I have posted a few blogposts on remote work and how it may impact work culture going forward. In the same vein, I also shared a post about the ongoing union strike in Canada. Here are the links to those articles if you have not read them:
It's interesting how these two issues have merged and become a thorny negotiation point for the two striking partners: the federal government and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), a union representing public service employees.
While I understand the union bargaining for salary increases for their members, this is the first time I have seen them use their right to collective bargaining to demand that work from home or telework be enshrined in writing as a worker's right. This could have huge implications going forward for other unions and even for private sector employees. The ramifications are unknown, and that is one reason why the federal government is reluctant to agree to the union's demand.
I read a news report this morning that suggested the federal government offered the union a deal on a salary increase, which was accepted, but we don't know by how much. The government offered a 9% increase over three years, while the union asked for 13.5%. It seems that negotiations are taking place to ensure that work from home is mentioned in writing as one of the rights for workers, which is both insane and logical at the same time.
PSAC wants "the right to work remotely to be enshrined in the collective agreement". This does not mean that workers can demand to work from home indefinitely or that employees can ask to work from home on certain days. It is more about the idea that if the situation allows and if there is feasibility for the task at hand to be completed from home, then employees should not be denied that request. Of course, there are operational demands, and workers cannot say no to those requirements. I feel like this demand is a response to the federal government's requirement, implemented last month, that workers must go back to the office 2-3 times a week.
The strike on this issue shows how important working from home has become for workers. I spent more than a decade working in person in an office before the pandemic, and working from home was an adjustment for me at first. But I had a change of heart once I started to realize how comforting this work arrangement is compared to our previous culture.
There will always be two sides of the coin, and many may not agree with this particular view, but it does not matter, as most employees understand that the hybrid work structure is here to stay. The ongoing strike is an example that the trend to fight for the hybrid work structure is here to stay.
They cannot do much about this, as they asked their workers to return to the office by March 31, 2023. It will be an operational nightmare for the government if work from home is mentioned in the collective agreement. That means managers cannot say no to their workers if they request to work from home. The managers will lose control over their staff, as they cannot guarantee the staff's presence for their files. Also, this change will require a shift in how we view the corporate world and decision-making processes.
Having said that, I am not sure how the government will say no to this demand. One way for the government to address this is to make the union understand that they are not against the work from home culture, but it is not necessary to write it down formally. On the other hand, employers want work from home in writing because they do not believe the government will keep its promise.
The private sector is also keen to know the outcome of this negotiation. If the right to work from home is enshrined in the collective agreement, it could potentially set a precedent that other unions and even private sector employees could follow.
I will continue to monitor for updates and provide updates as they become available.
