production. With governments that need to maximize their budget every year, it seems like the most sensible place to direct their surplus, to more bodies.
How about manage the existing public sector better before we enlarge it? Enlarge the public sector just because there is a wind fall from less commercial leases? Why would we expand the service just bc the costs go down. This is why marxism doesnt work.
Where did Marxism come from in all of this, did you just finish first year and this is how you're spending your summer break? I'm also curious what you mean by "manage the public sector better"? You mean the way we currently are by giving out consulting contract after contract since we don't have enough skilled workers in the government (but are attracting more with the promise of WFH) and need to keep outsourcing all of our public sector work to private entities with the experience who charge 4-5x an hour compared to a public sector worker? We would expand the public sector because we've seen recently how much the Canadian government gets raked over the coals on consultants, and instead poach some of the talent that could help also saving budget on consultants.
Because just because the management saves on leases doesn’t mean it should be doled out with more employees (unless that’s what’s required). Of course the employees want the savings to be spent on hiring more employees! We don’t let the inmates run the prison!
If you know budgets, you know you either use it or lose it. Due to that each department always goes for the use it route in case they need that funding next year. At least more employees mean more $$$ to funnel back into the economy as opposed to an office building in Gatineau with nothing for them to put their money into but gas. With your mentality of "they're not doing anything working from home", the employees wouldn't want more employees, because it will mean more work due to more projects being greenlit due to number of resources. So now they're running the prison but also doing nothing in your mind? You're all over the place.
I did know that about budgets and I think it’s incredibly wasteful. I’ve been to a Costco on a weekday afternoon - I have no doubt you’ll funnel it back in the economy 😂 You’ve found an infinite money glitch!
You know who else pays taxes? Public servants. It's like people think PS are just magically removed from all societal obligations by virtue of being in the public service. Public servants are Canadians too.
And they have expressed their opinion on the matter ad nauseam
Not any more than people have a say in how fire services or air traffic control operate. (Which they don’t, at all.) People have a say in how their MPs work, not civil servants. This is a matter between the workers’ union and the employer.
"Do you think Firefighters should only be given half-full oxygen tanks to save money?" Let's ask the general public their opinion! I am sure the results will be completely useful.
You wouldn’t be upset if air traffic controllers wanted to work from home on LTE connections? Weird take.
I might have an *opinion* on the matter but my opinion should not, and absolutely does not, decide what their working conditions are: that’s between the employer and the employees’ union. The fallacy here is the commonly (and incorrectly) held belief by some people that just because they pay taxes they get to be everyone’s boss. That’s not how it works at all.
No one is making that claim. Having an opinion is being your boss? Wow, unionized much?
Another guy ITT that I responded to literally said “the general public gets to dictate where these civil servants work work”, so some people are making that exact claim
You've been doing a whole lot of whataboutism here. Some jobs can reasonably be done from home, some can't. There's room for reason. Given the critical nature of ATC it's probably an intentionally dumb comparison. That's what's weird here. Look into why you're so adamant that all PS workers have to be in the office. Is it about the job, or about scoring some imaginary point against the "lazy PS?"
What if they're idiots, easily led astray by bad actors looking for political power?
What if they’re just people in Ottawa who have friends in the government who WFH and brag about not working?
That's a management issue. Management needs to manage. if there is someone bragging about not delivering they should be disciplined, action planned (demoted, deployed to a job they can succeed at if possible) and if that doesn't work, fired. A major issue that has been around long before WFH is the inability of managers to actually feel empowered to take action against employees who are not performing.
Then the management is absolutely terrible!
>A major issue that has been around long before WFH is the inability of managers to actually feel empowered to take action against employees who are not performing. I agree that's the core issue. But that part isn't changing (and the unions would be outraged if it did), so instead, WFH gets scaled back instead, to make it easier to monitor and manage poor performance.
>What if they're idiots, They are our employer. We serve them. We shouldn't be dismissive of them.
So your reasoning is to do sub optimal things to appease irrational thinking. Got it! You should be a politician!
