'Get back to work!", PM tells Civil Servants

[Eldorado]

"The government has urged Whitehall bosses to "move quickly" to get more staff back into the office.

"In a letter seen by the BBC, it says it is "strongly encouraging" attendance through rota systems, arguing this would be "hugely beneficial".

"The government says it wants 80% of civil servants to be able to attend their usual workplace at least once a week by the end of the month."

Full report at the BBC: Link

"Now civil servants threaten to STRIKE over PM's call to return to the office:

"One union baron claims it is 'not safe' while another says there's been an 'industrial revolution' as bureaucrats continue to work from home"

Full story at the UK Mail: Link

"Row breaks out over push for more civil servants to return to office"

At the paywalled Telegraph: Link

[L.A.T.1961]

 "The government says it wants 80% of civil servants to be able to attend their usual workplace at least once a week by the end of the month."

This doesn't sound like a big ask, and another civil service leak to media I presume?

Maybe the civil servants union, FDA, would like to have a chat with UNITE union who look after the service/food industry and see if FDA will pay compensation for service workers who lose their jobs. 

Or are unions only concerned about opposing any government move than saving members jobs.  

[Cosmic Horror]

Yes the Unisons are unwavering in their political leanings, not bothered that the workforce they represent are diverse.

Unions p@ss me off, but they have their place.

[spartan max2]

One a week seems pretty reasonable. Easy to split up groups.

My office has us come in once every other week.

[Setton]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

One a week seems pretty reasonable. Easy to split up groups.

My office has us come in once every other week.

But why at all if it's not necessary to do the job?

Why should public servants be put at extra risk just to prop up private businesses that failed to plan for this eventuality?

[Cosmic Horror]

2 minutes ago, Setton said:

But why at all if it's not necessary to do the job?

Why should public servants be put at extra risk just to prop up private businesses that failed to plan for this eventuality?

So that footfall in central London picks up again and coffee shops can sell their modestly priced beverages to keep their student workforce on living wage.

Of course this is a totally London-centric move.

[Setton]

53 minutes ago, Cosmic Horror said:

So that footfall in central London picks up again and coffee shops can sell their modestly priced beverages to keep their student workforce on living wage.

 

59 minutes ago, Setton said:

Why should public servants be put at extra risk just to prop up private businesses that failed to plan for this eventuality?

 

[spartan max2]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

But why at all if it's not necessary to do the job?

Why should public servants be put at extra risk just to prop up private businesses that failed to plan for this eventuality?

Yes, I agree if it can all be done at home then no point to make people come in.

 

I'm just assuming there must be some use of them being in the office or else idk why they would want them to.

I also admit I only skimmed the article.

[Cosmic Horror]

2 hours ago, Setton said:

But why at all if it's not necessary to do the job?

Why should public servants be put at extra risk just to prop up private businesses that failed to plan for this eventuality?

I agree.  My stance is quite harsh in the face of it, but if this has done one thing it’s shown just how unsustainable many businesses are.  I think there should have been cap on the support from government based on years trading, so if you have been trading for 5+ years you would be expected to be able to support your own businesses.  If I were a business owner I would be very unhappy if I didn’t have the reserves to weather a few lean months.

Ironically, I fear it’s the public sector that is once again going to foot the incoming bill with another 10 years of cuts and pay freezes, and those in the private sector will pat themselves on the back at having survived at the behest of the tax payer and reward themselves with much deserved bonuses.

Man I am bitter today, sorry folks.

[spartan max2]

4 minutes ago, Cosmic Horror said:

Ironically, I fear it’s the public sector that is once again going to foot the incoming bill with another 10 years of cuts and pay freezes, and those in the private sector will pat themselves on the back at having survived at the behest of the tax payer and reward themselves with much deserved bonuses.

Ditto, it's a racket. 

[Setton]

3 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Yes, I agree if it can all be done at home then no point to make people come in.

 

I'm just assuming there must be some use of them being in the office or else idk why they would want them to.

There's literally no reason for them to go back. The vast majority clearly can work from home as they have since March. The ones who can't aren't anyway.

