TBS Announces New Policy for Prescribed In-Office Presence:
In response to the recent announcement by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) regarding the new policy for prescribed in-office presence, we stand with our members and the broader GC executive community in expressing our disappointment. While we were not consulted prior to this decision, we have actively engaged with our executive community to gather their thoughts and reactions. Through this process, we have collected valuable feedback, which has been summarized and shared with TBS.
We are committed to advocating for our members and the larger executive community, and sharing this summary with you all serves as evidence of our ongoing efforts. By sharing this summary on our website, we aim to demonstrate that we are taking action to address your concerns and actively working towards better outcomes. Your voices matter, and we are here to ensure that they are heard and considered in future policy decisions.
We will keep this page continually updated as new feedback is received from our executive community. Furthermore, we are committed to sharing any updates and progress resulting from our collaborations with TBS. Your input is invaluable to us, and we are dedicated to transparently communicating the outcomes of our advocacy efforts. Together, we will work towards achieving positive changes that benefit our members and the broader executive community.
THEME 1: Policy Implementation and Workplace Dynamics
This theme includes topics related to policy implementation, workplace logistics, hybrid work, workplace flexibility, and the implementation of new policies. It covers the practical aspects of how policies affect daily work life and can include duty-to-accommodate.
What we’ve heard:
- Expresses concern about the challenge of meeting the new requirement to be in the office four days a week.
- Challenges the notion that it’s executives’ role to manage the transition without providing feedback.
- Criticizes the government’s poor management of remote work arrangements and expects similar shortcomings with this announcement.
- Questions the feasibility of the policy’s goals, especially regarding office space utilization.
- Discrepancy between the goals of the Directive on the Duty to Accommodate and the implementation approach for prescribed workplace presence.
- Suggests that if the government isn’t willing to fully modernize its approach to work, then pretending that the current solution will work is futile.
- Criticizes the escalation of low return value activities and increased workload without necessary support from senior leadership.
- Requiring four days onsite is regressive and not supported by conclusive data- there are no independent studies to prove this is the right decision.
- Attributes the decision to a disconnect between deputies and their departments, suggesting a lack of willingness to innovate or adapt to changing work dynamics.
- An Ottawa-centric view and the impracticality of collaboration for regions spread over several provinces.
- A missed opportunity to create an ‘Accessible by Design’ workplace where all can have equal opportunity to shine.
- A missed opportunity to increase inclusion, decrease harassment, decrease cost of operations, increase productivity and work-life balance.
- Negative effect on accessing regional talent pools.
- Disproportionate impact on those with disabilities: Easier to manage disability at home due to access to medical supplies not available in the office, especially in a no-assigned seats setup
- Health implications: Working remotely has significantly reduced hospitalizations related to disability, concern about needing to choose between health and job with return to office.
- Regressive stance favors those without caregiving responsibilities, creating barriers for mothers and those caring for other family members (aging parents).
THEME 2: Impact on Leadership and Organizational Culture
This theme includes discussions about the impact of policies on executives and leadership dynamics, reflections on organizational culture and values, and the implications for future leadership. It focuses on the broader organizational effects and leadership perspectives.
What we’ve heard:
- Describes the current situation as the “worst of both worlds” with virtual meetings in-office and difficulty building relationships in unassigned workspaces.
- Questioning the obligation of a fourth day for executives if no one else is there with them. They aren’t any office dynamics to speak of.
- Questions the decision’s alignment with public service values, citing concerns about climate impact, mental health, productivity, networking, and taxpayer value.
- Expresses concern about the impact on the younger generation of executives, who already have little incentive to enter the ranks.
- Creates a barrier for those thinking about becoming executives. It will be hard to attract talent.
- Notes colleagues taking demotions to other categories due to lack of motivation, with the new decision exacerbating this issue.
- Considering demotions: Highlights a willingness to prioritize meaningful work over financial considerations and discusses openly with family about potential career changes.
- Highlights challenges in recruiting and maintaining a diverse executive community due to the new policy.
- Considers the policy unnecessary and insulting to suggest it makes for more effective leaders.
- Notes a significant shift in the work culture driven by deputy ministers (DMs), leading to decreased interaction between executives and senior leadership.
- Loss of trust in executives, cynicism and negativity are impacting workplace relationships.
- Confusion, disappointment, and loss of confidence in the employer and the value brought to the executive ranks of the PS.
THEME 3: Consultation and Advocacy for Improved Conditions
This them addresses issues related to the lack of consultation in policy implementation, advocacy for improved workplace conditions, and responses or advocacy efforts from organizations like APEX. It’s about the process of decision-making, consultation, and efforts to improve conditions.
What we’ve heard:
- Appreciation for APEX’s efforts to communicate the position to OCHRO.
- Raises concerns about the lack of notice or consultation regarding the change.
- Expresses disappointment with the lack of transparency and consultation regarding the new policy.
- Criticizes the lack of consultation with APEX or unions, showing disregard for employees’ opinions and expertise.
- Hopes for advocacy for executives’ concerns regarding the policy, feeling their voice is not as strong as other public servants.
- Criticizes the announcement being made in the media and the subsequent lack of acknowledgment from higher management for days and lack of tools and information.
- Suggests that if the government isn’t willing to fully modernize its approach to work, then pretending that the current solution will work is futile.
- Encouragement for APEX to advocate for a fair and inclusive approach to hybrid work that accommodates the diverse needs of public servants with disabilities.
- Request for advocacy: Asking for support in pressuring the government to reconsider the directive.
- Appreciation to APEX for support and listening: Gratitude for the platform to voice concerns and for being heard.
THEME 4: Executive Environment and Well-Being
This theme combines topics related to executive conditions, work environment, and the well-being of executives. It specifically looks at how policies affect executives’ working conditions and overall well-being, including duty-to-accommodate.
What we’ve heard:
- Emphasizes that flexibility to work from home is an important aspect of compensation and benefits for public servants.
- Regardless of location (office or home), collaboration often occurs via MS Teams.
- Finds work challenging without assigned or closed offices.
- Desires a routine and consistency in workspace, currently working in multiple buildings across different cities, which is unproductive and needs to change.
- Describes this practice as contrary to innovation.
- Need for our own dedicated office spaces. Hoteling just won’t work.
- Highlights the impracticality and inconvenience of the current office setup for conducting sensitive discussions.
- Suggests that executives need their own enclosed offices again.
- Expresses willingness to utilize the office almost daily if present at least 80% of the time.
- Believes the policy unfairly targets executives and worsens work-life balance.
- Executives, including younger ones with families, value hybrid work for better work/life balance and alignment with societal issues like climate change and cost of living.
- Critique of the requirement for employees to submit formal duty-to-accommodate requests for exemptions or modifications to the open-plan, unassigned seating office design.
- Describes personal challenges with managing a disability and the impact of increased demands on work-life balance.
- Rejection of hybrid work and embracing a return to the past goes against innovation (archaic thinking).
- Lack of recognition toward increased stress/mental health issues among executives.
- Advocates for reasonable expectations regarding work hours and the ability to disconnect, highlighting the strain caused by extended work hours and lack of boundaries.
Please continue to send us your feedback. We are here to listen and will use this information to inform our consultations and continued advocacy with TBS. We will always ensure anonymity.
Thank you for your continued support as we strive to be your voice and advocate for you effectively.