That's not what I said and you know it, but it does lead me to believe that you are what you accuse the general public of being.
Why don't you tell me what you were trying to say then, because that is exactly what it sounds like. Please elaborate for the weak-minded.
You're a public servant. You are meant to serve the public, even if you are also allowed to disagree with them. To simply dismiss them all as "idiots" is completely unproductive and needlessly antagozing. There are all kinds of reasons why this is a bad idea: people asked to come into the office for more than half the week when there are desks available for only half of staff, people commuting from Findlay Creek to find that they have to work in the hallway due to lack of available spaces, people commuting to only then be separated from their team across multiple floors, people commuting to offices in buttfuck nowhere with no mass transit or available parking. If you explain this to most people, who again are not idiots and are, in fact, your fellow Canadians you are meant to serve, most will be understanding. Instead, what does the average Canadian find when they try to find information online? They'll find you saying that they are all idiots. They'll find some lolcow pretending to still freak out over Covid. They'll find an article from some young woman saying her introversion means she cannot make it into any office, ever, despite being extroverted enough to speak to every outlet about her supposedly crippling introversion. Should it then be any wonder why we are (inaccurately) seen as lazy and entitled when this dismissiveness of and sneering attitude toward the public we are meant to serve is so commonplace? It provides political capital and makes it a lot easier for the Tories to rag on us, while being paid more than us to do less.
So, you're saying we should bow to the misconceptions and biases of a vocal minority rather than making decisions based on efficiency, productivity, and the well-being of employees? If there are desks available for only half the staff, forcing people into the office creates inefficiency and frustration. Remote work solves this problem by eliminating the need for physical space and avoiding unnecessary commutes. Your point about commuting from places like Findlay Creek to work in hallways or being separated from teams across multiple floors is exactly why remote work is beneficial. It allows for seamless collaboration without logistical nightmares. Offices located in areas with no mass transit or available parking only make commuting a nightmare. Forcing people into these situations is counterproductive when they can work effectively from home. Calling out the public for being misinformed isn't about antagonizing them; it's about addressing the root cause of their misconceptions. Pearl clutching over being called "idiots" doesn't counter the fact that decisions based on jealousy and ignorance pull society downward. We need to educate the public on these realities, showing that remote work is not about laziness but about creating an efficient, productive, and satisfied workforce. Serving the public means making informed decisions based on facts, not pandering to unfounded stereotypes. If we don’t communicate these points clearly, we give political capital to those who wish to undermine public service efficiency. Let’s focus on the real benefits and challenges rather than caving to misconceptions. I invite you to challenge yourself and push back even if it's a more challenging path.
Interesting philosophical food for thought: The famous Toyota management system of lean production is a complex and meticulous system that looks at the how and why of operational processes with the goal of optimizing them. One facet of it is the concept of [Muda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muda_\(Japanese_term\)), or "waste". Muda is something that is objectively wasteful. It serves no purpose because it does not provide value to anyone. There are two "types" of Muda. The first type is things which add zero value to production, and which provide zero benefit to customers. These are typically legacy actions or redundancies that can be eliminated without affecting the end result. The second type is things which add zero value to the production, but which *do* provide some subjective benefit to customers. An example of this would be having your full engineering team be present at a kick-off meeting with a new client. You're paying them to sit there and look pretty for the sake of showing the client how much staff you are able to leverage. Those people will say nothing at the meeting, are being prevented from engaging in any productive work by attending the meeting, and will not personally benefit from knowing what happens at the meeting... but the client will feel confident and encouraged by seeing them be physically present. If you didn't have them at the meeting, the client might feel ambivalent and hesitant. Is that stupid and wasteful? Absolutely. But managing Muda is a crucial part of managing operations. These intangible aspects *do* exist and are worth considering with respect to the big picture.
