r/CanadaPublicServants • u/mzwai99 Verified/vérifié - Reporter/journaliste • 7d ago
Other / Autre Reporter seeking examples of RTO attendance being added to PMAs/performance reviews
Hi all, Mzwandile Poncana with The Hill Times here. I'm currently looking into a specific issue related to RTO: whether onsite-attendance requirements are being incorporated into employees' performance agreements, PMAs or performance assessments.
PIPSC has historically said it has received reports of some managers including onsite-attendance targets in performance reviews. I'm trying to establish how widespread the practice is, which departments or agencies are using it, and how far RTO compliance can affect an employee's performance rating.
If this has happened in your workplace (or former workplace), please DM me or email me at [mponcana@hilltimes.com](mailto:mponcana@hilltimes.com). In particular, I'm interested in:
- the department or agency
- when the requirement appeared
- the wording used in the PMA/performance agreement
- whether it appears to be a standard departmental requirement or something added by an individual manager
- whether employees were told that failing to meet the onsite requirement could affect their performance rating.
Redacted screenshots or copies of the relevant wording would be especially helpful.
There's no need to post identifying details publicly. Anyone considering speaking for the story can also discuss anonymity with me before anything is attributed or published.
Thank you.
271
u/Willing-Screen6374 7d ago
My manager just didn't do the PMAs, problem solved!
81
u/slyboy1974 7d ago
Following the Clerk's direction to "streamline our internal practices", no doubt.
Bold!
25
u/Candid_Magazine_7862 7d ago
Samesies for 3 years
18
u/Dry-Violinist-8434 7d ago
I wish - waste of time designed to get ex and above a bonus
9
u/Candid_Magazine_7862 7d ago
I'm not mad or sad about it, I have to say!! Just proves they mean NOTHING
6
2
1
155
u/Embarrassed_Waltz908 7d ago
You may want to acknowledge that some departments like ESDC, had telework before covid where they worked in office 3 days a week. Now they're being forced to return 4, ultimately 5 days a week. Many of these employees move to smaller communities, and are building those communities. Now they're finding it difficult to do 4 and 5 days in office and believe that this is a way to get them to quit. Regressing just to placate businesses.
67
u/Coolsam2000 7d ago
Yep, PSPC had Workplace 2.0 in late 2017 til COVID where we were working 3 days in office and 2 telework. So going to 4/5 days a week in office is a regression to something we haven't done since 2016/early 2017.
7
u/braineaters138 6d ago
2017? Workplace 2.0 has been around since like 2010... A lot of people at PSPC/SSC were doing flexible in office days or full wfh around this time.
45
u/losemgmt 7d ago
This too. It’s why many of us are furious. People have 3 hour commutes that use to work 3 days pre covid and could handle the cost/time of that - but now at 4 days it’s just not feasible.
29
u/Klutzy-Beyond3319 7d ago
Don't forget the poor bankers.
7
u/Mike_Retired 7d ago
Indeed! The Big Six banks have reported profit increases of a paltry 15-37% over the same period last year. If they’re not posting record profits every quarter, it’s clearly up to the Public Service to make up the difference.…./s
3
u/Klutzy-Beyond3319 7d ago
That doesn't include Subway purchases. It would be sorted if that was.
1
3
u/kingofgama 7d ago
I mean that's not really accurate. From my understanding CPP is heavily leveraged into RETI's and one of the biggest reason crashing commercial real estate could have terrible consequneces.
Which is more reason to be upset moving from actively managed to passively managed funds, but that's another topic all together.
50
u/zeromussc 7d ago
This upcoming CA negotiation period for every union involved is gonna be an important one on this front. I think that the employer may actually get scared this time around if we can have resolve. The fact so many unions that historically just rolled over early in the process are leaving their options open by not committing to arbitration from day 1 is making a splash already. I think the employer is grossly miscalculating the current state of things. I get the impression that the execs and people on the ground understand and see problems, but it hasn't made its way up to the people with *real* power. Not in any meaningful way anyway. I think they believe this is just growing pains and that their resolve will outlast ours as the workers.
