If Lawler is waiting for something Federal, good luck. With the hybrid 3 in the office 2 at home or full WFH model the Fed's are employing across departments, things are so far behind and not improving.

 

I can say first hand that the federal Gov't has some amazing hard working dedicated employees, but in the same breathe I can also honesty say first hand that there are many who are not. CoVid certainly changed the work dynamic within the gov't and a number of employees have used that and their huge Union backing to manage to continue to get full time pay with barely part time work. It is unfortunate that some people are doing it, but  they are and it is/has caused massive delays in most thing gov't. 

 

2 minutes ago, 3rdand1.5 said:

If Lawler is waiting for something Federal, good luck. With the hybrid 3 in the office 2 at home or full WFH model the Fed's are employing across departments, things are so far behind and not improving.

 

I can say first hand that the federal Gov't has some amazing hard working dedicated employees, but in the same breathe I can also honesty say first hand that there are many who are not. CoVid certainly changed the work dynamic within the gov't and a number of employees have used that and their huge Union backing to manage to continue to get full time pay with barely part time work. It is unfortunate that some people are doing it, but  they are and it is/has caused massive delays in most thing gov't. 

 

Are you under the impression that people working from home don't actually work?

25 minutes ago, 3rdand1.5 said:

If Lawler is waiting for something Federal, good luck. With the hybrid 3 in the office 2 at home or full WFH model the Fed's are employing across departments, things are so far behind and not improving.

I can say first hand that the federal Gov't has some amazing hard working dedicated employees, but in the same breathe I can also honesty say first hand that there are many who are not. CoVid certainly changed the work dynamic within the gov't and a number of employees have used that and their huge Union backing to manage to continue to get full time pay with barely part time work. It is unfortunate that some people are doing it, but  they are and it is/has caused massive delays in most thing gov't. 

As an employee with Federal and working from home I can confirm that any talk that productivity or delays as result of working away from the office is 100% full of poop.   It's propaganda because of the pressure that Ottawa (and other) downtowns are facing from the local businesses who are complaining that business is down because the federal employees are the ones buying coffee and lunches from them.   

I've worked at 4 different federal gov't agencies in my career and I know first hand that people are far more likely to not work a full 8 hour day,  take excessive breaks,  get distracted with conversating with fellow employees when in the office.  Also the mental health aspect is a huge factor,  not having to spend 1.5 hours per day in my car rushing to get home to pick up my kids from an after school program is a massive benefit.  

I also know people who work with the provincial justice system,   they were back logged prior to COVID because the sheer amount of crimes in Manitoba is incredibly high.    That number of crimes sky rocketed once people were locked at home and drinking more and whatever other factors that lead to people committing crimes.  Most of the provincial staff had to work in office because the system is antiquated and still uses a lot of paper.   

I'm not sure where Lawler falls in but it has nothing to do with WFH or Hybrid.  

Unions do protect bad employees,  but what you are complaining about is a management issue.  I've seen people completely hide behind the union and do absolutely no work,  but it's not like these people once in the office work hard and then at home stop.   These folks won't work no matter where they are and who they work under. 

5 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Are you under the impression that people working from home don't actually work?

I work Soley from home now...prob have never been more productive to be honest

11 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Are you under the impression that people working from home don't actually work?

No MOST are....however SOME don't. Yes this is true in the office and was like that pre-covid, and I am sure is like that in most work environments. But in my experience certain individuals have pushed it further and done even less with WFH and hybrid then they did before. Management especially within the Gov't has hands tied at this time with large Unions protecting these individuals. 

Again I am not advocating for or against WFH, I am only speaking of my personal experience, within Gov't management and some of the difficulties with both WFH and hybrid scheduling, that do contribute to delays.

Perhaps this has a factor in Lawler's delays, perhaps not.......

2 minutes ago, 3rdand1.5 said:

No MOST are....however SOME don't. Yes this is true in the office and was like that pre-covid, and I am sure is like that in most work environments. But in my experience certain individuals have pushed it further and done even less with WFH and hybrid then they did before. Management especially within the Gov't has hands tied at this time with large Unions protecting these individuals. 

Again I am not advocating for or against WFH, I am only speaking of my personal experience, within Gov't management and some of the difficulties with both WFH and hybrid scheduling, that do contribute to delays.

Perhaps this has a factor in Lawler's delays, perhaps not.......

I think you're off your rocker. when I have the chance to work from home I can be so much more productive than in the office. There are so many times when I'm in the office and the productivity just craters because I talk to this person, or that person, or someone else pops by with a question or someone says hey can you do this? work from home/hybrid is great for productivity and I will die on that hill. Some people are useless whether they're at home or in the office though. 