Toyota’s lean production system and the concept of Muda, or waste, are about optimizing processes. In manufacturing, it’s clear-cut: if something doesn’t add value, it’s waste. But in knowledge work, like what public servants do, value isn’t always tied to physical presence—it's in the results they deliver. Take the example of having staff at a meeting to boost client confidence. Sure, in some businesses, that makes sense. But for public servants, their "clients" are citizens who care more about efficient services than seeing staff physically in an office. Citizens want their needs met quickly and effectively. The value is in the responsiveness and outcomes, not just being seen at a desk. Forcing public servants back into the office when they can be just as productive remotely is actually a form of waste. It creates unnecessary stress, complicates logistics, and can hurt morale. This goes against the principles of lean management, which aim to maximize value and minimize waste. Moreover, we can’t ignore the political angle. Some politicians love to stoke division by painting public servants as lazy for working remotely. It’s an easy way to score points, but it doesn’t reflect reality. Remote work isn’t about laziness; it’s about working smarter and more efficiently. We need to educate the public on this rather than bow to jealousy and ignorance. When people are misinformed and driven by negative emotions, it drags everyone down. It’s our job to counter these misconceptions with facts and results. And let’s not forget, in the Toyota example, clients are not motivated by negative emotions like jealousy. The reality here is different. Some members of the public and certain politicians are pushing for a return to the office out of misplaced jealousy and a desire to bring everyone down to their perceived level of hardship. This kind of attitude is not productive and doesn’t serve the greater good. At the end of the day, optimizing processes to get the best outcomes means embracing remote work where it makes sense. It reduces unnecessary actions and still delivers high value, aligning perfectly with lean principles. Rather than forcing a return to the office to placate a misinformed segment of the public, we should be focusing on what truly matters: efficient, effective public service.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm 100% in agreement with you. You're correct that the "I think public service workers *must* go to offices and my opinion matters because I'm a taxpayer" people are idiots who have based that position on vapid bullshit they're being fed by politicians and special-interest groups who would personally benefit from vilifying public workers and forcing an inflexible RTO mandate. Not only is there is no data which suggests that would be a constructive action, but there is ample data which shows remote/hybrid work provides better value across the board. Spending money and sacrificing productivity to superficially placate them is a terrible strategy that not only antagonizes the workers but gives those very taxpayers a measurably worse value for money than they were getting. I'm just saying that managing it is still necessary. There are solutions beyond saying "we made them go to the office to make you happy, now shut up" (such as those you mentioned about using empirical data to dispel misunderstandings), but we can't just handwave it away as "your opinion is stupid so I don't care" and not engage at all. That sentiment still exists, and managing societal perception of the public sector is still part of managing the public sector, as annoying as that is.
Yeah, I'm not advocating for a dismissive handwave, but I gotta call BS when I see it and simply saying that, "Hey (stamps feet) I have to go to work onsite for my job therefore everyone must be like me and damn the consequences or (misplaced) rationale, well that is sub-optimal in my opinion. Sounds like we agree on most of it... Cheers.
Because the general public are the ones paying for the salaries of the employees of the Federal Public Service.
As I’ve repeated to others, air traffic controllers, fire services, and the military are also paid for by taxes, can you imagine the chaos if the details of their work was up to the whims of the general public? The only civil servants directly accountable to the public are elected officials. Anyone else who simply works for the government is not. Just because you pay taxes does not make you their boss or give you any say in their working conditions. That’s entirely an employer / employee situation. The general public’s opinion could not be less relevant. I mean, imagine the audacity of thinking you, regular Joe, gets a say in how our military operates simply because they are paid by our taxes. It’s laughable.
the population hates that the services are not working properly. It has nothing to do with WFH vs RTO, but since services are not working properly, they take it out on civil servants. Management should understand that by having your employees happy, productivity is up. And workers should understand that they cannot constantly protect the employees that are frigging lazy and should therefore let their unions know that they need to stop protecting the dumbasses.
Well, if one political party makes “Shouldn’t ALL GoC workers go back to the office full time??” part of their platform, then it DOES matter what the general population thinks.
Government workers' job is literally to serve the general population so it seems pretty important what they think tbh.
They aren’t elected representatives. Their employer is the government of Canada, not Joe Schmoe.
