There are calls from some Wellington businesses for the Government to follow the lead of one of the world’s biggest companies – Amazon – and order workers to stop working from home.
It could be “the number one” fix for an economy that bankers in a recent Kiwibank report described as so low it was “icy”.
I know WFH has contributed to the problems some Wellington shops have. But banning WFH for the public service would be wrong. The role of the public service is to provide effective and efficient public services. It is not to create shoppers in Wellington.
If a public agency decides that they can best achieve their mission by allowing staff to work partially from home, then they should be able to do so. It also reduces congestion, transport costs and emissions.
I note the Government has said:
I know WFH has contributed to the problems some Wellington shops have. But banning WFH for the public service would be wrong. The role of the public service is to provide effective and efficient public services. It is not to create shoppers in Wellington.
If a public agency decides that they can best achieve their mission by allowing staff to work partially from home, then they should be able to do so. It also reduces congestion, transport costs and emissions.
I note the Government has said:
The Government wants to see more public servants come into their place of work each day and is taking steps to make this expectation clear to chief executives, Public Service Minister Nicola Willis says.
“Updated guidance for the public service will make clear that working from home is not an entitlement and must be agreed and monitored,” Nicola Willis says.
“While carefully defined working from home arrangements can benefit workers and employers, if the pendulum swings too far in favour of working from home, there are downsides for employers and employees. That’s even before we consider the effects for the CBD retailers, restaurants and cafes.
I think it is far enough that WFH is not regarded as an entitlement, and should be monitored. But public service employers should be focused on whether WFH arrangements are good for them achieving their mission, not the impact on CBD shops.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders.
9 comments:
Indeed. I think Willis is picking off an easy target to feed the constituency who thinks public servants are inherently lazy and useless. Also wants to suck up to hospo businesses by pretending that their woes are unconnected to public service cuts or cost-of-living pressures. Wfh had to be accepted when there was a shortage of employees, and now there are a lot of people out of work, the Govt can target those still in work to get them they''re deficient, so should watch out!
100% correct. If the productivity is the same WFH or Office then the advantage of no travel or travel cost should not be dumped in the hope that they spend money downtown Wgtn
The make everyone go to Wellington to buy coffee and lunch ignores that people are now spending locally.
And the inconvenient truth that transport in and out has been rendered unreliable, overpriced and impossible by the WCC while Ministries have downsized their office space to cater for WFH and save cost.
I’d like to know how many are WFH & whether productivity has changed. The overpaid public service pen pushers in Wellington have a poor reputation for good reason.
As for the impact WFH has apparently had on businesses - this will be true to an extent, but the lack of carparks & cost of living in the Tory Whanau fairyland are the main causes.
I doubt they’ve noticed the loss of a mere 6000 troughers. Wellington businesses were doing well before Tory & before Labour employed an extra (some would argue unnecessary) 15,000 public servants, & used Covid as an excuse to destroy the economy.
Aside from the Wellington hospo issue, which by the way is not the public services problem to solve.
Surely the WFH is a contractual issue between staff and employer.
If the employer varied an employment contract, (by agreement) to allow WFH and did not include a time limit provision, then sorry, they are between a rock and a hard place.
If a time limit was included and the limit is reached, then yes, back to the office please. Could be "or else" contract provision is invoked.
If the employer said at the time that those who want to WFH can. Again if no limit was agreed and recorded, then sorry, that same hard place awaits.
Hope it gets sorted, public servants are some of the few with enough spare coin to spend in Wellingtons cafes and pubs.
I hope people insist on going into work next pandemic.
The government behaves as a schoolmaster. Where people work and how productive they are is a matter for the executives, not government.
When I were a lad, we used to make and take sandwiches to work, eating out or take-aways for lunch was not an economic option - how the World has changed.
This guidance can be seen on the beehive website. Vomit induced choking old school archaic thinking. Decades out of date and out of touch with reality in the technological age in which we live. Most of the points of argument crumble from the most basic perspective. It bleats on further with “There are good reasons why employees have traditionally been physically brought together for work. It allows for face-to-face conversation, the sharing of skills and experience and relationship building. It supports younger and newer employees to observe, learn from and form connections with their more experienced colleagues." Are we to assume this is apparently not possible with zoom or teams? If anything, these "reasons" would reduce in benefit, increase inequality and stifle creativity.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.