11 hours ago, Brandon said:

As an employee with Federal and working from home I can confirm that any talk that productivity or delays as result of working away from the office is 100% full of poop.   It's propaganda because of the pressure that Ottawa (and other) downtowns are facing from the local businesses who are complaining that business is down because the federal employees are the ones buying coffee and lunches from them.   

I've worked at 4 different federal gov't agencies in my career and I know first hand that people are far more likely to not work a full 8 hour day,  take excessive breaks,  get distracted with conversating with fellow employees when in the office.  Also the mental health aspect is a huge factor,  not having to spend 1.5 hours per day in my car rushing to get home to pick up my kids from an after school program is a massive benefit.  

I also know people who work with the provincial justice system,   they were back logged prior to COVID because the sheer amount of crimes in Manitoba is incredibly high.    That number of crimes sky rocketed once people were locked at home and drinking more and whatever other factors that lead to people committing crimes.  Most of the provincial staff had to work in office because the system is antiquated and still uses a lot of paper.   

I'm not sure where Lawler falls in but it has nothing to do with WFH or Hybrid.  

Unions do protect bad employees,  but what you are complaining about is a management issue.  I've seen people completely hide behind the union and do absolutely no work,  but it's not like these people once in the office work hard and then at home stop.   These folks won't work no matter where they are and who they work under. 

As mentioned to another poster, I am not for or against WFH and both the office and home have benefits. But I am very familiar with certain issues that WFH has exasperated. As you stated unfortunately many individuals didn't work a full 8 hours while "being supervised" in an office environment. For SOME this is worse in a WFH environment and at this time the Unions are giving them extra protection making it difficult for management to act and correct. This does cause delays. Yes you are completely correct many delays were in place before this and you are probably more accurate in your assessment that the sheer amount of crimes in MB would realistically have a greater chance of causing delays for Lawler.

6 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

I think you're off your rocker. when I have the chance to work from home I can be so much more productive than in the office. There are so many times when I'm in the office and the productivity just craters because I talk to this person, or that person, or someone else pops by with a question or someone says hey can you do this? work from home/hybrid is great for productivity and I will die on that hill. Some people are useless whether they're at home or in the office though. 

Fair enough, WFH can be good for some. I will agree that some people are "useless" at home or in the office. 

I will also die on the hill that WFH has made management more difficult to identify, help and redirect certain staff. Some people work better in a WFH model, others do not and unfortunately there is no perfect scenario. 

 

5 minutes ago, 3rdand1.5 said:

I will also die on the hill that WFH has made management more difficult to identify, help and redirect certain staff. Some people work better in a WFH model, others do not and unfortunately there is no perfect scenario. 

Then you die lol.    If a staff member requires a manager to hold their hand and watch them 8 hours per day then the issue isn't work from home,  that issue is a terrible employee.   

Every job regardless of what it is with has some form of metrics that an employee can be evaluated on.  A bad employee will be bad in the office or out of the office.   I've rarely heard of anyone who is a productive employee say that they miss being in the office and would be more productive going back.   The most that I've heard is some people miss the social aspect and going out for lunches but that's a really small % of people.  

It's the old people way of thinking that if someone is left on their own to do work that they'll stay home and watch tv and do nothing at all. These kind of folks are the same ones who resist any sort of change in technology or processes because they fear the unknown and are comfy with what they are familiar with.    

13 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Then you die lol.    If a staff member requires a manager to hold their hand and watch them 8 hours per day then the issue isn't work from home,  that issue is a terrible employee.   

Every job regardless of what it is with has some form of metrics that an employee can be evaluated on.  A bad employee will be bad in the office or out of the office.   I've rarely heard of anyone who is a productive employee say that they miss being in the office and would be more productive going back.   The most that I've heard is some people miss the social aspect and going out for lunches but that's a really small % of people.  

It's the old people way of thinking that if someone is left on their own to do work that they'll stay home and watch tv and do nothing at all. These kind of folks are the same ones who resist any sort of change in technology or processes because they fear the unknown and are comfy with what they are familiar with.    

it's also a manager failure if they can't actually manage people remotely. 

43 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

it's also a manager failure if they can't actually manage people remotely. 

I guess it could be an issue with organizations that do not use TEAMS,  but everywhere in the Federal Gov't that I know of is using TEAMS and it's beautiful.   Makes having conversations with my co workers across the Country so much easier then trying to organize a time for everyone to call in with a phone.  Being able to quickly share a screen or having others take over the screen makes things so much better.  

I am all for WFH, I think it's great, especially when used in an organization as a hybrid work force- be it department or employee.

However, the WFH employees should have their wages reduced or those that go into work, should get a raise/ bonus or what ever.

