General Update/Rumour thread

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I have no doubt WFH has reduced productivity. My mechanic has stories of Federal Public servants sticking around for hours while their cars get fixed. Costco has never been busier during the day.

I'd love to see actual stats to back it up and make it harder for people (and unions) to complain.

Yeah, have never seen any study on productivity to back up the claims that it hasn't slipped. And what the unions/complainers fail to understand is that perception matters when you are talking about public services. Currently public confidence is very low, and this kind of posturing doesn't help.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by phil235

Yeah, have never seen any study on productivity to back up the claims that it hasn't slipped. And what the unions/complainers fail to understand is that perception matters when you are talking about public services. Currently public confidence is very low, and this kind of posturing doesn't help.

Agreed. I feel like the PS generally had the population's backing when they were on strike for fair pay raises, but they won't have backing for this.

[OTownandDown]

Traffic on the 417 is 100% people who started driving in the pandemic and thought "Why would I ever choose to travel on that hellhole of OC Transpo again? Especially after the conversion from direct express to multi-transfer no-guarantee service"

Except that the convenience is wearing thin, with hour-long traffic jams and absolutely zero downtown parking available, including simple day parking.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I have no doubt WFH has reduced productivity. My mechanic has stories of Federal Public servants sticking around for hours while their cars get fixed. Costco has never been busier during the day.

I'd love to see actual stats to back it up and make it harder for people (and unions) to complain.

Well being in the office doesn't mean being productive. The bad apples can also distract everyone else in the office. Especially open office.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by phil235

Yeah, have never seen any study on productivity to back up the claims that it hasn't slipped. And what the unions/complainers fail to understand is that perception matters when you are talking about public services. Currently public confidence is very low, and this kind of posturing doesn't help.

Here you go:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w18871

https://www.anthonydiercks.com/prese...3_Stanford.pdf

Interesting to note that the Bloom/Standford study is one of the most widely cited studies in this field. Both show productivity increases.

To be fair, you can also find studies that show declines in productivity as well. One of the most widely cited ones (the one with the famous/infamous "18% decline in productivity claim) is this one here: https://www.nber.org/system/files/wo...515/w31515.pdf

However that study's subjects were all data-entry clerks specifically hired for the study so not generally reflective of most federal public servants.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

However that study's subjects were all data-entry clerks specifically hired for the study so not generally reflective of most federal public servants.

well.. the Federal Public Sector has increased 40.4% since 2015, while the population has increased around 11%.

Other than being harassed more by the CRA, I don't think anyone can claim "Public Sector now performs more services, and does them more efficiently"

The ONLY variable here is PS WFH.. and evidence above demonstrates pretty conclusively that the PS is MUCH less efficient when working from home.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

well.. the Federal Public Sector has increased 40.4% since 2015, while the population has increased around 11%.

Other than being harassed more by the CRA, I don't think anyone can claim "Public Sector now performs more services, and does them more efficiently"

The ONLY variable here is PS WFH.. and evidence above demonstrates pretty conclusively that the PS is MUCH less efficient when working from home.

I tend to agree WFH is less effective for anybody not super motivated and well monitored. Either of those sound like public service?

The 40% isn't exactly evidence though. There drunken sailor spending has required people to administer the programs. We let in a million immigrants last year. Triple 2015 with only twice the workforce at IRCC so they are much more efficient by that measure.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

well.. the Federal Public Sector has increased 40.4% since 2015, while the population has increased around 11%.

Other than being harassed more by the CRA, I don't think anyone can claim "Public Sector now performs more services, and does them more efficiently"

The ONLY variable here is PS WFH.. and evidence above demonstrates pretty conclusively that the PS is MUCH less efficient when working from home.

I'm not familiar with any emperical data that suggests the public service is less efficient. Feel free to link to any peer reviewed studies like I did above. I'd be very curious to read them. If anything, my own first-hand experience suggests the opposite.

Also, FYI. "Measured as a percentage of the population, the federal public service is smaller than it was in the mid-1980s"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tru...vice-1.7172339

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

Here you go:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w18871

https://www.anthonydiercks.com/prese...3_Stanford.pdf

Interesting to note that the Bloom/Standford study is one of the most widely cited studies in this field. Both show productivity increases.