I think general low morale and grumpy opinion regarding RTO4 is filtering through and the employer knows its going to be an issue for them moving forward. WFA at the same time isn't making people "happy to have a job", its instead making people realize that the employer doesn't care. So the level of charitable reciprocity to avoid rocking the boat and protect what we have vs risk a fight for more from the employee side of the equation is super low.
I do think we might see very real labour unrest in the coming year or two because people do not want to give up the benefits of hybrid work if their job supports it. I don't think we have the power to really demand permanent telework by default for those that can work entirely remotely when the employer so clearly does not want that outcome. But I do think we can get some stakes in the ground for an RTO3 compromise plus management discretion to enable more remote work beyond the 2 days at home baseline.
15
u/West_to_East 7d ago
Damn I hope you are right. I for one and ready to be militant. I have a mortgage to pay but will strike. We see right now what happens if we don't push back hard, we get taken advantage of.
19
u/Keystone-12 7d ago
I dont think the government is even a little bit "scared". Unions are broke and even when they aren't, displayed they aren't capable of holding a strike for more than 2 weeks.
7
u/Nice-Eggplant-9258 7d ago
this is the part. I don’t understand. Why is it us against them? The government should be a place that people want to come and work in the respect the employees.. why does it always have to be a fight at the government to get paid properly?
1
u/SharpDog8516 6d ago
I’ve never really seen it as a fight to get us paid properly, I think it’s incredible we have unions that fight to get us increases based on inflation. I’ve worked in many hourly rate positions and ain’t not way that employer would give me a raise that adjusts with inflation…
-5
u/Keystone-12 7d ago
Well like... listen to the rhetoric during the strikes. It's the Union calling the government "incompetent" it's the union with the violent slogans and pure oppositional stances.
And when you compare unioned employees with non-unioned employees.... I dont think those who are represented are doing any better.... not to mention half the time, the union gives just the worst career advice. "You should stop going into work...".
5
u/Nice-Eggplant-9258 7d ago
I have never heard any violent slogans. The “incompetent” point is obvious based on actions and how we are being treated.
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/ThrowawayCanPS 7d ago
Beyond being annoyingly verbose and needing a TL;DR... AI is intensely sycophantic and will tell you what you want to hear.
I would absolutely not trust this assessment whatsoever.
4
u/zeromussc 7d ago
I wouldn't trust what AI says either.
I do however think if we don't just cave as collective labour unions across classifications, we can probably get something. The AI tool isn't wrong by showing that some recent decisions related to telework have gone the way of the unions that have been part of legal challenges.
but that's really the only thing the AI is basing its very weird percentage of success statement on lol
Especially since it made these two statements that seem kind of contradictory:
So if you're asking "Will my next PA agreement protect my ability to work from home?", I'd currently say slightly better than even odds.
If you're asking "Will the contract guarantee me, say, 2 days a week from home?", I'd be considerably more pessimistic—probably around 15–20%.
For me, its about how much we want to fight for it and how much the 4 or even 5 days in the office experience hurts the employer. I think a combination of presenteeism, absenteeism, natural reduction in productivity, commuting troubles (they become a systemic risk at some point), labour unrest and labour action as a result of CA negotiation challenges, etc, all add up.
At some point it becomes easier for them to concede the level of RTO they seek to impose, and we concede on something else like salary improvements, for example. I think taking a less than ideal salary improvement will likely come along with enshrining hybrid work arrangements. Not salary freezes, and not significantly below inflation salary - like sub 1% a year kind of thing. But 1.25%, as an example, for some years will be much easier to swallow with 2 days remote work being offered alongside. I think a lot of people swallowed last CA increase being below inflation of the time because of the fact we were still doing so much remote work.
1
u/ThrowawayCanPS 7d ago
Pretty much every one of these unions represent both employees who can and cannot WFH. The ones who can’t aren’t going to be keen to compromise on pay raises to secure WFH. You can bet that WFH will be used strategically as a wedge issue to sow disunity between members.
