WFH civil service.. why wait for someone to get it??

[Nononoandno]

I work in the civil service and we all have working from home capabilities...but the stance seems to be (not just in civil service but offices in general) wait till someone gets it then tell everyone to WFH!! The chances are by that time it will have already spread to other members of the team/office and be actually sick and not able to work....my pint is of all those people in jobs where you can wfh in the uk, why don’t companies just say to start now!!! It seems obvious to me rather that wait to catch it/spread if around ???

But millions of people will still be mixing at organised events, shopping centres etc so whilst it might protect a handful of office workers (assuming they arent leaving the house at all) it would seem pretty futile unless further action is taken (playing sporting events behind closed doors etc)

People are still planning on taking foreign holidays at Easter.

Ghost frank
What if that handful of office workers were in roles that will be fundamental in the economy’s support/recovery of businesses following Coronavirus??

Most wont be so it's an irrelevant question. Frontline workers from healthcare workers to lorry drivers will be absolutely critical to support/recovery.

In my office the above situation is the case

Then wfh. My point was having people wfh but have majority of the population carry on as usual is inconsistent thinking. Theres either a significant risk to all office workers or there isn't. The response must be consistent.

The response must be consistent.

If you look at it from a business continuity perspective, it is a consistent response to 'protect' those who can WFH, because it will be those people who can carry on in the event of office shutdowns, school closures or the need for isolation. People who can't WFH would have to stay at home, not working.

I’m CS (actually working on COVID). As others have mentioned it sets a precedent so I don’t think they will just yet...

People weren't talking about complete shut down rather working from home and leaving those who cant continuing to travel to work and sit in an office potentially putting themselves at risk. This is completely unfair.

You might not care about the coffee shop workers, but their families and the people they pay their bills to might. As CS are government I would expect them to be told to work from home when the appropriate support is put in place for other businesses to say the same, thinking of the smaller ones who likely don't have the infrastructure to have people working from home. I'm sure there will be a directive when appropriate.

It’s about slowing it down not consistency, that’s why we’ve been told wash hands so much ...to limit the transmission! People working from home limits the transmission!! Which in turn reduces the impact on the NHS, this will sweep though the country but it will help if it happens at a slower pace so over months rather than weeks!

What I'm learning from these threads is that those economically better off are able to better protect themselves. Home working favours those higher up the pay grades. Panic buying favours those with disposable incomes. Fleeing to a holiday home abroad is the reserve of the better off. Keeping the kids of school if you can afford it is another one. Everybody else is expected to take one for the team. Forget coronavirus society is already sick.

If it's going to spread so badly a few home workers isn't likely to slow it down without further societal restrictions . Working from home Monday to friday avoiding 20 colleagues and then spending Saturday at a football stadium with 60000 people is ridiculously inconsistent.

@nononoandno - raise it through your business continuity team (or through your teams business continuity lead). You should have one and they should have contingency plans in place and ready to go for stuff like this.

Also, do you already have it agreed you can work from home? If so, get your phone diverted and crack on.....it's what I'd advise my team to do

Working from home Monday to friday avoiding 20 colleagues and then spending Saturday at a football stadium with 60000 people is ridiculously inconsistent.

Yes, well, the sooner they ban events like that the better for all of us. People can watch football etc. on TV.

@GhostofFrankGrimes I completely agree. It's shameful really.

Yes so any heightened response needs to be consistent. Protecting everyone not just office workers.

Home working favours those higher up the pay grades.

Possibly in the CS (I wouldn't know) but not so much in the private sector - there, it's much more task-dependent.

At this moment in time I’m more worried about potentially passing on Coronavirus onto the owner of a coffee shop rather than buying a coffee

And yet the coffee shop workers need customers to stay afloat. I'm sure they'll still get plenty of custom from couriers, retail workers, health care professionals etc.

No you aren't, you're more worried about catching it yourself. Which is fine and understandable, but not everyone has the luxury of recieving full pay for working from home because it's not an option, there's more people to think about in decision such as that.

I can work from home. I do from time to time (if I'm expecting a delivery or something) but I prefer to work in the office normally.

Question is - if everyone's working from home, and kids are off school, and people who can't work from home but need to isolate spend the day watching Netflix - will we have sufficient internet capacity to cope with all that?

I remember this being tested as part of the London Olympic planning - but I expect there was a lot less streaming back then.

Sorry but it's not shameful that some people who can WFH, do. Me working from home doesn't make it worse for anyone else.

And there are plenty of higher "grades" who can't WFH. Doctors being one of them.

Not everything need to be turned into a wealth argument.

What I'm learning from these threads is that those economically better off are able to better protect themselves. Home working favours those higher up the pay grades. Panic buying favours those with disposable incomes. Fleeing to a holiday home abroad is the reserve of the better off. Keeping the kids of school if you can afford it is another one. Everybody else is expected to take one for the team. Forget coronavirus society is already sick.

Agree and also the amount if school teachers on MN who constantly complain about how their job puts them at risk, though having said that they're notorious complainers at the best of times.

I expect someone who works on a till in a shop with no card facility and so constantly handles cash from dozens of people every hour might want a word with them, or someone who works in a busy cafe, pub or club

Doctors arent civil servants but of course those that wah still expect front line workers to just get on with it.

Wealth is completely at the heart of this as shown by how vulnerable gig economy workers are.

I didn't say doctor's were CS. As I said further up thread, I think anyone who can WFH easily enough, should. I'm not remotely scared of getting COVID. But I'd rather not get it and pass it on to someone that it could be more serious to, like members of my family.

The fact that other people can't WFH in no way negates the fact that I can, and should. And I am not going to apologise for the fact that I can, like I am somehow compounding other people's misery. That's just ridiculous.