To be fair, you can also find studies that show declines in productivity as well. One of the most widely cited ones (the one with the famous/infamous "18% decline in productivity claim) is this one here: https://www.nber.org/system/files/wo...515/w31515.pdf

However that study's subjects were all data-entry clerks specifically hired for the study so not generally reflective of most federal public servants.

The first study is a call centre in China a decade ago and the second one showed a decline in productivity of 10%. I don’t think a Chinese call centre (where employee productivity is closely monitored) is a good analogy for the federal public service.

[acottawa]

My evidence is all anecdotal, but at this point I have heard hundreds of anecdotes over 4 years. I have never heard anyone who legit thinks they are more productive. They like the reduced commuting (which doesn’t help productivity) and they like doing errands and tasks during the day (which makes productivity worse).

I think at least in theory people who have jobs like the Chinese call centre where employees are monitored at a minute level would have higher productivity, but the work rules of the public service do not permit that type of monitoring.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The first study is a call centre in China a decade ago and the second one showed a decline in productivity of 10%. I don’t think a Chinese call centre (where employee productivity is closely monitored) is a good analogy for the federal public service.

The first study isn't a call centre in China. Not sure where you got that from. But if you'd read the paper, you'd have known it was a NASDAQ-listed company, that also happens to be the largest travel agency in China.

The second one doesn't show a 10% decline in productivity. You took that 10% decline figure from slide 4 and hoped that nobody here would read the source and take you at your word. In slide 4 though, they were describing how that figure was a finding from Barrero, Bloom, Davis (2023). That's literally the introduction. If you'd bothered to read the full document, you'd have seen that the entire rest of the document shows how that finding isn't supported by the evidentiary record.

From the second source you claim shows the opposite of what it actually shows:

Literature about fully remote has documented objective (not self-assessed) positive
outcomes for decades.
Geisler (1978): 26% higher productivity for key coders working at home vs in-office
for Blue Cross Blue Shield South Carolina.
Phelps (1980): 48% higher productivity for course development managers at
Mountain Bell in Denver.
Newman (1989): 20% higher productivity for programmers at Travelers Insurance
Company.
Dubrin (1991): 29.9% higher productivity for data entry workers at NPD Group in
New York.
Loy et al (2003): 150.1% higher productivity for call center workers at Kentucky
American Water Company.
Collins (2005): 23% higher productivity for insurance techs at Lloyd’s Insurance in
the UK.

Either you read too quickly, or you didn't understand what you read.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

The first study isn't a call centre in China. Not sure where you got that from. But if you'd read the paper, you'd have known it was a NASDAQ-listed company, that also happens to be the largest travel agency in China.

.

And the very next sentence said it was a call centre

Call center employees who volunteered to WFH were randomly assigned to work from home or in the office for 9 months.

[passwordisnt123]

The paper makes it clear it's not a call centre, but whatever if that's the hill you want to die on. There are also all the other ones I shared too that demonstrate productivity increases in a wide range of offices, contexts and professions.

Geisler (1978): 26% higher productivity for key coders working at home vs in-office
for Blue Cross Blue Shield South Carolina.
Phelps (1980): 48% higher productivity for course development managers at
Mountain Bell in Denver.
Newman (1989): 20% higher productivity for programmers at Travelers Insurance
Company.
Dubrin (1991): 29.9% higher productivity for data entry workers at NPD Group in
New York.
Loy et al (2003): 150.1% higher productivity for call center workers at Kentucky
American Water Company.
Collins (2005): 23% higher productivity for insurance techs at Lloyd’s Insurance in
the UK.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

The paper makes it clear it's not a call centre, but whatever if that's the hill you want to die on.

So your hypothesis is that the paper’s authors are not understanding when they call it a call centre (and the 30 other times it was referred to as a call centre)?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

The paper makes it clear it's not a call centre, but whatever if that's the hill you want to die on. There are also all the other ones I shared too that demonstrate productivity increases in a wide range of offices, contexts and professions.

Geisler (1978): 26% higher productivity for key coders working at home vs in-office
for Blue Cross Blue Shield South Carolina.
Phelps (1980): 48% higher productivity for course development managers at
Mountain Bell in Denver.
Newman (1989): 20% higher productivity for programmers at Travelers Insurance
Company.
Dubrin (1991): 29.9% higher productivity for data entry workers at NPD Group in
New York.
Loy et al (2003): 150.1% higher productivity for call center workers at Kentucky
American Water Company.
Collins (2005): 23% higher productivity for insurance techs at Lloyd’s Insurance in
the UK.