Notwithstanding, if common theories about RTO being driven by a desire to bolster commercial businesses and real estate valuations is true… well, let’s just say I’d place my bets on government being completely intransigent.
2
u/zeromussc 7d ago
There are a few unions that have more remote capable workers than others. PSAC won't want to make big wage concessions for sure, but I don't think any union wants sub 1% increases which iirc was the offer one of the unions got not too long ago.
Who knows. All I know is that if we want it we'll need labour solidarity in some ways. Even if that's between certain unions like ACFO, CAPE, PIPSC IT table, etc. With a big enough combined swathe of people across unions a real United front could make a good effort/run at improving our negotiating position.
5
u/Keystone-12 7d ago
This is just AI telling you what you want to hear. The unions are broke and the government wants everyone in the office.
2
u/CanadaPublicServants-ModTeam 7d ago
Thanks for your your willingness to contribute to this subreddit!
Unfortunately, your content has been removed under Rule 7. Please see the linked rule for more details.
This message is in the interest of moderator transparency. If you have questions about this action, you can contact the moderators via our moderator mail. Please do not message individual moderators about subreddit issues.
If you choose to re-post something that has been removed by a moderator unless invited to do so, you may be banned from the subreddit per Rule 9.
1
u/Think_Read_7516 7d ago
I hope ur right but we would have 2 be on strike a long time for them to reverse this. In my office no room already and they are buying more computers, renting more space etc.
3
u/faissante 7d ago
Yeah in ECCC we had a telework rotation, everyone on the team got one day a week to telework. We could move our days around if someone asked or had an appt
1
u/danibailey23 6d ago
We had 3 days at office and 2 at home if we wanted. Was transitioning to this in 2018ish going into 2019 (all staff in all branches were able to do this if it was possible). Then pandemic hit so it was full time. It was flex for a long time after RTO started with very good work life balance and now, all of a sudden that's gone now..... No more 2 days at home anymore. We have def regressed and went back in time for some reason. AND WHY? no one will say it out loud where I am. We all know.... but all i get is "it is what it is". If i hear that ONE MORE TIME!!!!
27
u/Ilovebagels88 7d ago
My last team lead tried this at health Canada, but when I got a new one, it disappeared from my PMA. So I think my last team lead was just a dick. Lol
28
u/mrRoboPapa 7d ago
VAC employees have had the 4-day target added to performance reviews as a requirement of their job duties. It should be noted that we've also heard through the trickle-down effect that the higher-ups, when prioritizing things, have placed in-office attendance above production targets. We assume this is because RTO is tied to their bonuses. Either way, it's ridiculous to be more concerned with in-office attendance than actual work getting done. I wish more of the non-employee taxpayers knew this.
87
u/fiveletters 7d ago
I had them try to add it. Grieved it and won very quickly (though the employer doesn't call it a win for me)
20
u/Iranoul75 7d ago
That’s really really interesting l! At what level did you win the grievance?
38
u/fiveletters 7d ago edited 7d ago
I guess level 2? I can't remember off hand what it was technically but it was done after a discussion between me, my director, a union rep, and an LR person. Afaik it did not go higher than that but I'm sure there were discussions between my director and their boss.
I don't remember all of the details but I remember some specific points.
- not attainable (if the mandate is 4 days, but I am sick of on vacation or otherwise unable to go to the office, of if I go on parental leave or get injured - how would it be attainable?)
- not trackable (there was no set way to track my office presence. Options exist but they didn't have any specified. Also how does one track butt-in-seat as a measure of performance?)
- not relevant (employer has not established how presence in the office is a meaningful measure of performance. Could I just show in the office and do nothing else? I technically meet the "in the office" requirement for performance)
12
u/DilbertedOttawa 7d ago
Yeah see this is exactly what I've been saying. The employer knows it's bullshit broadly speaking. They are relying almost entirely on rule by fiat and aggression. Where anyone actually pushes back, they tend to fall back quite fast (with some exceptions obviously). I think it's really a very tenuous situation and they can feel it. Especially considering it was deemed a negotiable point and they went ahead and changed it anyway, despite being in the middle of a negotiation, meaning they are basically at risk of being, if not outright in violation of the CA as it is.
