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

Rees-Mogg may have his suspicions but does he have any proof that civil servants are not working as required? He's just trying to divide and rule, by turning people against each other.

As I've said on another thread many private companies are continuing with WFH, either fully, or hybrid. I personally know the companies include Barclays, Ocado, John Lewis, BUPA, EDF Energy. These are high-level jobs, not Indian call-centre material.

They're not allowing this for the greater good but for the good of the company - if it affected the bottom line they would no doubt cease the practise.

It also means that staff don't have to live in London/South East - surely this would go some way to 'levelling-up'.

If he is "boss" of the civil servants and can't motivate them to do a proper job, that's his weakness. Not theirs.

He is a petulant child throwing his toys out of the pram. He wants them back in the office to protect the income of the rich Tory owning property magnates, to ‘set an example’ to other workers so office buildings are kept full. They don’t comply. His response - sack them all. It’s nothing whatsoever to do with how hard they work.

From comments upthread it seems that some civil servants cannot work efficiently from home and deliver the service the taxpayer pays them for. In which case they should be ordered back to the office so that they can do what they’re paid to do. And that will also benefit the service industries who rely on them.

I've managed and led many people over the years. Inluding tech support call centres, incidentally. It's been quite a few years indeed since I cared how long their bums were on the seats. What I cared about was whether they met their objectives and whether they were available when I needed them. And if I needed them at the drop of a hat, then they had to change their plans, but I had to know whether it was really an emergency or whether the problem was of my own making due to not being able to plan ahead properly.

If the Civil Servants do not have the tools they need to work effectively from home, then they need to be given them. That's the employer's responsibility. And the employer needs to know what they expect from the staff, not just get your body into this office now so that I can keep an eye on you.

Why do I keep thinking of Scrooge and Cratchit?

Would it not be a better use of taxpayers’ money for people to go back to the office where all the tools they need are available, rather than resources - human and financial - being spent to fully equip them to wfh, which is no longer necessary?

No.

Why so?

Because you are assuming that supporting people to work from home costs more money than getting them into the office.

But you can save money on office space, electrical and power costs. Absenteeism is reduced. Time spent on travelling into the office is reduced so any subsidies for travel costs can be saved. Most people have a phone and a PC at home now that can be made secure. If you need specialist equipment, come into the reduced-size office on the days you need it. Have meetings on Zoom. No need to provide a working lunch.

It's really not a case of "come into the office to work" any more. I'd also really like to see real analysis of whether the perceived reductions in service are due to people working from home or just lack of management oversight of the people at the end of the phone.

So many complaints from the public about different departments not delivering - passports, driving licences, tax rebates. WFH was supposed to be a temporary solution to the pandemic. I feel sorry for the taxpayers who have no choice - supermarket employees for example - who have no choice in the matter themselves yet have to put up with inadequate service from those WFH. Talk about rubbing their noses in it “we aren’t coming back into work but are still being given the same rates of pay!” Saving on fuel, lunches, time etc. What’s not to like? Nothing, if it’s working but it’s patently not.

Maybe cut the salaries for those WFH? Make it a level playing field with like-for-like choice?

Taxpayers, taxpayers, taxpayers...

I personally worked from home for the first two months of the pandemic. Before I retired. So to the people reading this....

You can either believe someone who gets their knowledge of the world from the right wing press or you can listen to somebody who has managed teams and actually lived the whole WFH thing for the last few years

OK I along with DH own a SME.

It was open throughout the pandemic.

Some people need to be in the office, no matter how good their home Wi-Fi is, no matter how organised they are, they need to be in the office in order for the job to be carried out professional and efficiently.

We have one member of staff working from home, but they still have to come into the office several days each month.

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

Or you can empathise it’s workers whose jobs give them no choice but see/read about others on full pay with no deductions regarding say ‘London weightings’. It’s a joke and the middle classes are the ones laughing. And saving money. And putting the dishwasher on or pegging out the washing if it’s sunny. In between answering calls and emails of course. Look, they’re loving it. They aren’t going to give this up voluntarily are they?

I worked for a electronics/software company. Wrote s/w for companies all over Europe. The only people who had to come in were the test team, because they needed the test rigs. The s/w engineers came in about once a fortnight to pick up any hardware they needed and drop off what they didn't need any more.

The call centre staff didn't come in for about 18 months. I haven't seen any of them since I retired.

Obviously it depends on the company or organisation but "bums on seats" isn't the default any more.

And it’s not working. Some people have had to cancel their holidays as passports haven’t turned up 10 weeks after applying for them. Very stressful for some taxpayers just wanting to enjoy their leisure time.

bums on seats should be at the discretion of the employer, depending on the circumstances.

It is all about the job.

Many civil service jobs can be very well carried out at home.

Civil servants do not have a dedicated desk, so they can’t all be in at the same time in any case, there isn’t enough space.

Both my children work from home.

One works in partnership with someone in Argentina - Large pharmaceutical - although that contract is soon to end, and she will then change her job and company as the existing company wanted to extend her contract but it meant travelling world wide and she wasn’t prepared to do that with children still at home plus husband.

She has now taken a job with another scientific company but this entails mostly working in the office at the moment as they are a bit old fashioned. Daughter is hoping to bring them up to date and work from home as it suits.

Son works from home. Government Agency His job - part of it is checking complicated legal documents and he finds the much quieter atmosphere at home more conducive to concentration. He also manages his project managers etc from home but also does work on the field as it were from Dorset to the Thames estuary and travels as necessary.

Putting a blanket on work practice and saying everyone should be in the office is silly and not keeping up with modern forms of work.

The private sector is more forward thinking it seems.

I was a Civil Servant for nearly 40 years (in a minor role). Civil Servants are treated appallingly by some members of the public. It's as though the are not real people. They are just trying to earn a living like everyone else. I used to end up fibbing about what I did sometimes as the 'jokes' and 'Oh it's alright for you' got a bit much.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.