Treasury Board made an announcement at the end of April that would have an impact on the lives of our members and their families. An edict was passed down that all our IT Group members would be required to return to the office up to three days a week with virtually no exceptions.
This announcement came with no substantial rationale nor discernable motivation excepting perhaps political.
Our members have been working on behalf of Canadians from home and elsewhere remotely during and since the pandemic. That work ensured that all our clients, internal and external, received the service that they needed through difficult times. We provided that service efficiently and tirelessly, maintaining the technology that supported the machinery of government.
We have continued to do just that and more.
I stated in my Report to the 2024 IT Group Annual General Meeting:
“Time and time again we have demonstrated that our work can be done effectively and efficiently from any location. There are statistics that prove this and little to prove otherwise. The employer has also indicated that there is no office space available to accommodate this return. Our belief has been and always will be that if the work can be done remotely, and the member chooses to work remotely, then they should be allowed to do so.”
The evidence is clear that there are more reasons to support our members working from home than any for a return to the office:
- There is a misconception that somehow IT workers are less efficient working from home. Studies have shown that statistically workers are more productive in the workplace of their choice. They enjoy greater work/life balance and that they are mentally and physically healthier contributes to their sense of well-being and, ultimately, their performance at work.
- Many of our IT members work in virtual teams spread out across the country and rarely, if ever, see their co-workers in-person. They have been performing that work remotely for years with elevated levels of service and dedication.
- Recruitment and retention are ongoing issues, and many younger workers are attracted to the prospect of working from home. Those younger IT workers will seek out an employer of choice at a time when the federal government is short thousands of resources and will once again turn to increasing the use of contractors at a much higher cost.
- Increased cost to both our employer and our members. Office space is currently at a premium and the expense to house a returning workforce will rise substantially as the return to the office reaches its peak. Our members will see an increase in their expenses who have already been impacted by a rise in costs and a hard set of negotiations with Treasury Board that kept wage increases below the rate of inflation.
- The impact on the environment: More commuting means more cars on the road and more pollution. Many of our members work in areas where transit is not a viable option. Working from home had a discernable positive impact on the environment. Allowing our members to work from home can be seen as yet another tool in our government’s goal to be leaders in the fight against climate change. The Return to the Office seems nothing but contrary to those efforts and policy.
These are just a few of the critical arguments against the Return to the Office that has somehow been misconstrued as a return to work.
Your IT Group has been active in the fight against the Return to the Office. We are working with other Groups in the Institute and supporting our union’s campaign. We are in direct communication with our activists who are consulting with the employer in every department. We are directing our members to apply for remote work and use every avenue, formal or informal, to dispute any refusal. We are aligning ourselves with the efforts of other federal public service unions. We have recently trained our IT AGM delegates to lobby their local MPs against the abuse of contractors and the Return to the Office.
My messaging in discussion with CIOC Dominic Rochon has been concise and transparent: any member whose work allows for it, should be given the option to work from the location of their choice with few exceptions.
We firmly believe that this edict is a clear misdirection of funds, resources, and purpose. The added costs will be borne by the Canadian taxpayer. Time and effort wasted in commute has a negative impact on all resources, including that of our members.
The misdirection of purpose to suggest that our members are “returning to work” is disingenuous. Our members work with dedication and a sincere belief that what they do is important for Canadians. Filling new and empty office buildings would seem to serve one purpose only and for the benefit of the few.
We are determined to keep up the fight to reverse this decision with the help of our larger union and you, our members.
In solidarity,
Stan Buday
President, IT Group