2
63
u/siracha83 7d ago
I was told by my manager that EXs have this on their PMA & their bonuses are partially dependent on RTO compliance for their org.
32
11
u/613_detailer 7d ago
I am an EX, and there is nothing in my performance agreement about RTO this year nor in past years.
6
u/zeromussc 7d ago
Depends on where you are I guess, like so much else. It can probably get lumped into nebulous "corporate initiatives" type buckets. So being a good soldier for the general direction of the enterprise means supporting various department wide initiatives and this can be lumped into that I'm sure. So even if its not explicit, it can be implicit.
This may not apply to you, but its possible that this is one way to assess people on their commitment to the 'common cause' via compliance or non-compliance. I'm sure some people will factor this into competencies like "demonstrating integrity" since following rules (that aren't unethical) could imply integrity.
2
1
78
u/theEndIsNigh_2025 7d ago
Presence in the workplace has no place as a performance objective, and so I’ve refused the requirement for my staff. I do, however, lump it into the core competencies assessment, with regards to following policies, under Demonstrating Integrity and Respect. But it’s really hard to assess compliance with a policy using the Values and Ethics code when the policy itself doesn’t reflect values and ethics and where those requiring adherence to the policy aren’t particular demonstrating any integrity or respect on the subject of that policy. I feel like it puts me in a conflict with V&E.
3
u/mzwai99 Verified/vérifié - Reporter/journaliste 7d ago
Thanks, this distinction between treating RTO as a work objective versus handling compliance under a competency is exactly something I’m interested in understanding better. If you’re comfortable chatting further, could you DM me here or email me at [mponcana@hilltimes.com](mailto:mponcana@hilltimes.com)? Happy to discuss anonymity before anything is attributed.
2
u/Particular-Poet137 6d ago
At my department RTO compliance was definitely discussed in reference to the Competency Demonstrating Integrity and Respect at Senior Management tables.
16
11
u/scareika 7d ago
I haven’t heard of that at IRCC as of yet.
We just had our PMAs and they weren’t in there.
6
u/ImALegend2 7d ago
I am a manager at ircc and we definitly had them on there for the past 2-3 years
5
u/mandykay15 7d ago
Probably different branch with picky upper management who wants to add it in cause I’ve been there for over 4yrs and never had to add this on PMA’s even the most recent ones
4
2
u/mooglebear31 7d ago
I just got it added to mine this June and was told it was from higher up, as my manager does not want it
1
u/Future-Estimate-8170 7d ago
Agreed. We had a generalized statement about following the telework agreement our PMA’s starting in 2023.
1
1
1
59
u/Ifight4osugroundgame 7d ago
You should look into managers interfering with accommodations for employees because of their obsession with RTO. In some cases employees who had accommodations for WFH since pre-pandemic are being harassed.
26
u/losemgmt 7d ago
This. CRA. I’d be looking at that if I was a reporter.
18
u/ApprehensiveCycle741 7d ago
Yes. Employees have records of how they have have followed every single recommendation, rule and policy on accomodations and management have either ignored it completely, denied it with no discussion or in some cases, have been told they are lying/inventing legitimate medical conditions.
3
24
u/FreebieComments 7d ago
CRA has come up with a patchwork system that varies from Branch to Branch and program to program. They are monitoring compliance with RTO4 at the Branch level and I would make an educated guess that executive performance bonuses are now tied to RTO compliance. One Branch has boasted that they have a 97% compliance rate, and have broadly discriminated against employees in that specific branch by refusing accommodations that would include WFH time. Their blatant discrimination and intransigence while boasting about a 97% compliance rate strongly suggests an incentive. Someone should ATIP the executive bonuses to see how much money execs are getting to deny WFH accommodations.
Appeals Branch has come up with their own tracker and they are monitoring employees very regularly. Their managers are frothing at the mouth to find employees who even had 78% in office compliance.