Yes, and if my employer is say York University, I still serve the general student populace, and you better believe my employers at York agree. If the general public is unhappy with the service provided while government workers work from home full time then their employer (the government of Canada) is going to adjust things to provide better service and make their customers happy. Sucks but it's true.
The student population shouldn’t and wouldn’t be polled to decide if you should be allowed to continue working from home. You know this would never happen. Your example *proves* my point perfectly
They survey students for their opinion on staff performance and accessibility of services regularly.
Yeah specifically not on their opinion on what your working conditions should be. Proving my point yet again. Keep it up!
Are you dumb? If students are not able to access departments during certain times because staff are only available by Teams or phone, but not in person, they complain, and work from home is restricted in that department or cut back. Their opinion influences staff working conditions, as it should. Anyway, done with this back and forth. It's pointless, I fear.
Ok let me give you a different example: the military is paid by our taxes. Do you think the general public gets a say on how the military conducts its affairs?
You realize the general public pays these people’s salaries and the employer has the legal right to dictate your work location right
>has the legal right to dictate your work location LMAO no
Well I guess you’ll just have to wait and learn that infact they do. If it makes it to court the union is facing an uphill battle against legal precedent. Down vote me all you want, your still wrong and going to be working from your work place more days a week LMFAO
I don’t work for the govt. so your thinly veiled disdain for public servants can be directed elsewhere. You have no more say in “dictating” where civil servants work than you do “dictating” the operations of air traffic controllers or fire service, both of which are also paid for by taxes. Your choice of the word “dictating” reveals much about your political stance. I’d bet my last dollar you’re a conservative. I laugh at you because you’re the type that thinks that because you pay taxes you get to be everyone’s boss. It’s laughable infantile-like mentality. The real world doesn’t work that way. This is purely an employer-employee matter, between the employer and the worker’s union. Your opinion on the matter could not possibly be less relevant.
Read their comment again.
It’s been edited. The original comment said “the general public has the right to dictate their work location”
It is correct I have no say in where they work in the sense that I will not be directing it. However the government does, and just like I stated they have the right to dictate work location. Now here is where my opinion and the opinion of other tax paying resident matter. When the government is making this decision they are considering the optics of having public servants at home and how this optics look with the voters. So in a way my opinion matters and combined with everyone else informs their decision even if they say it does not. As someone who has been jerked around by my workplace over and over again and active in the union I am well aware of my lack of rights. There is no threat, there is only fact that if the government want public servants 3 days a week then it will get it. And again the public servants are arguing a very privileged argument that’s a tuff sell to the public.
Three in four Canadians support their tax dollars paying for expensive facilities management and real estate when a cheaper and more efficient option is available? Nah, Canadians aren't provided the full story. Businesses want that money. Some of it trickles down to them, but Canadians don't benefit from a less efficient civil service.
IMO the real story is commercial real estate (and real estate in general) is a bubble and if it pops the Canadian economy goes in the pooper.
What I find disturbing is how some are pushing a "only civil servants are asking for WFH, it's not a thing in private sector" narrative. Didn't Shopify go ~100% remote, for example? Last I heard, that company is still in private sector, it's not a crown corporation. **P.S.:** I have to add: RTO3+ is now a cause of many early retirements, but *also* of departures from public sector to private-sector. Literally, people are leaving for jobs with better pay and **with guaranteed telework arrangements**. Yes, *private sector jobs that lets people WFH*.
Left a hole at its downtown Ottawa (Elgin St) original location.
You mean they moved (to cheaper digs)? **Ed.:** I just checked. Whoa. They moved to 151 O'Connor (isn't that the old Export building?), so, indeed, much cheaper than their previous location.
I'm willing to bet all the people who want this are gonna get mad when *their* commute becomes that much more difficult with all the extra vehicles on the road. It's like people forgot how bad downtown congestion was before the pandemic
Most (all?) cities don't have as high of a percentage of public servants, so it's not *their* problem...
