I’ve been pondering what to write. I’ve been following political news only enough to be confirmed in my opinions that (1) the NDP is abandoning principles and veering right and (2) Justin Trudeau’s post-retreat governance strategy remains “I’m not as bad as the other guy.”
What’s of most importance to me day-to-day at the moment is the federal government’s “return to office” policy. What it means for workers. For their time, and for their health. For their futures if they just keep their heads low now. I’m terrible at history, but I’m good at patterns.
Among the books I’m currently reading is Set Boundaries, Find Peace by Nedra Glover Tawwab, which also applies in the employment context. Saying no to unreasonable requests is a way of standing up for yourself. The reading I’m doing on fascism also seems to confirm the importance of learning not to comply in advance, nor to comply easily against your own interests.
What unions are reportedly doing
The “three days in office” policy started this past week, and I wonder how many federal employees caught covid. I have no insider information on what unions are up to (despite repeated efforts), but I’ve been reading the news coverage and I’d call it mixed.
The better story is about unions complaining about pests in public buildings. This is a good move. Obviously employees shouldn’t have to commute to worse conditions when they can do their job at least equally well in better.
Consider the health and safety standards employers thought were reasonable to expect of you in your own home when you’re teleworking. Employer work spaces – which are communal and publicly funded – should have better working conditions than that. At minimum the employer should be meeting the standards they required for remote work. There’s no reason office conditions should be worse, unless federal employers are massive hypocrites who just want to download costs and don’t actually care about your well-being.
I assume “flood management with complaints” is a deliberate union strategy, and I love it. Submit insect and wildlife complaints. Submit plumbing and HVAC complaints! Submit ergonomic complaints while you’re at it. I wouldn’t even call this “malicious” compliance when the complaints just require the employer to provide a safe workspace. It’s just good boundary-setting.
The worse story is whatever the fuck PSAC thought it was doing by targeting third-party businesses downtown instead of federal employers and politicians. Do unions not stand for solidarity and punching up? Appalling.
If unions are lacking in ideas for effective campaigns…
I will reiterate, if unions are lacking in ideas for effective campaigns, that employees could be encouraged to start tabulating the costs of this unnecessary commute, including actual expenses and quantified time (by my calculations: 4-8 weeks per year of vacation). How much is this policy costing each employee individually? What is the total cost to all employees under the collective agreement? What legal right does the employer have to conscript this wealth when it’s not even necessary for the job?
Those expenses should be compensated by the employer who is imposing the in-office requirement as a condition of employment. There’s a non-zero chance a chaos judge would accept the argument that federal employers will have to reintroduce mileage payments and per diems if they’re going to require a commute that is (1) unrelated to productivity, (2) imposed outside of contractually agreed-upon hours, and (3) an actual risk to employee health (due to government failures in public health and infrastructure). I see a pretty strong Bedford-style argument sitting right there.
If even unionized employees just go along politely, at their own expense and at potential detriment to their health, what lessons do employers learn?
Let me know if anyone wants to borrow my C02 monitor for data collection.
So, how many federal employees caught covid this week?
I’ve been pondering what to write. I’ve been following political news only enough to be confirmed in my opinions that (1) the NDP is abandoning principles and veering right and (2) Justin Trudeau’s post-retreat governance strategy remains “I’m not as bad as the other guy.”
What’s of most importance to me day-to-day at the moment is the federal government’s “return to office” policy. What it means for workers. For their time, and for their health. For their futures if they just keep their heads low now. I’m terrible at history, but I’m good at patterns.
Among the books I’m currently reading is Set Boundaries, Find Peace by Nedra Glover Tawwab, which also applies in the employment context. Saying no to unreasonable requests is a way of standing up for yourself. The reading I’m doing on fascism also seems to confirm the importance of learning not to comply in advance, nor to comply easily against your own interests.
What unions are reportedly doing
The “three days in office” policy started this past week, and I wonder how many federal employees caught covid. I have no insider information on what unions are up to (despite repeated efforts), but I’ve been reading the news coverage and I’d call it mixed.
The better story is about unions complaining about pests in public buildings. This is a good move. Obviously employees shouldn’t have to commute to worse conditions when they can do their job at least equally well in better.
Consider the health and safety standards employers thought were reasonable to expect of you in your own home when you’re teleworking. Employer work spaces – which are communal and publicly funded – should have better working conditions than that. At minimum the employer should be meeting the standards they required for remote work. There’s no reason office conditions should be worse, unless federal employers are massive hypocrites who just want to download costs and don’t actually care about your well-being.
I assume “flood management with complaints” is a deliberate union strategy, and I love it. Submit insect and wildlife complaints. Submit plumbing and HVAC complaints! Submit ergonomic complaints while you’re at it. I wouldn’t even call this “malicious” compliance when the complaints just require the employer to provide a safe workspace. It’s just good boundary-setting.
The worse story is whatever the fuck PSAC thought it was doing by targeting third-party businesses downtown instead of federal employers and politicians. Do unions not stand for solidarity and punching up? Appalling.
If unions are lacking in ideas for effective campaigns…
I will reiterate, if unions are lacking in ideas for effective campaigns, that employees could be encouraged to start tabulating the costs of this unnecessary commute, including actual expenses and quantified time (by my calculations: 4-8 weeks per year of vacation). How much is this policy costing each employee individually? What is the total cost to all employees under the collective agreement? What legal right does the employer have to conscript this wealth when it’s not even necessary for the job?
Those expenses should be compensated by the employer who is imposing the in-office requirement as a condition of employment. There’s a non-zero chance a chaos judge would accept the argument that federal employers will have to reintroduce mileage payments and per diems if they’re going to require a commute that is (1) unrelated to productivity, (2) imposed outside of contractually agreed-upon hours, and (3) an actual risk to employee health (due to government failures in public health and infrastructure). I see a pretty strong Bedford-style argument sitting right there.
If even unionized employees just go along politely, at their own expense and at potential detriment to their health, what lessons do employers learn?
Let me know if anyone wants to borrow my C02 monitor for data collection.