I appreciate that you have produced actual studies. That said, these are all very old and are quite different from the current situation with public servants. I think it’s pretty difficult to draw a straight line between them.

Given the stakes for the country, i really think that TBS should be doing studies of the current situation and including employee engagement, turnover etc. Right now we only have very bald claims of increased productivity made by people with a vested interest in the outcome.

[wingman]

Originally Posted by acottawa

My evidence is all anecdotal, but at this point I have heard hundreds of anecdotes over 4 years. I have never heard anyone who legit thinks they are more productive. They like the reduced commuting (which doesn’t help productivity) and they like doing errands and tasks during the day (which makes productivity worse).

This is so hard to quantify. Saying PS is such a broad statement. There are literally hundreds of different roles/job descriptions that exist in the PS. Many of those folks have never worked from home and have been going in throughout the pandemic.

For those who have been fortunate to work from home, I think it is a real mix on the productivity side. My experience has been at minimum a maintained level of productivity for me and my entire team. That may be an aspect of the role we play and the personalities involved. We are an experienced and mature team with clear roles, responsibilities and deliverables. I would suggest mismanagement is as much to blame for unproductive teams or individuals as anything else, which would be exacerbated in a situation where those undirected folks are left to their own devices (at home).

I would also suggest that in general, the people who are less productive at home, are also less productive in the office. It just looks different. At my workplace your hours are known and you are expected to be available for said hours. If you are not, I can only guess there would be repercussions.

As for reducing the size of the PS, I think that will take care of itself. If these WFH policies change and if/when we get a change in governing party, there will be a lot of retirement ready public servants who will be happy to bid farewell.

Regardless of how productive you think public servants are, you will see an impact to government services when the resources are reduced... that I can guarantee.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by wingman

This is so hard to quantify. Saying PS is such a broad statement. There are literally hundreds of different roles/job descriptions that exist in the PS. Many of those folks have never worked from home and have been going in throughout the pandemic.

For those who have been fortunate to work from home, I think it is a real mix on the productivity side. My experience has been at minimum a maintained level of productivity for me and my entire team. That may be an aspect of the role we play and the personalities involved. We are an experienced and mature team with clear roles, responsibilities and deliverables. I would suggest mismanagement is as much to blame for unproductive teams or individuals as anything else, which would be exacerbated in a situation where those undirected folks are left to their own devices (at home).

I would also suggest that in general, the people who are less productive at home, are also less productive in the office. It just looks different. At my workplace your hours are known and you are expected to be available for said hours. If you are not, I can only guess there would be repercussions.

As for reducing the size of the PS, I think that will take care of itself. If these WFH policies change and if/when we get a change in governing party, there will be a lot of retirement ready public servants who will be happy to bid farewell.

Regardless of how productive you think public servants are, you will see an impact to government services when the resources are reduced... that I can guarantee.

You’re right that there are a huge number of tasks, duties, personalities, etc., but things I keep hearing over and over again.

1) Tasks take longer: something that might have been done in seconds by popping one’s head over the cubicle wall or into the boss’s office now requires emails, or booking virtual meetings, etc. This affects even the most dedicated employee or the best managed team.

2) People are doing personal tasks on work time (kids, pets, cooking, laundry, etc). This might possibly be a management issues, but there aren’t that many management tools available. In some countries remote workers have a deadman’s switch on their mouse that notifies the boss if the mouse hasn’t moved in a certain amount of time, but that would never fly here.

3). The scope of non-work has expanded. People have always slacked off at work, but in the office it is at least constrained by people generally seeing what you are up to, and usually involved co-workers (say by going to Chotchkie's for coffee or discussing TPS reports at the water cooler) where at least work-related stuff will be discussed and possibly work-beneficial things like brainstorming would occur. Now the employer gets no synergies from slack time.

[wingman]

Originally Posted by acottawa

You’re right that there are a huge number of tasks, duties, personalities, etc., but things I keep hearing over and over again.

1) Tasks take longer: something that might have been done in seconds by popping one’s head over the cubicle wall or into the boss’s office now requires emails, or booking virtual meetings, etc. This affects even the most dedicated employee or the best managed team.

