The Government came in and said they should all pack their lunch and go back to work. Problem is, this isn't happening.
As you'll know from listening to this show, ACC has already staged a backdown, now MBIE is doing the same.
To her credit, Fleur Fitzsimons at the PSA union, has lawyered up and successfully argued workers' collective contacts allowed them to work from home. Now, the policy to restrict WFH, or what they call 'flexible work', is heading for the bin.
Some ACC staff only have to be in the office two days a week - the equivalent of a weekend at the office. Days off, or at home, are usually Fridays and Mondays, conveniently.
This is all in spite of the fact management at ACC said staff are less productive and it's a culture killer.
Now I don't blame the workers here, or the Union. They're exercising their rights and won before it even got to Employment Relations Authority.
Good on them.
But for anyone who runs a business in the private sector, or works in one, this sort of stuff makes your blood boil.
If it's good enough for us, why not them? Do they really work as much or efficiently at home?
Why was this clause written into their collective contracts the first place? Surely, once they expire, the next offer of work might require workers to actually turn up for work.
Ryan Bridge is a New Zealand broadcaster who has worked on many current affairs television and radio shows. He currently hosts Newstalk ZB's Early Edition - where this article was sourced.
6 comments:
They are bloody useless regardless of where they work.
I certainly work better from home. Offices are horrendously noisey and unbearably bright. People shout at each other across the office or talk loudly in one’s ear preventing concentration. The lights burn out one’s retina leaving eyes dry and tired.
Yet some people love the office. They love the buzz, the hum, the sociability.
Surely working arrangements should be left to individual employees and their bosses. With additional input from e.g. HR to assure that people with disabilities are accommodated.
Isn’t that freedom of choice? An approach that maximises benefit for individuals with different needs and employers who want the most from their people?
I see outrage from grievance-peddlers all the time! I wouldn’t pay any attention to them.
Not again! It is not where you work but what is actually delivered. Spending an hour in traffic doesn’t make you more productive. Hybrid working works well for some professions.
If you cannot measure the work they do then they need to work in the office. The problem is not working from home or is an office, the problem is how to measure it. A notary or an accountant working from home get good results because the 'care' about the result - i.e. that is how they get paid. Do admins and bureaucrats 'care' if a passport or death certificate is delivered on time or if some other task is performed. If there is no accountability and no way to ensure people are actually working then they have to be in an office. Asking citizens to 'trust' that a government official with no accountability and no measurement, will work efficiently and 'better' from home is a big ask and most people do not believe them. Citizens see the result of governments in action all the time - literally years of delays and hold ups.
There’s less workplace bullying when working from home. Maybe if we could sort the bullying then the workplace might be more appealing.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.