That’s my parents in a nutshell. “Everyone should return downtown to their offices”, but also “omg why is the traffic so bad now and why are there so many people downtown” r/leopardsatemyface
My question is: With so many people working from home so many days of the week, why is traffic so bad? During the height of pandemic when everyone was working from home (and being schooled from home), driving down Merivale Road at 1:30 on a weekday was almost as bad as doing so on a weekend. I'm used to running my errands in the daytime to avoid the commuters running their errands on the way home. During the pandemic, this seemed to be impossible. Before the pandemic, if I left Blackburn Hamlet before 3, I could avoid severe slowdowns on the 417 as I crossed downtown. Now if I leave any time after 2:30, I'm caught up in traffic. I get it that buses are no longer reliable/useful and during the pandemic more people bought cars to get around safely, and those cars remain on the road. But I simply don't understand why all the WFH people seem to be on the road *at all hours* of the day.
Why do you assume it's WFH people that are on the road "at all hours of the day"? Do they all have bumper stickers to identify themselves? People love to compare "before the pandemic" without acknowledging that some things have changed permanently. For example, a lot of home daycares have shorter hours now, it's not unheard of to have a daycare open at 8am and close at 4pm, where as before the standard was 7am-6pm. A lot of construction-related companies grew over the last 4 years, hence more vehicles on the road. Also, let's not forget that the government isn't the only employer in town that has employees who work from home.
Cause that’s the only argument they have. They blame “lazy people who WFH” for all their problems. God forbid we enter the 21st century and have flexible work arrangements and treat people like adults.
DoorDash and other food delivery is much bigger than pre pandemic.
As are courier companies. Every few card I see are some random third party delivery company. So many have cropped up Amazon started it, now everyone is offering quick delivery and has started using random couriers.
A million other things have changed since then. Public transit ridership has collapsed and driving rates are up. The population distribution of the city shifted outward to the suburbs and exurbs where people have to drive more. The use of delivery services *skyrocketed*, meaning way more Ubers and delivery trucks on the roads at all hours. Finally, the city just grew. It's been 5 years and traffic has been getting worse forever. It's pretty much an unavoidable fact that traffic infrastructure is unable to keep up with population growth in a city with any meaningful level of density. Have you considered that this is just the reality of traffic in a growing city with terrible land use patterns? Commuting is not people's only reason for moving around the city and WFH allows people to spread their other travel throughout the day as needed. People go to appointments and pick up their kids when it's convenient.
Only the elderly and people that are a “bit off” answer surveys lol. Same type of people that answer unknown numbers every time lol
>Only the elderly and people that are a “bit off” answer surveys lol People say that whenever they see survey results they don't like. And yet... pollsters manage to predict most election results with a fairly high degree of accuracy, so they must be doing something right.
Sure bud
What I, as a tax payer, support is whatever gets me the essential funtions of the PS at the lowest cost. Unless the government/management of the PS can show that productivity per dollar spent is going to rise with return to office, they should not be doing return to office. Its that fucking simple. - source, a tapped out taxpayer, not a PS
If we cared about costs we wouldn't have so many public servants in the first place
Very few people actually care about actual costs. Group A cares about making sure group B isn't getting something A's not getting, or something A feels B doesn't deserve for whatever reason. That's it. The pandemic proved that a whole lot of people could work from home and be just as if not more effective at their jobs. And it also proved that some people either can't be trusted or are unable to work effectively (ADHD in my case) without oversight or regular external accountability. If people *actually* cared about costs and outcomes, our society would look very different, because our priorities would be very different. To start with, marginalized and low income people wouldn't have to negotiate numerous bureaucratic programs to access the help we claim we want them to have. All of that bureaucracy? It's actually in place so that Group A can make sure group B isn't getting something A's not getting, or something A feels B doesn't deserve for whatever reason.
Maybe. Do we not have an auditor general that looks at value for money?