2) People are doing personal tasks on work time (kids, pets, cooking, laundry, etc). This might possibly be a management issues, but there aren’t that many management tools available. In some countries remote workers have a deadman’s switch on their mouse that notifies the boss if the mouse hasn’t moved in a certain amount of time, but that would never fly here.

3). The scope of non-work has expanded. People have always slacked off at work, but in the office it is at least constrained by people generally seeing what you are up to, and usually involved co-workers (say by going to Chotchkie's for coffee or discussing TPS reports at the water cooler) where at least work-related stuff will be discussed and possibly work-beneficial things like brainstorming would occur. Now the employer gets no synergies from slack time.

I have not experienced point 1 in my job specifically. Perhaps others have. There is really no excuse for that to happen unless points 2 and 3 are in effect.

On that, if you are one of those that fall under point 2, shame on you. I told my wife when all this started, assume I am at the office. Nothing changes. And if you are leaving your place of work during your work hours to run errands without scheduling time off or making it up, I hope you get what is coming to you (exceptions excepted). That being said, the number of off-hours I have put in has significantly increased. Evenings for an hour here and there, maybe even an hour on a Sunday... it's a give and take. Problem is I think that many people just take, which is flat out wrong. I might put a load of laundry in before I start work, and deal with it at lunch time, but I am sure not everyone operates that way. That is a respect thing imo, and up to each individual to hold themselves accountable.

People are who they are, whether in the office or at home. Just because you are present doesn't mean you are productive... though I will agree there are more opportunities to disengage when not in the office.

Point 3 is valid, and there is no way around that one in a virtual setting. I have seen teams setup scheduled water cooler sessions in the mornings and afternoons, sort of a drop in session where you can talk about whatever just to get away from your tasks for a few minutes and chat with your colleagues. Outside of that, it is what it is.

I do feel though, there will be some people who work remote regardless...so how does that double standard work? I know people who have deliberately moved 125+ km from an office so they automatically get that exception. The ones I know are also our hardest workers... so I don't believe there is any single answer, and at the end of the day it is driven by individual behaviours.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

You’re right that there are a huge number of tasks, duties, personalities, etc., but things I keep hearing over and over again.

1) Tasks take longer: something that might have been done in seconds by popping one’s head over the cubicle wall or into the boss’s office now requires emails, or booking virtual meetings, etc. This affects even the most dedicated employee or the best managed team.

2) People are doing personal tasks on work time (kids, pets, cooking, laundry, etc). This might possibly be a management issues, but there aren’t that many management tools available. In some countries remote workers have a deadman’s switch on their mouse that notifies the boss if the mouse hasn’t moved in a certain amount of time, but that would never fly here.

3). The scope of non-work has expanded. People have always slacked off at work, but in the office it is at least constrained by people generally seeing what you are up to, and usually involved co-workers (say by going to Chotchkie's for coffee or discussing TPS reports at the water cooler) where at least work-related stuff will be discussed and possibly work-beneficial things like brainstorming would occur. Now the employer gets no synergies from slack time.

I agree with most of this but some of the people who claim they are more productive don't commute and actually prefer the office so it's not all self interested. These people are usually doing long concrete tasks and are no longer distracted by that peek over the cubicle or having a subordinate come into their office. I think especially low-mid level managers who think they are more productive don't care about their role as a team leader but the most efficient non-management employee does get a lot of questions and distractions during the day in the office so are getting more done at home. They forget that while they might get say 8 passports processed instead of 7 before they were helping colleagues who are now stuck as you say spending hours tracking down information and thus the team is moving more slowly.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I agree with most of this but some of the people who claim they are more productive don't commute and actually prefer the office so it's not all self interested. These people are usually doing long concrete tasks and are no longer distracted by that peek over the cubicle or having a subordinate come into their office. I think especially low-mid level managers who think they are more productive don't care about their role as a team leader but the most efficient non-management employee does get a lot of questions and distractions during the day in the office so are getting more done at home. They forget that while they might get say 8 passports processed instead of 7 before they were helping colleagues who are now stuck as you say spending hours tracking down information and thus the team is moving more slowly.

All well and good, but if PS employment tasks no longer require being in the office, that should open the door to having anyone in Canada apply for the positions (with appropriate salary modifications).

.. and if it’s truly that straightforward.. overseas options could be very financially attractive to the employer.

I love Ottawa…. But I think it’s truly a dangerous game PS employees are playing.