Only reason Boris is doing this is to encourage the private sector to do the same to prop up cafes, restaurants etc that need office workers on their lunch breaks.

[Jujo-jo]

On 9/5/2020 at 12:52 PM, L.A.T.1961 said:

 "The government says it wants 80% of civil servants to be able to attend their usual workplace at least once a week by the end of the month."

This doesn't sound like a big ask, and another civil service leak to media I presume?

Maybe the civil servants union, FDA, would like to have a chat with UNITE union who look after the service/food industry and see if FDA will pay compensation for service workers who lose their jobs. 

Or are unions only concerned about opposing any government move than saving members jobs.  

I seen a democratic interview a cpl weeks ago and Democrats want to make it mandatory for every U.S. citizen who is employed to be under Union law, pay and protection. (There will be even less protection for the employer.) Abd they hope to have this in place between 2023 to 2030.

Don't forget you'll have to pay your fair share of dues. And laws and rule are subject to change after the change occurs if the dems can get it to pass. 

It doesn't sound good for either one, the employee or the employer, just another way to have full rule over you so they can get their cut, I'm sure it won't be good for Unions either, theyll will have to follow other government laws and rules that will effect employees...

Edited October 11, 2020 by Jujo-jo

[stevewinn]

get them back to work, i pay their wages through my taxes, I've been back at work for months, so, so should they - once again the public sector swinging the lead. while the private sector the economic wealth generator has to plough on regardless. anyway, are we all still pretending covid is what they say it is? every age range from 0yrs to 80yrs has a survival rate of between 99.4% to 99.8% with the over 80yrs having 94.3%. only this feeble generation would react to this virus in the way they have in this day and age. Hong Kong flu killed 62,000 in the UK, back in the sixties. all people done was fasten their top button and carried on. about time we done the same. we are a weak pathetic generation who are terrified of life. no-one gets out of this life alive so lets enjoy our time.

[bee]

 

I wonder if Boris is finally realizing that he has been tricked into destroying the UK economy... ?

The Coronavirus Con....

He was given data by 'experts' that never came true - and had to scare everyone half to death to get them to accept draconian measures to ''''slow down the spread''''....

the Big Scare has worked so well that he might not be able to get enough people back to work to save the economy...
he has a juggling act to perform because he seems to also wants to appease the MSM (who have driven the whole thing) but they are going to use whatever he does against him anyway... just like they do with Trump - so Boris might just as well get on with saving the economy because they will weaponize the virus against him anyway... regardless of what he does..

time will tell....

 

[Setton]

26 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

get them back to work, i pay their wages through my taxes, I've been back at work for months, so, so should they - once again the public sector swinging the lead. while the private sector the economic wealth generator has to plough on regardless. 

Civil servants have worked throughout while the private sector has been able to furlough staff. Not one civil servant has had a paid day off because of lockdown.

Perhaps you should look beyond the attention grabbing headline to the actual story.

What civil servants have been doing is working from home where possible. Where not possible, they've been in the office the whole time.

This statement from Boris was in line with his overall (now backtracked) push to get back into the office to prop up the local economy. Civil servants were being put at unnecessary risk to encourage the private sector to get back to work.

[Setton]

10 minutes ago, bee said:

 

I wonder if Boris is finally realizing that he has been tricked into destroying the UK economy... ?

The Coronavirus Con....

He was given data by 'experts' that never came true - 

What data would that be? Be precise in your fantasies, it enhances the realism.

[RAyMO]

Governments from '79 at least, including Blair have pressed for more and more cuts to reduce the cost of running the civil service. 

Covid forced the civil service, no doubt at considerable cost, to enable its staff to work from home. This also allowed the civil service to determine first hand if such working arrangements would work for it. 

The move proved a success. Based on that, the service can considerably reduce it costs - mainly by divesting itself of many buildings all over the country and moving its remaining offices outside of high cost city areas. 

These staff now working from home, are spending their money in their local areas, supporting local shops and cafes, and simultaneously reducing commuting, thus helping achieve nett zero emission targets. 

Forcing them back to offices will not have a great nett effect on the economy, will not maximise environmental benefit, and counter to the objectives of all governments for the last 40, will miss a very significant opportunity to reduce costs.