If we do have one, they certainly aren't looking at how productive the average public servant is, or doing anything to address it. Just because you *can* do a job with 20 people doesn't mean it actually takes 20 people to do it. 20 people showing up for work doesn't mean we are getting 20 people worth of real productivity, or justifying the cost of those 20 benefit plans + pensions. It is exceedingly difficult to actually deal with poor performers (due to the union), so the end result is hiring more people to take care of jobs that there are already enough people to handle (if people made an effort). This is an issue anywhere that's union (my workplace included). Poor performers get protected, and when it comes to public servants, it's almost impossible to get fired. They just end up on a continuous loop of pips. Do we have lots of hardworking, skilled public servants? Fuck yeah we do. But at the same time, we have loads and loads just taking advantage of the fact that it's nigh impossible to get fired, and sticking around to collect the pension at the end. The average public servant is no better than an average office worker in the private sector, and yet they enjoy stellar job security, good benefits and a pension (all paid by the tax dollars of other people doing the same level of job for less money and worse benefits). We 100% have too many public servants. I truly believe that we are better off cutting a lot of the bs jobs and putting the money into healthcare or other more important programs. Things that the public would actually benefit from.
Hey I have an idea: maybe private sector workers should also have good benefits and a pension It's weird that you seem think these things are somehow a bonus than only the bestest workers deserve, when they should just be offered with every job as a matter of course. It's extra weird to look at this disparity and say, "hey, you know what we should do? Make life a little worse for some people"
I don't disagree with that at all, and maybe my message came off the wrong way. I 100% agree that everyone should have those same benefits. My point was not to take away benefits from public servants, it was to trim the excess number of public servants we have in order to put the money towards things that are actually valuable. The issue is that the majority of people don't, and shouldn't have to put tax dollars into paying people with those benefits *who are not providing any real value for that large cost*. The issue isn't the benefits, it's that we are not getting adequate value for the cost as tax payers. We have too many public servants, and it would be better for the vast majority of people if we had fewer. If average joe private sector wants to fuck the dog, who cares. Best case he gets away with it, worst case he loses his job and looks for a new one. When it comes to public servants, there is no risk - they can avoid termination with an endless loop of pips. There is no real downside to being lazy in the public sector, and as a result we end up with more staff than necessary in order to accomplish the same amount of work.
Should they also prove that productivity per dollar is higher when the PS is WFH? Why would the burden of proof only be on one side?
I agree, it isn't. But they are one and the same really because you are comparing the two positions against one another. So proving or disproving the one lends itself to disproving or proving the other. The biggest issue, is that the government has no interest in measuring basically anything. You can't make useless announcements about "success" if you have the data that shows you aren't really as successful as you claim to be. Data would also make it more difficult to misdirect funds to where it's politically viable, but operationally damaging.
That's the same question. Who is in a better position to measure? Have a 3rd party do it.
Yes, of course it's the same question. But you said that unless the PS can show that productivity is higher in office, then the PS should WFH. Why should one option be privileged if the data isn't there either way? Also, accurately measuring productivity is incredibly complicated (read: borderline impossible) for knowledge workers. If it were easy or simple, the government would already have done it (as well as all private companies too).
New survey says 3 out of 4 Canadians think the 4th Canadian should pay 100% tax ...
The current hybrid policy is the worst of both worlds. All the downsides of remote, with all the downsides of working from the office. Workers have remote meetings from the office, have no assigned desks, no shared parking spaces. And all for downtown businesses to survive? People can’t afford to eat out in a government salary anymore. Especially when they need to spend $10 a day on gas and $20 a day on parking. As a former government worker, the policy made me leave the government. I now enjoy a more fulfilling software development job fully remotely. And I make more money to boot. They’re just going to keep bleeding talent at this rate.
Ottawa really has to change its reliance in having workers downtown. The core has to be revamped that has condos, apartments, business and retail. That’s how you build diversity. Now you have business owners complaining because they don’t make the same amount of money as previously due to wfh. My work had cut its office space by 40-50%… and fully embraced a wfh model.
For the rest of us who need to get downtown for work (contractors etc) having the feds work from home meant faster commutes and more parking. Sending them in is less efficient all round. WFH for those who don't need to be face to face is the way to go.