55 minutes ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

I am all for WFH, I think it's great, especially when used in an organization as a hybrid work force- be it department or employee.

However, the WFH employees should have their wages reduced or those that go into work, should get a raise/ bonus or what ever.

In the private sector you are simply judged by your productivity. I don't give 2 figs if employee A is working twice as hard as employee B if they are meeting their targets. Now if neither guy is meeting expectations that's where work ethic gets measured 

6 hours ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

I am all for WFH, I think it's great, especially when used in an organization as a hybrid work force- be it department or employee.

However, the WFH employees should have their wages reduced or those that go into work, should get a raise/ bonus or what ever.

Why do you think people who work from home should get paid less?

I work for a company that is 100% remote and has been since it started, even before Covid. 
 

Gives them access to hire from a bigger talent pool, as we have employees from all around the world, in 40 different countries.  It’s about company culture and being deliberate in who you hire.  They even decided to do things like give everyone 6 weeks holidays to match what the Europeans in the company typically get.  
 

Hire right and treat your employees well, and good things tend to happen. 

3 hours ago, Rich said:

Why do you think people who work from home should get paid less?

Or increase the wage of those that still have to go in.

In a work place where you have a certain segment of the work force that has transitioned to WFH, yet another segment that continues to go into work on a daily basis- its unfair to those that are still required to go into work, that the WFH group gets the benefits of saving on, parking, transportation costs, the additional time lost when commuting to and from work, while wages remain the same. It just creates a further divide in equitable wages between certain groups.

Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of WFH if the work can be done almost or as well as from work. I am a huge advocate of WFH and see the huge benefits for both employees and employers. I just feel that those that are still required to go into work are being "left behind".

If anything i would rather the employers pony up some sort of bonus for those thatvhave to go into work to offset the cost and time of commuting, than reduce the wages of those that are WFH.

I think that would be fair.

 

I also agree with you @Richon all your other points.

 

 

Edited July 2, 20232 yr by Wanna-B-Fanboy

9 hours ago, GCn20 said:

I don't give 2 figs if employee A is working twice as hard as employee B if they are meeting their targets. Now if neither guy is meeting expectations that's where work ethic gets measured 

Isn't that a loss in opportunity? I mean a good owner/manager would recognize that effort and increased productivity to perhaps better use it to benefit the company. 

10 hours ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

However, the WFH employees should have their wages reduced or those that go into work, should get a raise/ bonus or what ever.

Companies in the States had tried doing this as a way to cut labor costs,  it's a very bad idea and a slippery slope for jobs that do not require a higher level of skill/education.   Basically it ends up as outsourcing to places like India where jobs in North America are given to places outside at a fraction of the cost.  

I don't understand cutting the wage,  why would two people who are doing the exact same job be paid in a different amount?    I can understand offering incentives such as a parking pass or maybe an extra gas allowance and maybe even a food allowance.  But why would I cut the wage of an employee who is saving the company (or agency) a lot of money by working from home? 

If anything the folks working from home should get a bonus because they save money on not spending a lot of money on office space.  We have one building downtown that was 1.2 million per year on rent and a large amount of costs associated to heating, electrical, cooling, IT,  infrastructure repairs, etc...  that is replaced by paying a small license for our software that allows them to VPN from home. Zero drop off from productivity since COVID and WFH.  They use a different building for satellite desks/offices whenever they need to get together which is shared with other agencies at a joint cost.   It's a no brainer.  

3 hours ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

Or increase the wage of those that still have to go in.

In a work place where you have a certain segment of the work force that has transitioned to WFH, yet another segment that continues to go into work on a daily basis- its unfair to those that are still required to go into work, that the WFH group gets the benefits of saving on, parking, transportation costs, the additional time lost when commuting to and from work, while wages remain the same. It just creates a further divide in equitable wages between certain groups.

Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of WFH if the work can be done almost or as well as from work. I am a huge advocate of WFH and see the huge benefits for both employees and employers. I just feel that those that are still required to go into work are being "left behind".

If anything i would rather the employers pony up some sort of bonus for those thatvhave to go into work to offset the cost and time of commuting, than reduce the wages of those that are WFH.

I think that would be fair.

 

I also agree with you @Richon all your other points.

 

 

Whatever semantics you use, it is paying someone less for working at home.  
 

I guess it would depend on a lot of things.  Like does everyone have the option to work at home and choose not to.  Or do some roles require people to be in the office.   But I would be much more in favour of subsidizing things like parking.  
 

As mentioned above, remote work also saves a company a bunch through office space and related costs.  
 

Interesting enough there were companies who pioneered remote work that had sliding pay scales based on what city you worked in.  But that has gone more and more away as remote work has become more prevailant.  
 

