Reject the shift to 60% office attendance at DLUHC

If the drive for a change is political then it would be better for the CS to be up front with its staff, rather than attempts to justify it with blanket reasons that do not seem to be relevant (and often run counter) to feelings shared by large numbers of staff. I question whether much thought has been put into the potential impacts this will have on wellbeing, productivity and staff retention, and what evidence has supported alleged benefits of being in an office having a greater priority in order to come to this conclusion. I wonder how many people would be considering changes of job or hours as a result of this demand on top of all the other factors affecting how many civil servants feel about the organisation at the moment, and whether this information will ever be sought. I think ambitions and targets are fine, but with the number of exceptions that would make this reasonable I wonder how many individuals would be left who were not excepted.

60% office attendance is completely impractical for one simple reason - there aren't enough desks in the office. My team consists of at least ten London based colleagues, who are forced to share only six desks with another team in our directorate. These desks are then often block booked by yet another team, which further reduces availability. Current attendance requirements already make it difficult for us to coordinate team attendance in the office and upping the requirement will make it practically impossible. This shortsighted policy also fails to address any concerns regarding disabled staff members and those with reasonable adjustments who are still able to productively work from home - especially when some colleagues joined the Department on the expectation and promise that limited office attendance would be beneficial to their health requirements. Finally, this policy makes no mention of the cost impact of office attendance, especially in a time when the cost of living is so high and we have received yet another pay cut in real terms. Travel into Zone 1 is obviously expensive and to force that additional cost upon colleagues, when some of us are struggling to provide for our families and even heat our homes, is a virtual slap in the face. It is an insult to colleagues who have worked so tirelessly in their service to the public to be treated this way, to be forced to adhere to a policy that is backed by precisely zero evidence and to become pawns in a pointless, time-wasting culture war.

I 100% support this petition. With childcare and dog walkers it's going to cost me an extra £200 to attend the office. Guidance states SCS there is no rhyme nor reason for this to be enforced when our worlds have adapted for the majority of us to work more productively at home.

It just seems sad that the impact on staff wellbeing is being totally ignored

DLUHC is already working well at 40% office attendance - this works well for the Dept as employees are on board with this and willing to be flexible around office attendance. Going up to 60% office attendance does not offer any further benefits and puts additional costs and strain on employees, who are likely to be less flexible and supportive of a blanket policy that they have had no engagement or say in. I attend a regional office, so I don't get to sit with or interact with anyone from my team, or often anyone in my Department - so an additional day in the office really has no benefits for me.

Zero evidence behind this policy when all government policy should be evidence-based.

This decision and how it's being implemented will have a detrimental effect in so many ways, with any benefit being marginal at best. What is the evidence that 60% is better than 40%? 'Discretionary effort' will be hit hard. It's not accepting a conspiracy theory to conclude that senior leaders, CS and ministers, know all these dis-benefits. Either they don't care about negative impact or it's part of the intended consequences (culture wars et all)

I think this is extremely unfair. COVID lockdowns, proved we can all work at home much of the week and still work effectively. Someone like myself who has several workplace adjustments in place so this doesn't necessarily effect me but I feel sorry for those who it does effect. People have changed in their lives and commitments to fit around working from home for over three years and the powers at be need to accept the times have changed!

As an LA secondee, who lives 5 minutes from my substantive office location (who work to a 40% office presence), I would not have applied if this was the position. In addition, a blanket approach does not feel at all inclusive and fails to consider particular groups and also, like myself, those workers who are effectively 'on the go' and spending long hours on external visits, including overnight stays. I am quite sad that this is where we are and would assert that it will very likely impact on recruitment and retention of staff.

This disadvantages so many people - those with health concerns or disability, those with children or caring (formal or not) arrangements, those that live far away from the office (time and expense of commute), those not based in offices with their teams, those that have relocated/bought houses based on the expectation of 40%... I'm sure I've missed others. And the benefits seems to be about better collaboration - but in London, there's simply not enough (dedicated) space to sit with your team so you don't get to experience that! And no offence to my colleagues in Bristol, but networking with people outside my team two days a week works well - what's a third day really going to bring on top of that? Also, not everyone needs/wants to collaborate that much - those that don't work well in a noisy office environment end up sat in quiet booths alone all day and I ask myself why are we forcing this??There's nothing stopping people that want to come in and that will benefit from coming in more doing that anyway so why force change?

What benefit does that extra % bring?

This will cost me another £350pm in childcare to go into an office where none of my team are based and sit on the same teams calls I can make from home.

What is the point, when no-one in my team is based in the same office? It's the same as being at home, only more expensive.

Proper measures to implement a new policy, consultation and evidence based criteria should be presented before making any decision that is going to impact such a large work force.

If only we hadn't all been forced to recruit 'beyond whitehall', then we wouldn't all be stuck for hours on teams calls that are much more suited to home than an office! No strategy, such a joke.

There is no evidence base for this decision. Other departments such as DBT have already said they cannot implement this change based on capacity, so it can no longer be argued that this is a "cross government approach." We have already had real-terms pay cuts for years and years and now we are being asked to spend more money, in a cost of living crisis, to go to offices that don't have the capacity to hold us. We are simultaneously being told that we will benefit from working in our teams, but also that we should be happy to sit with other teams for "collaboration". I don't see what benefit I will gain from spending thousands of pounds a year extra to travel to sit with people who don't work in my area. Furthermore, the messaging around this has been exceptionally patronising. We are treated like children and told to "enjoy listening to podcasts on our commutes" by people earning far more than us. I won't be enjoying listening to podcasts on my commute. I'll be wondering how I'm going to pay my rent.

Ridiculous. Yet another kick out at Civil Servants to make a floundering Tory govt look as if it's being efficient.

I do not believe a minimum 60% office attendance within DLUHC should be a requirement. I know I am productive under existing arrangements.

Not an evidence based decision and no prior consultation of staff. Decision lacks understanding and empathy

This is a 'decision' not motivated by fact. We need an evidence base for everything we do, why don't we seek that evidence to justify this decision? I've fed up with being 'done to'.