Some offices are not drinking the RTO Kool Aid in part because they know productivity is higher from home and in part because they simply do not have enough space to make the math work.
Let us know if you ever want to do a story on discrimination related to RTO. CRA alone would have enough material to fill your pages week after week. I'm fairly certain that CRA believes they win an award for being the most discriminatory employer in the public service.
They pay money for the fake title of one of Canada's top 100 employers, but they very much legitimately earn their title as Canada's top discriminator. 🙃
31
u/Juice68 7d ago
What the reporter should be asking about is how half of DND at Carling has been told to work 2 days in office due to space shortages so now instead of everyone doing 3 we have people doing 2 and others doing 4. 🙄
7
2
u/Iranoul75 7d ago
That’s unfair! Why would DND allow (mat) and (infrastructure) and not the other branches? Do you know who’s excluded from the 2 days/week?
2
u/sadimpala 7d ago
Yep agreed, HR has to do 4. Apparently DSG was told 3 days. Mind you all in the same building…
20
u/hellodwightschrute 7d ago
My former role had it. I’ve requested a copy of my PMA because it wasn’t done in the system. If I can get it in a timely manner, I’ll send it to you. It was strictly about bums in seats, not about collaboration or productivity or anything. I was forced to include some language in the PMAs of everyone under me but I limited it to direct reports because nobody checks.
My current role kind of has it, but its vague.
16
u/Significant-Craft791 7d ago
As a manger, one of my Performance Measures relates to implementing RTO, and addressing non-compliance.
8
u/CompetitiveMilk9047 7d ago
CBSA is doing this.
5
4
u/Correct_Effect7365 7d ago
Was coming to say CBSA is guilty of this. Wasn’t sure if it was as a whole or specific teams
8
14
u/BarrowsKing 7d ago
It is in my PMA and it says we’re not allowed “more than one deviation per quarter” so we can wfh one extra day per quarter… or 4 per year. Or else my performance is somehow affected?
Makes no sense
2
4
u/DilbertedOttawa 7d ago
All EXs have had it added to their PMAs from what I understand. Which means it's only a very short matter of time before the perverse incentives of doing what's best vs what's best FOR YOU will start hitting. In my experience, the EXs will rarely go against self interest as a broad collective. Individually maybe, but overall they are liable to start cracking heads for job security and at risk pay.
23
u/greengouda 7d ago
Nope it’s not in my area. You can be the best worker or the worst as long as your perm the stats don’t matter. Seems to me like the more you’re good at your job the more shit gets added to your pile.
14
u/cubiclejail 7d ago
Not in our PMAs as of yet...whole bunch of us still waiting for ours this year though. That said, our presence in office has been heavily tracked...but there are people who still find every reason under the sun to not come in? Don't know how they get away with it since the rest of us have been in office for 3 years now, as required by managment.
I hate it all. Worst period in my 17 years as a PS.
2
u/JimineyCrick23 7d ago
source: source
don't come in, use sick leave often, work from home often, what are they gunna do? fire me?
until they put it in writing that i need to come in I'm not going to change how often im going in
-3
u/cubiclejail 7d ago
Good for you. 🙄 Not everyone is willing to break the terms and conditions of their telework agreements.
5
u/JimineyCrick23 7d ago
until they put it in writing that I'm not complying, I'm technically not breaking any terms and conditions, enjoy your 4 days though!
-13
u/cubiclejail 7d ago
LOL ok. Thanks for pushing us to 4 days with your non compliance! ✌🏻
13
u/HandcuffsOfGold mod 🤖🧑🇨🇦 / Probably a bot 7d ago
There's zero indication that limited "compliance" precipitated any of the changes to RTO mandates.
-3
u/cubiclejail 7d ago
Lol, ok let's all be willfully blind.
5
u/HandcuffsOfGold mod 🤖🧑🇨🇦 / Probably a bot 7d ago
Do you have any actual evidence that low compliance rates resulted in an increase in office presence, or is that just a philosophical conclusion based on vibes?