Boris as usual can't see the wood for the trees. 

Edited October 11, 2020 by RAyMO

[Setton]

2 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

Governments from '79 at least, including Blair have pressed for more and more cuts to reduce the cost of running the civil service. 

Covid forced the civil service, no doubt at considerable cost, to enable its staff to work from home. This also allowed the civil service to determine first hand if such working arrangements would work for it. 

The move proved a success. Based on that, the service can considerably reduce it costs - mainly by divesting itself of many buildings all over the country and moving its remaining offices outside of high cost city areas. 

These staff now working from home, are spending their money in their local areas, supporting local shops and cafes, and simultaneously reducing commuting, thus helping achieve nett zero emission targets. 

Forcing them back to offices will not have a great nett effect on the economy, will not maximise environmental benefit, and counter to the objectives of all governments for the last 50, will miss a very significant opportunity to reduce costs.

Boris as usual can't see the wood for the trees. 

Perfectly put.

[bee]

13 minutes ago, Setton said:

What data would that be? Be precise in your fantasies, it enhances the realism.

 

I don't have time for your nastiness and trolling - but quickly found this as an example.....

we also have to bear in mind that there has been confusion and shenanigans when it comes to the numbers of deaths...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/28/neil-ferguson-scientist-convinced-boris-johnson-uk-coronavirus-lockdown-criticised/

Neil Ferguson, the scientist who convinced Boris Johnson of UK coronavirus lockdown, criticised in past for flawed research

Professor Neil Ferguson predicted Britain was on course to lose 250,000 lives during the coronavirus epidemic

[Setton]

59 minutes ago, bee said:

Professor Neil Ferguson predicted Britain was on course to lose 250,000 lives during the coronavirus epidemic...

...if we didn't take action. We did take action. You might have noticed this lockdown thing or the masks everyone is wearing.

[stevewinn]

1 hour ago, bee said:

 

I wonder if Boris is finally realizing that he has been tricked into destroying the UK economy... ?

The Coronavirus Con....

He was given data by 'experts' that never came true - and had to scare everyone half to death to get them to accept draconian measures to ''''slow down the spread''''....

the Big Scare has worked so well that he might not be able to get enough people back to work to save the economy...
he has a juggling act to perform because he seems to also wants to appease the MSM (who have driven the whole thing) but they are going to use whatever he does against him anyway... just like they do with Trump - so Boris might just as well get on with saving the economy because they will weaponize the virus against him anyway... regardless of what he does..

time will tell....

 

i think the Govt or at least the 'experts' are in saving face mode. The model used which resulted in Govt policy and the shutdown was flawed. Neil Ferguson model's have a long history of being a long way off, His Covid worse case projections are off by a factor of x10, and it was this worst case number that the lockdown was introduced on. But are we surprised he didnt even believe in the predictions himself as he was caught breaking the lockdown rules visiting his bit on the side) HE, WOULDN'T even release his model so other experts and universities could verify it,  and when forced to it was based on a 2009 Flu Pandemic.

At the end of the day the experts have tied themselves in knots in the process., a 0.6% death rate in the population. a survival rate of between 99.4% to 99.8% with the over 80yrs having 94.3%. 83% of those positive getting the swab test didn't even have symptoms.

But this Neil Ferguson on which the model and policy are based has a history of costing the economy dear with his models. he cost the country £10Billion with his model on foot and mouth, which seen six million beasts killed for what turned out to be no reason as the model was flawed.

Its clear, Covid deaths should've be counted as those who died OF Covid. but this can all be filtered at a later day. but its no good for present day govt policy.

99.4% of the population are expected to survive covid. herd immunity is the winner here, and peoples own immune systems, the same two things we as a population have been relying upon for the best part of a year, i can remember people at the outset denying this fact, -  as it still stands 98% who have Covid need no treatment, but simply stay at home for 14 days.

according to the experts Vallance and Whitty covid cases should have reached 50,000 a day by Friday just gone. Its now 11th October. 15,166 is the daily cases.