If you pay someone less who is a high performer for any reason, you tend to lose that person over time.  

11 hours ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

Isn't that a loss in opportunity? I mean a good owner/manager would recognize that effort and increased productivity to perhaps better use it to benefit the company. 

Work ethic does not necessarily equal increased productivity. What a good owner/ manager should do is teach the guy with work ethic to work smarter. At the end of the day, job performance is evaluated on results. If someone works smarter, but not as hard, and has better results...that's my guy.

Edited July 3, 20232 yr by GCn20

2 hours ago, GCn20 said:

Work ethic does not necessarily equal increased productivity. What a good owner/ manager should do is teach the guy with work ethic to work smarter. At the end of the day, job performance is evaluated on results. If someone works smarter, but not as hard, and has better results...that's my guy.

Sorry, I was under the assumption that we were talking about increased productivity.

9 hours ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

Sorry, I was under the assumption that we were talking about increased productivity.

Just saying productivity does not automatically go hand in hand with strong work ethic.

2 hours ago, GCn20 said:

Just saying productivity does not automatically go hand in hand with strong work ethic.

Yes, I heard you. That's why I conceded the point, because we are not dscussing the same thing.

On 2023-07-02 at 12:03 PM, Rich said:

Whatever semantics you use, it is paying someone less for working at home.  
 

I guess it would depend on a lot of things.  Like does everyone have the option to work at home and choose not to.  Or do some roles require people to be in the office.   But I would be much more in favour of subsidizing things like parking.  
 

As mentioned above, remote work also saves a company a bunch through office space and related costs.  
 

Interesting enough there were companies who pioneered remote work that had sliding pay scales based on what city you worked in.  But that has gone more and more away as remote work has become more prevailant.  
 

If you pay someone less who is a high performer for any reason, you tend to lose that person over time.  

A dramatic increase in WFH also has the possibility of transforming cities in both good and bad ways, as office space in downtown cores becomes redundant and an unnecessary expense to carry.  Cities like Calgary with tons of office towers have a real problem transforming these huge buildings into any other services.  The loss of occupants effects taxation income and leads to gutted cores occupied by homeless which has been a big problem for over 50 years in American cities where many companies have built new office complexes in cheaper satellite locations on the outskirts. 

If N.A. would have stuck with the European model of low-rise city design and not focused all decisions on the convenience of the automobile, we'd have better cities now and wouldn't be facing the deterioration of cores along with  massive logistical obstacles in the near future.

Edited July 3, 20232 yr by Fatty Liver

On 2023-07-02 at 11:06 AM, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

Or increase the wage of those that still have to go in.

In a work place where you have a certain segment of the work force that has transitioned to WFH, yet another segment that continues to go into work on a daily basis- its unfair to those that are still required to go into work, that the WFH group gets the benefits of saving on, parking, transportation costs, the additional time lost when commuting to and from work, while wages remain the same. It just creates a further divide in equitable wages between certain groups.

Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of WFH if the work can be done almost or as well as from work. I am a huge advocate of WFH and see the huge benefits for both employees and employers. I just feel that those that are still required to go into work are being "left behind".

If anything i would rather the employers pony up some sort of bonus for those thatvhave to go into work to offset the cost and time of commuting, than reduce the wages of those that are WFH.

I think that would be fair.

 

I also agree with you @Richon all your other points.

 

 

I'm just glad I'm retired & never have to worry about this again. I'll let you guys sort out the woes of the working world. Way more important priorities to think about. 

Edited July 3, 20232 yr by SpeedFlex27

3 hours ago, Fatty Liver said:

A dramatic increase in WFH also has the possibility of transforming cities in both good and bad ways, as office space in downtown cores becomes redundant and an unnecessary expense to carry.  Cities like Calgary with tons of office towers have a real problem transforming these huge buildings into any other services.  The loss of occupants effects taxation income and leads to gutted cores occupied by homeless which has been a big problem for over 50 years in American cities where many companies have built new office complexes in cheaper satellite locations on the outskirts. 

If N.A. would have stuck with the European model of low-rise city design and not focused all decisions on the convenience of the automobile, we'd have better cities now and wouldn't be facing the deterioration of cores along with  massive logistical obstacles in the near future.

Indoor water parks everywhere across North America ;D  

I'd assume many buildings can be converted into condos or other kinds of spaces.     In the States they are slowly finding ways to fill out all of the dead malls they have now.  I'm sure the same can be done with office buildings.  

21 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Indoor water parks everywhere across North America ;D  

I'd assume many buildings can be converted into condos or other kinds of spaces.     In the States they are slowly finding ways to fill out all of the dead malls they have now.  I'm sure the same can be done with office buildings.  

Some real nice condos on Waterfront drive - not that far from downtown.