Ease the cost of living crisis by making more people unemployed ?

Whitewavemark2

Hearsay then.

It's hearsay which, if true for that person, doesn't tell us why they are not being answered. I have got through to people before now, only to take ages to get an answer to the issue because the "computers are working slowly". I can hear the frustration of the person as they apologise yet again. They will know there is a queue but what are they supposed to do?

With little investment in these areas, I am quite sure it is true. The first questions are "Do they have the right kit?", "are all the programmes working quickly?". Without looking at these areas you cannot begin to know how many people you need to employ.

The governement are the people telling us that they cannot take a windfall tax off the fuel companies because if they do the companies will not invest. This government needs to invest but thinks its job is just to tell others what to do.

The newspapers would be fairly boring if they reported the thousands of customers who have had good experiences. I'm one - I didn't tell anyone as I was just quietly happy.

Hearsay then.

So many articles in the newspapers WWmk2 telling it like it is for the customers. Saying why they are frustrated at delays in communications. Ansaphones saying “please bear with us as due to Covid we are WFH and experiencing a high volume of calls”. Annoying now. Beyond frustrating. As I said upthread, not ALL departments but enough to warrant scrutiny.

Here's Johnson today in the DM
'My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing.'

It says more about his work ethic than the facts about WFH.
It shows he and his ilk judge based on their own low standards rather than the lived experience of others.

I would also add that I frequently travelled to France to a private company.

Now there you could see how good a private company could be when it treated its staff well!

Mind you there were some outstanding companies in the U.K. as well.

Very very few indeed treated their staff as civil servants get treated.

I think many people have ideas that stem from their working life. Things change. They changed over our lives so I do wonder why anyone would not expect further change.

I also find the idea that the government - our elected servants - should tell, either companies or an independant civil service, how they should work. Just more of the entitlement syndrome and, presumably, another step in privatising areas of government.

Urmstongran

My bugbear is effectiveness by results WFH. If the public aren’t getting what they need (passports, driving licences, tax rebates) then it’s NOT working is it? Some departments can obviously WFH if there any no complaints about outcomes. However some departments need better scrutiny/auditing surely?

Do you have figures to show that this is an issue or is it hearsay?

Nor do I WW2. I have worked in public and private sectors and I found I worked harder in the public sector.

I have to agree with you there Urms. The proof of the pudding ...

My bugbear is effectiveness by results WFH. If the public aren’t getting what they need (passports, driving licences, tax rebates) then it’s NOT working is it? Some departments can obviously WFH if there any no complaints about outcomes. However some departments need better scrutiny/auditing surely?

Germanshepherdsmum

I speak from personal experience wwm. I can only describe what I found amongst colleagues in the public sector and the immense difference in the private sector. My public sector colleagues simply would not have survived in the private sector.

And so do I.

Clearly our experience is very different.

I have colleagues who changed from civil service employment to work in one of the big 4 accountancy firms. They have thrived.

Likewise my son has collegues who have changed employment to work in consultancy etc. likewise they found the change easy and enjoyable.

Because of the work that I did, I was in the lucky position, of working in numerous different private companies on a regular basis, from tiny companies with less than 250 employees to multi-national companies of all kinds, although I did specialise.

I do not recognise your description that private employees work harder.

My son works in the civil service and as many in his department work online it would quickly become apparent to their managers if they weren't working.
He works long hours and is often exhausted.
Very out dated idea that people are skiving.

I agree biglouis - the effectiveness of managers should be put under the microscope first. Too many chiefs?

People working in the civil service, are no different from those working elsewhere.

Some companies are run well, some companies are rubbish. Some value their staff and show their appreciation, some are fail miserably.

On the whole though moral in the civil service is very low, because of idiots like Mogg.

I speak from personal experience wwm. I can only describe what I found amongst colleagues in the public sector and the immense difference in the private sector. My public sector colleagues simply would not have survived in the private sector.

Prior to returning to education I worked in local government for 20 years as a librarian. As others have pointed out services like these were cut to the bone because they did not generate "income". Staff left and were not replaced to the existing staff took on more and more duties and responsibilities. Those of us who were qualified felt that we were no longer valued and were being replaced by younger (and cheaper) people.

The result was that people went off ill with stress related illness or left the profession. This will happen in the civil service. The ordinary workers will have more and more work loaded onto them while the bloated management levels above them will not be shedding staff to anything like the same degree.

GrannyGravy13

I think the difference is Whitewavemark2 the private sector has to factor in profitability along with staff turnover, efficiency and customer satisfaction.

Naturally one would expect an efficient business to do that, but it's not incompatible with having employees who work from home.

You said yourself It is not a blanket either or option, it had to be for the profitably and effective running of the business.

Which seems eminently sensible.

What companies have no need to consider is the loss to their landlords and service industries in the vicinity of their offices. Which I think is the angle that's worrying the government. However, how private enterprises run their businesses is none of the government's business .

Likewise my sons agency. The point is that there are skills that they have that are difficult to find elsewhere.

Many companies actively seek these people for employment.

gsm Blimey then you met no one from my civil service department.

Large accountancy companies used to actively headhunt us.

I think your statement is a ridiculous generalisation and vast oversimplification of the reality.

I can see what you’re saying about savings in theory volver. I also acknowledge your own experience. Did you work in the private sector? My son and daughter in law are both solicitors in private practice. She works from home most of the time now, very effectively. My son does so on average two to three days a week in the office. Very long hours and productivity is very visible.
Having worked in the public sector - water industry (then nationalised) and local government - I found a vast difference in work ethic. I know many will not be happy to hear this, but in the public sector I worked with a good many who did what they could get away with and had their coats on before it was time to leave. They simply weren’t accountable to anyone as their ‘managers’ had exactly the same mindset. Backlogs were allowed to build up and then there was the inevitable absence with stress-related illness. In the private sector my output was very visible and I was very much accountable. Backlogs didn’t exist because people did the hours necessary to get the job done. Backlogs would not be tolerated.
It may - note may - be the case that what I called ‘local government mentality’ when I worked there also prevails in the civil service and that it is much easier to hide your lack of productivity if not in the office, though I suspect all too easy to hide it there too if management is similarly ineffective. Like you I managed others and expected results and I met no-one during my years in the public sector that I would have employed in private practice.

GrannyGravy13

I think the difference is Whitewavemark2 the private sector has to factor in profitability along with staff turnover, efficiency and customer satisfaction.

Not sure of your point?

I think the difference is Whitewavemark2 the private sector has to factor in profitability along with staff turnover, efficiency and customer satisfaction.

Oh and just to say that I am 76 and retired at 60, but also worked from home, when I thought desirable, in fact at the most I would only attend the office perhaps once a week. In fact my job gave me a huge amount of autonomy because I travelled a lot and in doing so the civil service gained as I found I worked more than my prescribed hours very frequently.

My daughter worked from home throughout the lockdown and after. She certainly didn't stop working to hang out a washing or put the kettle on. The only benefit to her was she no longer had to commute so started work sooner. Admittedly she doesn't work for the government but I doubt she was the only consciencous worker.