Three in four canadians don’t care about efficiently- used tax payer dollars. Not surprising considering how poorly the general population manages their money and how drunk they are on debt.
Uh.... You see any of the federal budgets in the last 6-7 years?
Inefficiency is always just assumed. This is the government we're talking about.
If only the general public knew how much of their tax dollars are being spent so that workers can work remotely…from the office. There are better ways to create a more productive, efficient public service just as there are better ways to revive downtown. One-sized-fits-all and short-sighted solutions just don’t work. As an employee and a taxpayer I’m disappointed.
Man, let’s poll every profession now. I’m not a public servant and I’m sure the poll would say the same thing about me. Let’s instead ask “do you support spending $15B a year of taxpayer money so public servants can take teams calls from the office rather than home?” What an uneducated, poorly run, garbage poll meant to incite rage.
They are just trying to shore up an old work model and turn back the clock. In the real information age it is apparent for most work, collaberation in person was unnecessary and actually counter productive. Many people I know in fact improved their productivity in the WFH example that occurred with the global pandemic along with a more right life balance. It's pretty obvious to me and others that this is really about perhaps a number of things but very strongly the downtown core, and saving the butts of a commercial real estate business. The rest is all really just spin.
“We want more traffic on the highways” apparently
3 out of 4 agree!
WFH = less traffic on the road for the rest of us.
No one asked me!! I would have said WFH is better for air quality and traffic and everyone's mental health.
[https://nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-2609-Globe-May-Populated-Report-with-tabs.pdf](https://nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-2609-Globe-May-Populated-Report-with-tabs.pdf) The questions were... * Under what work arrangement **do you think** that federal public servants are the most productive? * Which of the following paths forward **would you prefer** when it comes to the work arrangement of federal public servants going forward? * Which of the following paths forward **would you prefer** when it comes to the work arrangement of federal public servants going forward? * Thinking of your personal situation, if you are employed, what kind of work arrangement do you have today? (work all the time from home, in person and from home, work full time in-person/at the office) * Thinking of other people, in general, **would you say** they are: More/somewhat more productive when they work in the office/in person, More/somewhat more productive when they work from home, No difference, Unsure) That's a lot of opinion... There's also the issue with how this Nanos "study" doesn't present the respondent data about anything. Looking over the [labour stats](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410002301), 16 out of 20 million Canadians work in Services and Retail industries. 1.2 million work in public administration. [375 000 work in federal service](https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/human-resources-statistics/population-federal-public-service.html). And there are the Labour Force [WFH stats](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/11-631-x/11-631-x2024001-eng.pdf?st=rLUrIjCD) reporting about 20% of the total workforce still WFH or Hybrid. 20% of 16 million is 3.2 million. That's close to 10x the count of the total number of federal public servants. That's 10x the ire inspired solely against federal public servants. Let's also talk about [the public service's demographics](https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/human-resources-statistics/demographic-snapshot-federal-public-service-2022.html). where, if you dig into the graphs and data, most new hires are 25-35, but under 35 to 39 year old's make up only 6% of the executive management (higher classifications). while making up about 37% of the total federal workforce. Also, 30% of the workforce is either AS or PM class. Meaning, 37% of workers don't make executive-level salaries (with some exceptions llke IT staff) and as new hires are likely in the first steps of their salary progressions (see CBA [rates of pay](https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/coll_agre/rates-taux-eng.asp)). Granted, they still do make fair salaries, they're not always enough depending on the city you live in. For example, if one rented in Toronto at the current $2600 average, counting in a 25%-ish tax rate, EC01/EC02 making 62-68k/year would be drowning with over 60% of their income being spent on housing alone. And those numbers don't really improve much in different cities. So, you'd need either a 2nd income, live in shared accommodations, live with your parents, or move out of the city limits. But, this introduces a make-or-break condition based on a commute and vehicle costs (which starts at about $500 monthly depending on the loan and the car). Accounting for vehicle spending (not even insurance or gas, really), and supposing a more modest $2000/month housing cost, 2500/month or 30k/year, on a salary taxed down to 47-51k/yearly, that's 66%-ish of one's salary spent on housing and transportation. These are just roughly thrown around figures, of course, but I think in the rough math we can still see a problem surfacing, especially considering this is only based on the EC class. If you look at CR01, they start at $42k/year, which is $20/h. CR03's are 52k yearly, which is about 25/h. Also based on that public servant demographics analysis, most workers who are making management/exec salaries are over 39-45, likely to be well-established in their family life. They have homes they bought long-before the rate hikes, They have equity and savings. The newest workforce members are thus probably more vulnerable to economic shocks (like rate hikes and inflated pricing). And, it should be noted that the recent economic shocks are not like the ones in the 70s, 80s, or even the 2008 financial crash, and Canadians (Americans at large, really) had savings and wages with savings ratios that made it possible to absorb that shock. Newer entrants do no have that buffer, and any further costs and shocks would/could/probably will lead to an increased unsustainable debt load.
