Reject the shift to 60% office attendance at DLUHC

Can we have evidenced based decisions please. This policy makes no sense.

A knee jerk reaction to a newspaper headline

Increasing costs, increasing my travel times and causing distractions in the office will make me less productive and less happy. No amount of "water cooler" chat will compensate for that. (especially when we don't even have water coolers)

Not everyone works in the same way, give workers the choice! If seniors want more of us in the office, lead from the front and make it worth our while

In my experience staff often welcome the opportunity to come into the office but need the flexibility to do so when it works for them. Not be harassed into doing it regardless of their personal circumstances - health, caring responsibilities etc. That will lower productivity and morale, not increase it.

We should be able to choose

Clearly a political decision and pretending otherwise is harming the credibility of seniors. Comms has been really low quality - muting calls and cheerily reading out the FAQs/easy questions. Different reasons are presented by different people ("we spoke to some fast streamers" was a personal fave), all with no evidence. Productivity will be worse under this, with people working to hours more and struggling to find spaces in crowded offices

A one size fits all approach is wrong - I work far more effectively from home and there is virtually no benefit from working in the office. I will be nearly £600 a month worse off and the 4 hour a day commute time means I will leave on time and will refuse to stay late if asked. This is just presenteeism/anti-woke Daily Mail posturing that fails to embrace flexibility and new ways of working and is complete insult to civil servants who adapted and made a success of working from home during lockdown.

This will burden those with disabilities, and even milder health conditions that are managed within the current flexibility. It's also frustrating that this has been pitched as CS wide when in reality it is delegated and other departments are not following suit.

Costs and negatives outweigh benefits for many people in regional offices with few/ no team members. Better facilities at home (eg dual monitors), fewer distractions from other people on calls - and not distracting others when I'm on calls.

If even civil servants stay quiet whilst such pointless and discriminatory rules are imposed against those workers for whom attending an office only serves to take their personal time and money - who exactly is going to speak out against these things? Nothing will change if no one speaks!

Clearly a political decision, not evidence based or data driven. Completely unfair to the CS who kept the country running REMOTELY during the pandemic and to the new staff who applied under the impression it was 40% office attendance.

We had no choice to adapt to working from home during the pandemic so why force us back to 60% of our time in the office. Personally I am more productive at home with no distractions and prefer to choose when to go into the office rather than having an enforced 60% of my working week. Not to mention the often 1.5 hours travel at either end of the day and added expense.

.

On an EO wage, I will struggle to make ends meet on a monthly basis. It's £30 travel per day for me and as my wife is a Civil Servant this premium doubles, totalling £240 a month in extra travel. With this information it is worth arguing that taking this job will leave me no better off than taking a lower paid local job. Furthermore, we have two children and for both of us to attend 60% would mean that we are both commuting to London at least one day a week. Although they are growing up, there is still assurance kwnoing that we could be with them at any notice when either of us work from home. I based taking this job over the 40% office attendance and to have this go up so soon after starting feels like an unfair pay cut.

I agree to this petiton.

T

As a member of Prospect I am fully supportive of this petition. I wish my union were as proactive as PCS!

Spiralling, prohibitive travel costs; unevidenced, (unequal) mandate; no engagement with employees before unilateral decision. Disproportionate impacts/risks assessments ignored which will lead to poor health and wellbeing outcomes, affecting business, employees and UK GDP.

The costs implications to lower paid grades and the impact on civil servants with families is unacceptable.