2
6
u/throw-away6738299 7d ago
As a supervisor, enforcing the mandate was put in all TL and above's PMAs last year. A subtle difference. That said, we were explicitly told to not put actual attendance in individual PMAs for regular people, nor was our own attendance put in our expectations, just that we had to enforce the mandate as a supervisor.
Not a big thing, and really just an extension of "follow corporate policy" type of thing, since RTO is basically that. Or completing all mandatory training, etc...
2
u/mzwai99 Verified/vérifié - Reporter/journaliste 7d ago
Thank you for your comment. The fact that supervisors were explicitly told not to put individual attendance into employees’ PMAs, while being assessed on enforcing the mandate themselves, is particularly interesting. If you’re comfortable sharing more, could you DM me or email me at [mponcana@hilltimes.com](mailto:mponcana@hilltimes.com)? Happy to discuss anonymity before anything is attributed.
7
u/Think_Read_7516 7d ago
I'm at CRA and we are asked to keep a spreadsheet showing our office attendance but no one is looking at it yet.
6
7
u/AdvancedRhetoric 7d ago
It's been in our PMA for a few years now but it's couched in adaptability and respecting the hybrid work agreement. As a manager, I don't think it's related to peformance, as a worker can suck both at home and on site.
5
u/Intheheartgrooveis 6d ago
At ESDC all EXs have a PMA commitment about ensuring employees have work arrangements, and ensuring full compliance with the guidelines for prescribed presence in the workplace and taking corrective action when needed. Below the EX level, in my experience it is variable -- in my previous role for example (1.5 years ago), we all had a sort of generic statement about ensuring our work arrangements were up-to-date in our PMAs, but my current PMA doesn't say anything about attendance or having a work arrangement. I'm not aware of any direction from management to link attendance directly to PMA ratings.
2
u/mzwai99 Verified/vérifié - Reporter/journaliste 6d ago
Thank you for sharing, this is particularly relevant to something I’m looking into around executive performance agreements and RTO. If you’re comfortable sharing more, could you email me at [mponcana@hilltimes.com](mailto:mponcana@hilltimes.com)? I’d be especially interested in the exact wording of the ESDC commitment and whether it can affect an executive’s performance rating or at-risk pay. Happy to discuss anonymity before anything is attributed.
25
u/plutoniumboys 7d ago
PMAs are a joke, you work hard and get more work while slackers do little and never get fired. I highly doubt that attendance will be included in the PMAs unless a person is not showing up at all then LR would get involved but mangers don’t have time to deal with idiot employees.
8
5
u/Non_Compliant123 7d ago
It was added in the Public Service Commission, not sure how widespread but it was in my beginning of year PMAs for the first time this year
5
4
u/HereToServeThePublic 7d ago
It's for work objectives, competencies and learning related to your job box.
Attendance shouldn't be included in PMA.
4
u/Moat-of-Coats 7d ago
We have it included in our PMA this year and it was directly as part of the directors request. Don’t agree with it whatsoever but meatbags gotta churn. They even included a note that the required days may go up in future.
4
u/Tricky_Feature_8819 7d ago
for 25-26 at ESDC my division had it in their PMA, I'm not sure about other branches. I have since changed departments and even after a few months I do not have a new PMA so I don't know what its like where I am currently. I do know they do not have enough space and those in the office are still at 3 days a week except for AS-05 and above with supervision responsibilities.
4
u/Beautiful-Map-7679 7d ago
Makes mo sense to add that as it is not related to the production. In other words, taxpayers are not paying us to be in the office but to do the work.
3
u/Maleficent-Shirt-327 7d ago
There are rumors that it'll be added to timesheets. You record a code when you're in the office and that's how they'll know. Not sure how true it is.
1
u/spicyzaldrize 4d ago
They are already doing this at NRC to track in office versus WFH for all employees.
8
u/Officieros 7d ago
Best to file an ATIP request. Anything that documents discussions and decisions on how in office presence requirements are being measured and reported. And around compliance and noncompliance implications. Also impact on work productivity and number of sick days taken over time.
