Reject the shift to 60% office attendance at DLUHC

Anonymous

I am the only one in my team who is Leeds based.

I will be the only person in my team working in my local office.

Whilst there are not suitable facilities in the office (e.g. enough desks), this isn't viable and we shouldn't be forced to spend more money coming in to a working environment that is worse than home.

I am concerned how this will disadvantage colleagues and part-time workers. This isn't the way to get teams to gather together to work together.

Fully support the Union's position

I find I'm more productive working from home, as the office can be extremely noisy and chaotic! On top of that, there are no available desks at 2MS on the 3rd floor to work as a team! Therefore do not see the point travelling in to sit on my own on an uncomfortable desk space, not set up for my height. I also find i struggle to have a work life balance when going to the office , as travel time adds an additional 3 hours to my working day. Lastly for me to come into the office financially is a struggle , with increased travel fares!

I think hybrid working is a great way to work, enabling us to attend offices where it benefits the business and our roles, I feel when applied appropriatley it can enable staff and departments to work closer together to meet the needs and goals of the business. But I feel for it to work a number of things need to be considered: Capacity: Some offices don't physically have enough space in offices to accomodate 60% attendance. Productivity: Now that many of us work in national teams and spend most of our time dialing into online meetings, lost of the smaller offices don't have enought quiet spaces to accomodate all the various staff who often end up in meetings at the same time, which on busier days can impact the ability understand what is being said or be understood. Additionally, a loud busy office can also negatively impact one's ability to concentrate and therefore productivity. Localatity of staff: For national teams, which a lot of us are in now, staff within those teams are often geographically spread and in many cases work in offices where there are no other members of their team and in some cases where there are no other members of their wider group and/or department, which in many cases conflicts with the argument that attending the office enables staff to work together. I truly think hybrid working is a great idea, but I think given the obvious changes to how we now work since 2020 setting a blanket target for physical attendance is wrong and monitoring it so intently could potentially considered as bad value for money when considering how tax payer's money is spent. I may seem from above that i'm agaisnt going to the office, I actually look forward to my office days, as I enjoy the social interaction. But it does impact productivity and being in highly demanding role, working at pace whilst ensuring a high quality output is crucial, therefore productivity is key.

I think we should be encouraging people to come in and trusting that people do their work at home rather than making working in the office mandatory. It also feels like the consultation with staff should have happened before any final decisions had been reached.

I think this has been handled clumsily by our top leadership, who have presented this in a 'do it or get lost' sort of way. In my view, the handling has caused offence and probably detracted from achieving a shared position.

A decision that will unfairly disadvantage those who are already disadvantaged

seems like a rash and clearly not thought out decision.

Unnecessary requirement for all and the benefits of being in the office depend on the day

Exceptions now given for Childcare will this be the case for Carers?

Covid proved that we do not need to be in the same room as colleagues to operate effectively. With the move to teams being dispersed across the country, attending an office where you may not see any of your direct colleagues is simply a waste of money to try and justify having large offices, and of course the primary aim, to be seen to be attacking the Civil Service, who the current administration hate with a passion unrelated to any sense of reality.

As I work in a national based team, there is little point to me being in the office as none of my team work there. It is nice to see other people and catch up, but in reality I have a more productive day at home. More over as someone with a disability, I run out of spoons much faster in the office, leading to a detrimental affect on my health.

I actually like coming into the office as I live nearby but it's not because there is any of my team based there, as recruitment policy is not place based, I come into chat and network with colleagues I have previously worked with. I actually do less work in the office, as I use those days to catch up on work that requires less concentration, as our phones have been taken away from us and everything is now actioned on 'Teams' if everyone is in, it's like working in a call centre when you are trying to assess bids it's quite difficult to concentrate.

I confirm that I DO NOT AGREE with the imposition of 60% office attendance within DLUHC.

Keeping unnecessary traffic off the road would make it easier for people who need to travel.

The working world has changed, people have adjusted their lives around working 2 days a week, there is no science to suggest 3 days per week will make any improvements, these feels like a politically motivated move to score points without any due care or consideration to the hundreds of thousands of civil servants whose lives are affected for zero gain