 

 

[Grey Area]

2 hours ago, stevewinn said:

get them back to work, i pay their wages through my taxes, I've been back at work for months, so, so should they - once again the public sector swinging the lead.

Yeah, Steve the public sector hasn’t stopped working.  As a public sector worker, I can tell you I have worked solidly throughout lockdown From home, as have all all my colleagues.  I am intrigued as to which public services have ceased during lockdown?

2 hours ago, stevewinn said:

while the private sector the economic wealth generator has to plough on regardless.

What world is this you are living in?  The private sector has been furloughed for months, propped up by the public purse, with many large firms with huge cash reserves taking advantage.  
 

My neighbour who works for national express said that their employees were receiving 100% pay with the company supplementing the 20% shortfall themselves.  This was having a huge impact as many employees see this as a nice long paid holiday.
 

2 hours ago, stevewinn said:

only this feeble generation would react to this virus in the way they have in this day and age. Hong Kong flu killed 62,000 in the UK, back in the sixties. all people done was fasten their top button and carried on.

This isn’t a generational thing this is a progression.  The value of life has been rising significantly since the 50’s.

Is it wrong to take measures to prevent loss of life?  I think it’s the mark of a fairly embedded sociopathy that you casually speak of 62000 deaths and shrug it off as acceptable.

2 hours ago, stevewinn said:

we are a weak pathetic generation who are terrified of life. no-one gets out of this life alive so lets enjoy our time.

I disagree, we have a very different generation, it’s the ones who resist change that are the weak pathetic ones.  
 

The current generations play the hand dealt by the previous generations.  Only this generation is starting to wake up to the fact the game sucks.

[stevewinn]

 

2 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Yeah, Steve the public sector hasn’t stopped working.  As a public sector worker, I can tell you I have worked solidly throughout lockdown From home, as have all all my colleagues.  I am intrigued as to which public services have ceased during lockdown?

What world is this you are living in?  The private sector has been furloughed for months, propped up by the public purse, with many large firms with huge cash reserves taking advantage.  
 

My neighbour who works for national express said that their employees were receiving 100% pay with the company supplementing the 20% shortfall themselves.  This was having a huge impact as many employees see this as a nice long paid holiday.
 

This isn’t a generational thing this is a progression.  The value of life has been rising significantly since the 50’s.

Is it wrong to take measures to prevent loss of life?  I think it’s the mark of a fairly embedded sociopathy that you casually speak of 62000 deaths and shrug it off as acceptable.

I disagree, we have a very different generation, it’s the ones who resist change that are the weak pathetic ones.  
 

The current generations play the hand dealt by the previous generations.  Only this generation is starting to wake up to the fact the game sucks.

the joke is when did the public sector actually start working. even before covid.

Its now time for public sector workers to suck it up and get back to their 'place of work' imagine going to work and not even having to take your slippers off. could it get any more cushy for a cushy sector. and the Unions in their socialist ideals are threatening strike action because the slippers have to come off. 

On deaths, do you think govt measures have prevented deaths. over half of the deaths are from care homes, after patients where cleared out the hospitals back to care homes taking the virus with them. i'd say those measures have killed more than they saved.

When the Honk Kong flu hit there was no cure there was going to be deaths. the same with Covid, sociopath or realist.

 

 

 

[RAyMO]

12 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Its now time for public sector workers to suck it up and get back to their 'place of work' imagine going to work and not even having to take your slippers off. could it get any more cushy for a cushy sector.

No different in the private sector - or do you restrict private sector to factories, Solicitors, Architects, Accountants, Bankers, Software Developers all working from home. Some of the larger ones have said publicly it will be their model going forward or are investigating the benefits of such a model. 

With 21st century technology there is little reason for not working from home if ones job facilitates it. 

Edited October 11, 2020 by RAyMO

[stevewinn]

3 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

No different in the private sector - or do you restrict private sector to factories, Solicitors, Architects, Accountants, Bankers, Software Developers all working from home. Some of the larger ones have said publicly it will be their model going forward or are investigating the benefits of such a model. 

With 21st century technology there is little reason for not working from home if ones job facilitates it. 

I don't pay for the private sector.