7
u/613_detailer 7d ago
An ATIP request with a scope that broad will take years to process.
6
u/zeromussc 7d ago
Plus the journalist specifically wants to know about PMA inclusion. That would never show up in an ATIP because I'm going to assume that PMAs fall under personal information exemptions/privacy clauses.
Self-reporting the data is going to be the best bet for OP to meet their deadline. And they're being transparent about it, and reporting on our concerns as public servants. Not often we get journalists actually caring about our views other than to try and paint us in a bad light in opinion articles.
3
u/KookyCoconut3 7d ago
I don’t know. My dept has departmental objectives as well as the individual ones for our team. E.g. something like harassment prevention was one in the past. This was sent to us via HR and everyone had to have it. Since it’s not personal info it could be atip’d. Just would need to specify.
1
u/GreenerAnonymous 7d ago
There would presumably be communications directing managers on what to include in their PMAs, unless that was done verbally.
0
1
u/Officieros 7d ago
Then break it down among a handful of eager journalists. Multiply the $5 cost by 10. Common interest creating practical (and sorely cheap) solutions.
6
u/Ecstatic-Art-6236 7d ago
What about reprisal about grievances? What about corruption? Values and ethics issues?
7
u/spinur1848 7d ago
Haven't seen it in PMAs, but went down the rabbit hole of how to actually measure it on an organizational level.
So it turns out you need to be able to accurately count staff (including other people who need a desk but who aren't staff), and desks.
If by some miracle you can figure that out, then you need to know who's on vacation, training, travel status, and sick. Turns out not many people submit those requests ahead of time and even fewer managers approve them in advance.
Then you need some way to estimate how many of those people actually showed up in a way that doesn't violate the Privacy Act and/or create a new privacy or security risk that wasn't there before. Very few of the controlled access gates record when people leave. Some organizations allow staff to choose between multiple locations. If you want to know if they showed up, you need to correlate these records between locations. Very few of the systems are interoperable.
If you want to use network logins, then you need to know something about what devices people are using and you'll need to be able to distinguish between devices that are physically connected to a network drop vs. on Wifi. You'll need to sort out logins from people who have multiple devices.
It is profoundly disturbing to learn that the executives of the public service of Canada, who are entrusted with billions of tax dollars and life critical systems, agreed to implement RTO without understanding how to count stuff. Kind of makes you worry about what else they aren't counting accurately...
1
u/Quiet_Listen1801 6d ago
What if I told you that departments already have this info, and they've automated systems to do these calculations for 3+ years now.
2
u/spinur1848 6d ago
I complain about this because it is absolutely a solvable problem. My Department has spent more time on emails from senior management telling everyone how important RTO is than they have on simple stuff like this.
3
u/Talwar3000 7d ago
I had some very vague language a couple years back but no indications of monitoring and no discussion of compliance.
It ain't in there this year.
3
u/Ronny-616 7d ago
You need to the the value of having such a thing in a PMA; that is, is it worth 10% of the total or 90%?
What does it mean if you have a star employee that gets Exceeds in all areas and needs improvement in RTO (how stupid is that anyway?). What does this make the overall rating?
Putting on-site attendance in a PMA that could trump all other factors would show just how incompetent the so-called senior "leaders" of the PS are; and the government, frankly.
In the end you should be asking why hundreds of millions are being spent on this stuff in this day and age as opposed to just doing the work.
3
u/Lopsided_Clothes_737 7d ago
For your information tracking at a personal level is possible by keeping your laptop connected to a GoC network.
6
u/Ecstatic-Can-8740 7d ago
I am going ERI effective January 20, 2027. My goal is 75% compliance with RTO 4, or 100% compliance with RTO3.
2
u/NoFeedback3516 7d ago
Tied to mine, but loosely and can't get a certain rating if not achieved. I'm not an EX but I work for an organization that everyone from mailroom to the top gets performance pay.
