Reject the shift to 60% office attendance at DLUHC

This change is going to be detrimental to many colleagues, and is damaging to the Civil Service as an employer. It is going to cost more money, eat up more of our personal time through commuting, increase congestion in towns and cities, and it will disadvantage colleagues with commitments outside of work. The Government Hubs programme was supposed to transform central government: ensuring it is more efficient, digitally connected and that is supports modern ways of working. It is hard to justify this step backwards. Spending 40% of time in an office is much more effective.

I feel being located in an office away from all my colleagues, a 3rd office day adds no benefit but brings additional costs, disruption and decreases my productive time.

absolute waste of time, I live 1hr 20mins from nearest DLUHC office and none of my team are there as mostly Southern based/London based. So I'll be sitting in an office on my own ??? why ?

I support the PCS assessment of this. Despite claims this is clearly a centrally-driven decision based on outmoded views of work, and some of our offices are not suitable workspaces to be full. It will impose additional costs on staff at a time when large numbers will struggle to afford them, require extra spending by the department on office space at a time of recruitment controls, and contribute to making DLUHC a less competitive employer in the wider labour market. Productivity is never, ever improved by worsening conditions for staff.

No consideration for individual circumstances, or evidence to support this change.

I applied for this role due to 40% working attendance. I have caring responsibilities and the role and flexible options mean that I can do both my job and other responsibilities very well. the new suggested 60% will compromise my position . I joined the department in June. Also I struggle to understand how attending a sub office helps with my productivity, In fact it contributes to further stress and does not benefit my team or wellbeing. My team members are mainly based around the London area and I am in Leeds

Personally I take no issue, but other people do, so I am in full support.

This push for 60% in office attendance completely ignores the fact that even when we do attend the office we may never see some colleagues face to face as we cannot sit together (either due to capacity issues or the push to recruit outside of London). We will still spend the majority of our time on Teams calls which disturbs other colleagues in the office.

Requiring us to be in the office 60% of the time would be highly immoral. Firstly before the pay rise 40,000 Civil Servants were using food banks. I doubt that's changed much. We should avoid pushing them and others into/further into poverty. Secondly it disproportionately affects those with many disabilities, caring responsibilities and parenting responsibilities.

DLUHC has done really good work on health and wellbeing including a more flexible approach to WFH. This has benefited the dept and reflects that we have been looking to reduce office space in London which has been done. This backward move for DLUHC and CS.

Bashing the Civil Service, again!

This push, coupled with the inadequate pay offer, has been put forward during a period of increased cost of living. It seems to show a lack of understanding, and empathy, for the financial pressures on staff at this time.

An unjustified change that will be detrimental to my ability to do my job well, my bank balance and my work/life balance

Pointless presenteeism. No consideration for individual circumstances, or evidence to support this change.

The 60% will personally cause me a wealth of finance and health issue.

It does seem to be a step backwards in so many ways. With the IT we have and the ambitions to reduce our carbon footprint, the decision seems to be based on public opinion from the media.

I sign the petition to reject the proposed 60% office attendance