Presumably the reasoning is that the federal court process is taking too long and maybe a minority Parliament overflowing with hostility would move faster.
I can’t say I’m optimistic about this after more than a decade of working with Parliamentary committees and trying to get the executive to promptly fix shit they fucked up.
The union’s letter
The letter from the union sets out the issues it wants investigated Parliamentarily:
- Insufficient Workspaces: There is a lack of available desks and workspaces, leading to overcrowding.
- Health and Safety Violations: Many desks and offices are dirty, and the overall air quality is poor, contributing to unsanitary conditions.
- Privacy Concerns from Unprecedented Surveillance Measures: The introduction of new surveillance measures that potentially encroach on employees’ privacy and distract managers from critical project management tasks, shifting focus away from more important responsibilities.
- Noisy Office Environment: The noise levels in the office are disruptive, with few quiet spaces for focused work. The busy atmosphere makes it difficult for employees to concentrate, further exacerbating the challenges of productivity.
- Inadequate Equipment: The current hotelling system limits access to necessary equipment, such as monitors and ergonomic setups, hindering employee comfort and efficiency.
- Limited Meeting and Collaboration Spaces: There is a shortage of meeting rooms and collaborative areas, which restricts in-person teamwork.
- Insufficient Lockers: There are not enough lockers available, and those that exist are often too small to accommodate personal belongings.
- Impact on Stress and Anxiety: Employees frequently experience stress and anxiety due to the struggle to find workspace, unreliable booking systems, and a general lack of resources.
- Work-Life Imbalance: These conditions contribute to an unhealthy work-life balance for employees.
- Employee Morale: Overall, the current working conditions have a negative impact on employee morale, further affecting our workplace culture.
No wonder so many of the federally employed people I love seem on the verge of burnout and breakdown.
I don’t know how the union concluded the solution to all of this is for federal employees to patiently endure life-draining exploitation including health and safety violations and unprecedented surveillance measures while it tries a different path for submitting a polite request to the apathetic people who created this system that they please give a shit.
(There is not a single word in the letter about COVID, despite the fact that the most recent forecast shows 1 out of every 38 Canadians currently infected, and poor air quality increases the risk of infection from this potentially disabling disease. I think that’s shameful.)
The Parliamentary vehicle
1. Mandate debate?
The letter is addressed to the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO). Here’s what seems most relevant from that Committee’s mandate:
The mandate of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates focuses on the estimates process as well as on the effectiveness and proper functioning of government operations.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(c), the Committee’s mandate includes … the study of … the effectiveness, management, and expenditure plans of:
- central departments and agencies;
- new information and communication technologies adopted by the government;
- cross-departmental mandates, including programs delivered by more than one department or agency; [and]
- Crown corporations and agencies that have not been specifically referred to another standing committee….
Among the 21 organizations the Committee is explicitly mandated to study is the “Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat,” which I understand to be where this shitshow originated.
But then CBC reports this quote from Treasury Board of Canada president Anita Anand that seems to suggest a “beyond the scope” argument.
In response…, Treasury Board of Canada president Anita Anand said the return-to-office decision was an administrative one and not political.
“This administrative decision was made by the Treasury Board Secretariat, in collaboration with the Privy Council Office and deputy ministers across government, who support this change,” she said in a French-language statement to Radio-Canada.
I don’t know if it’s correct to suggest that OGGO’s authority extends only to political decisions, not administrative ones. My former union seems to think there is precedent for this type of study: “OGGO is the same committee that investigated past failures on behalf of the employer, including the changeover of the public sector health care plan from Sun Life to Canada Life as part of its mandate.”
But the precise scope of OGGO’s mandate could be irrelevant anyway. I’ve attended committee meetings where an official ruling on scope was overturned by Parliamentarians voting per party instructions.
Everything is political.
2. Timing and outcome of previous studies
Let’s assume that OGGO decides to take up this investigation. The questions I want answered next are “How quickly does this committee tend to go from idea to report?” and “What is the likely outcome anyway?”
Let’s use the public sector health care plan report cited by my former union as an example.
28 September 2023: the Committee begins to discuss studying the issue.
17 October 2023: the Committee votes to study the issue.
7 December 2023: the Committee hears from witnesses from Public Works, the Treasury Board Secretariat, and Canada Life.
26 February 2024: the Committee hears from one union (PSAC).
22 May 2024: the Committee considers a draft report.
3 June 2024: the Committee’s report is tabled in the House of Commons; it includes nine recommendations and requests that the government table a “comprehensive response” to the report.
1 October 2024: the government presents its response in the form of a letter from The Honourable Anita Anand, PC, MP, President of the Treasury Board.
I actually think a year between motion and government response is quick as far as a committee study is concerned. But even assuming Parliament doesn’t implode and reconstitute somewhere between A Handmaid’s Tale and The Purge, it would still be another year of employees commuting and deteriorating, for recommendations.
I do not read that government response and conclude “yes, this process will get employees prompt, humane results.”
Playing your strengths
The strength that employees have comes from their unity and their labour.
I don’t see how unions expect to win if their approach is for employees to comply to their own detriment with ten enumerated types of harm while the narrow processes the federal government set up to its own advantage play out slowly.
I do see how unions could win if they encourage employees, en masse, to stop volunteering their free time to commuting. An unnecessary commute could be additional paid hours, or it could be hours deducted from the contracted work week, or it could simply not happen. The costs of a policy imposed unilaterally by the employer must be borne by the employer, not subsidized by employees.
This is not time and health that employees will ever be able to get back.
Anita Anand could write a government response to a committee report in her sleep. It is time for unions to wake her up with immediate financial and productivity consequences.