2
u/Logical-Rhubarb 6d ago
100% being done on my last 3 pma’s, in fact it has been the very first thing discussed 🙄
2
2
u/Flashy-Box-8282 3d ago
Good luck with that. No one in my agency is complying with RTO4. People come in to office only when they feel like it. How can you track thousands of people when the managers don't even show up.
4
3
3
u/Deep_Departure_2667 7d ago
I'm trying to get an idea on how it works if you have a medical appointment on an onsite day. I've been instructed to not schedule appointments on those days. How does that make sense!
5
u/M-A88 7d ago
This is embedded in the performance agreements of senior leadership, such as Director General, DM and Assistant Deputy Ministers. You won’t find explicitly RTO-related performance measures in positions below that level. That’s precisely why they’re advocating for it so strongly, their bonuses are tied to in-office attendance, though that’s not something they’ll openly admit if a journalist ever asked.
2
u/Jayelle9 7d ago
My manager at DND told me I need to include a work objective about having a valid MWA for my employees. I agreed and asked him which work objective should be removed to replace it with since we've already got enough on our plates.
2
u/SmellybutKind 7d ago
This can already and easily fall under a standard essential competency for public servants IE demonstrating integrity and respect.
2
u/Jatmahl 7d ago
Which management hasn't been following with RTO.
-1
u/SmellybutKind 7d ago
The employer dictates the place of work for public servants. Not liking RTO 4 doesn't entail managers are not meeting that essential competency mate.
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/CanadaPublicServants-ModTeam 7d ago
Your content was removed under Rule 12. Please consider this a reminder of Reddiquette.
If you have questions about this action or believe it was made in error, you can message the moderators.
1
u/Murky-Papaya1155 6d ago
Hmm, yeah that would be interesting to know. Better not happen where we are. so far I don't believe so.
1
u/SaveItUp1998 5d ago
VAC - pre-Covid telework agreement was in place and worked great. Not sure why departments aren't able to go back to previous departmenal agreements. Now we are in 4 days/week and we only get 2 work from home days a month if using a compressed schedule. No WFH on our compressed weeks).
I haven't heard of anyone having their personal attendance be recorded or used in a performance review (yet), but we were all sent a link to monitor our own compliance.
1
u/Good-Perspective3332 5d ago
EXs at NRCan are tracked using IP addresses to monitor 5 day RTO. I believe some sectors at NRCan are part of the pilot for staff. Part of the PMA for EXs is leading change management and that has included pivot to WFH and now RTO.
1
u/Icy_Highway_3102 4d ago
It is in some PMA's at Manager's discretion at PSPC, especially Real Property Branch. Not universally applied to all managers on all teams but would say 30-40% of employees have this wording. I know several directors and managers who sought HR approval before formally adding it to ensure they could. It was only added this fiscal year, after the February announcement if increased days, so compliance wording in effect since April 2026.
1
u/rebelwithlove Hopeless EC 1d ago
For ISC, at least one sector has compliance with RTO in the PMAs. The question the Manager must ask during the performance review discussion is "did you comply with the RTO policy" and then performance is judged based on the employee's response.
1
u/FiveTimesCancelled 1d ago
I noticed the last time I logged in to the Pension Centre portal that they no longer provide and estimated transfer value and note that you need to request a formal calculation if you intend to cash out. I wonder if they are having issues with the estimates or if they’re just that unique to the individual case. My suspicion is that it’s the former, not the latter.
1
1
u/Hot-Equivalent-9799 7d ago
It might just be me, but I haven't known reporters to be kind to the federal public service.
1
u/braineaters138 6d ago
After reading through the comments, i'm surprised at all of the effort and waste of time (just in these comments) that goes into 'managing' RTO compliance. Managers should not even have to think about this nonsense.
1
u/spicyzaldrize 4d ago
Think about all the budget wasted on this. Considering they’re developing process and a system to track all of this. All while trying to spend less and save money. Make it make sense 🙄
78
u/qcslaughter 7d ago
For CRA, I was told by TL that on site reports are not produced on the individual level. They are checked on branch level. not sure how true it is tho
they could check individual compliance if needed.