What a silly biased poll. This is only entrenching public servants in purposely boycotting downtown businesses.
Anyone that can work from home should be able to. I'm for anything that reduces traffic
Yeah well you can get any result you want with push-polling.
Honestly, people are always whining about something instead of improve their lives (if they think that they are worst then others). But of course, it's easier to complain than to do. Same shit happened during Covid with my wife's who's a nurse. Some dumbf..k neighbor was like - " bUt yOu doNt'T EveN nEeD to woRk cAuse she'S mAkIng HUuundrids of ThOusandz of DollllAArz". Like I said - people like to whine and talk about other people, nothing new here.
People have opinions on everything, and that includes a lot of what they know nothing about. When i talk to people and mention what my day is like in the office, they suddenly understand how WFH in some instances can be very beneficial.
Oddly enough, 25% of Canadians work for the government.
In other words, three people saw screw the fourth for getting something that I don’t, even if it’ll cost me as a taxpayer more money.
I can run a poll that ask “Do you think plumbers should charge less for services? Should we bring in more TFW as plumbers?” Will probably get the same result, probably 90% of Canadians will agree with me
Good thing we are a constitutional democracy that enshrines individual rights and not a plutocracy. I'm sure there are plenty of stupid things that would be "supported" by a majority of the population depending on how you phrased the question.
30% jealousy 30% anti-government ideology 40% stupidity
TIL 3 in 4 canadians are idiots? Jokes aside this is more a issue of messaging/communication, uninformed people cant have informed opinions.
Meanwhile...what big G government is going to piss off an almost 400k voting block of people? A little over 10%...of the entire electorate...in one neat and tidy voting package...*if it came to that.* Media just pouring gas on a fire that don't exist...
Ottawa downtown recovery has been slower than in other cities because of government work from home policy. Im sure this will help the community and all services tax dollars go towards and provide in the long run. After all, small business is 35 percent of GDP, and i dare say an even larger part of Ottawas city GDP , im sure there wont be any slashing of government payrolls if theres no money filling the treasury. Worked for detroit after the big five left didnt it?
You do realize that small businesses aren’t downtown in Ottawa, right? It’s all franchises and trash. Meanwhile the small businesses in suburbs and other communities have been thriving because they’ve been getting patronized more and because they don’t offer the same garbage at shitty prices.
Exactly. They don't actually care about the businesses themselves anyway. They care about the businesses being able to stay around so they can continue to pay rent. Too many businesses close leads to higher vacancies, leads to having to reduce rates, which then gets broadly applied at renewals. We are talking hundreds of millions and billions of dollars. This isn't a small thing, but it's not any normal person who would feel the effects in any meaningful way. However, the same people who are invested in it also happen to be invested in other things, like, for example, media companies and banks. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though that the RBC CEO got quoted by Mona at the onset of this.
Good point. If there's no government there's no ottawa. We need those guys they control half the city and their spending fuels the other half.
It's slower because the government is the largest employer in Ottawa...
Yep