Reject the shift to 60% office attendance at DLUHC

Although I agree that coming into the office for part of the week is good for mental health and maintaining team contact, I think we had the balance right at 40%. This seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to negative press particularly as we only just finished the refurbishment of 2MS to suit hybrid working at 40%. It's obvious that we don't have enough space for comfortable working. It's just going to make people miserable and surely that can't be good for productivity.

I am not sure if I believe this position will change based on whether we voice our disapproval of this as do believe they understand when doing this that this is definitely not a welcome decision for the majority of civil servants. However, I hope they can see the numbers and recognise our genuine concerns with this and can at least look to improve the experience of being in an office. Pay to reflect this additional cost and helping to offset the carbon footprint of this. Additionally, I hope they recognise the position this has put those of us in regional offices in. Where we are now told to be in an office 3 days a week where we will often be working totally alone.

Signing petition due to a lack of consultation with staff before the announcement and because no credible evidence has been given for the increase. Sceptical about who this is really for, and if the move is beneficial for mental wellbeing and modern working, particularly during a cost of living crisis.

I do more work working at home. I sign the petition to reject the proposed 60% office attendance

I attend the office and notice increases in noise are a challenge to remain focus and concentrate on work. Going into the office 60% of the time does not appear to be inclusive for BOTH parents working in the CS; it makes it more difficult to manage both parents faced with at least 3 days in the office. Childcare arrangements will increase costs as well as extra financial costs in train travel. We do not make enough to bear the increase between services.

There is nobody else from my team in the Newcastle so I will be travelling over 2 hours daily 2 stick a set of headphones on to talk to people in other offices or at home.

There is no evidence that this move is underpinned by any real evidence, or that it will work in our constrained office environment

Unhappy that the announcement was never covered with all of the questions now being raised. Also unhappy that some areas started saying you needed to be in from when the announcement was made, but I note that they have gone quiet, because of the strength being said about this. Implementation early in the new year shouldn't happen, at all - until all views have been reviewed, answered and LMs have the correct information to deal with this.

I rely on public transport to get to the office and aside from the additional financial cost of an extra day in the office, that's another 2 hours of my own time wasted on travelling each week and I expect my sickness days will increase too. I travel on a single decker bus and it is rammed with people sniffing and sneezing as they stand between seats due to lack of room. It's basically a germ tube. A little like the office.

I find I'm more productive working from home - I certainly work longer hours. Potentially asking people to attend the office more often, thereby increasing the need to use public transport, may lead to an increase in the number of Covid infections. As someone with carer responsibilities, I’ve no desire to increase my chances of passing on Covid to vulnerable family members.

Thanks for this

It is extremely disappointing that this has become a game of arbitrary numbers. What the civil service does, what the civil service delivers, how it flexes, how it supported its workforce are far more important than what can only be described as a culture of "presenteeism"

I find I am LESS productive in the office for various reasons - time spent trying to find quiet spaces for meetings, having to do a shorter day to allow for commute.

As there is such a diversity of practice across the economy, most staff I have spoken to see the evidence upon which this decision was based, and especially an Equality Impact Assessment, in line with the PSED and the Equality Act on its impact on those of us with special needs and Protected Characteristics. HMT's 2nd Perm Sec recently said at an event that there was a unanimous response across the CS to this request, and that were great benefits but she said there were many unknowns and it is important to evaluate the impact on CSs. In addition, a lead professor from the Institute of Productivity has said there is no right answer on this but staff engagement, culture and organisational effectiveness contribute to staff productivity and without those and the perception that drives this decision (e.g. that CSs are lazy and not productive) may undermine the decision. I have been spending 60% of my time in the office for over 2 years, but the key issues will be access to desk space and noise levels. Even pre-pandemic I was driven to work from home or book quiet space in the office to draft. There is less desk space now and more communal noisy areas (don't get me started on the ampitheatre on 2nd floor of 2MS which led to complaints even by DDs!). Some prior consideration of these issues would be have been useful, and if undertaken, the findings and evidence shared with staff. We are after all asked to be evidence-driven in all we do as BAU.

This is an example of culture not accelerating at the same rate as technology. I'm not as productive working from the office and the cost and time is a burden. Essentially, I'm considerably less value for money to the CS if I have to go into the office 60% of my time. 20% is more reasonable if office working has to be mandated.

I think office attendance is beneficial but I wonder if 60% is really the optimal level, or realistic, if the 40% expectation is not even being met currently.

poor 'change management' and will have a massive negative impact on employee engagement

it feels like a headline and no evidence or data to show that we need to be in the office

Why would I want to do something which would be detrimental to me financially, physically and mentally? I'm far more productive at home than in the office so what does the Department stand to gain from this?

Thanks to PCS for giving us a voice. I strongly disagree with the implementation of 60%. We're going backwards in time rather than forward. No evidence is shared to the benefits of working an additional day. Why do we want to go on the same level as private sector.. we should remain different to be competitive, our pay doesn't even match theirs! Additionally, the only support the department are offering finically is a season ticket loan when we're the ones who will suffer in the long term essentially having a pay cut to cover coming into the office. Our leaders are more present and accessible online rather in the office where they're back to back in meetings all day. It also makes it more daunting for lower grades to approach senior leaders in person. People will be physically present in the office but back to back in calls at their desks. Staff who are based in the office alone are at a disadvantage because they do not have the same opportunities, access to info, relationships etc as where majority of their teams are based. The dept should meaningfully engage with staff before implementing the policy.