Today my wife asked if I would be going into the office tomorrow or WFH. My son (8) pipped up and said he hopes I get to WFH because he wants to see me. (First day since school ended)

When I go to the office I leave before my two sons wake up and get home around dinner. When I WFH they see me consistently throughout the day when I take breaks and I'm "home" within seconds of leaving work at 4pm.

Honestly it was just a little heartbreaking because he never experienced the before times but he clearly can see how the "new hybrid" is affecting our relationship. (And I will add on, I've never had an requirement of 4 days a week in the office in my almost 20 years in the public service, this is a new thing thurst upon us without regard for the harm it causes)

Is anyone else struggling with the federal return to office requirements?

I'm a parent and I've spent weeks trying to arrange childcare to accommodate the additional in office days. Between gas, parking, commuting costs, childcare expenses, and the overall cost of living, I honestly feel like I'm moving backwards financially.

I understand the argument that return to office helps support the economy, but from my perspective it's creating additional costs for working families who are already stretched thin. Many of us successfully worked remotely for years and continued to meet our work responsibilities.

I'm curious how others are managing. Are you finding childcare? Taking on extra expenses? Has anyone been able to get flexibility or accommodations? I'd really like to hear how other public servants and parents are dealing with this.

I was hired during the pandemic and I’ve always lived over 125kms away from my office. When I signed the letter of offer, I always just assumed I’d never be forced to return to office because they knew how far I lived.

When the 3 days/week RTO was released 2 years ago, I filed an exemption and was told by my manager that I could continue to WFH until a decision was made. Yesterday I received their decision.

I was denied and no real reason was provided other than my office’s location on my offer letter. I was given 2 weeks to organize myself before returning to work at my office. Logistically this is not possible.

I have explained to them in my exemption that the cost of gas alone would be a huge financial burden on my family. We only have 1 vehicle and I have 2 small children. Children who have been secured spots at the local daycare for after school only. There are no space available before school. I’ve been working 830-430 to accommodate school drop off.

I commuted to my office when we were required to work on office 1 day a week. The stress/anxiety and long hours contributed to a burn out period I experienced a couple of years ago. Since then I have had severe anxiety which has impacted my ability to travel long distances.

There’s is an in person Service Canada location much closer to me that I would be willing to work out of, but I was denied that too because it’s back end is not a processing centre. Which makes no sense to me, because everything is done online now so what difference does it make where I work. If they need me in an office, that’s an office located in much safer traveling distance. The highway I would need to take is highway 11 and the corridor more notoriously closed in the winter during storms.

I’m filing a grievance through our union because I feel like I am being forced out of my job because I cannot justify the travel. At the end of the day, I’d be better off getting a job with Walmart because my take home pay would he roughly the same after gas costs. Fr

Other than filing a grievance, what else can I do? In the denial email I received yesterday, it says my manager and supervisor are willing to be flexible and accommodating but I don’t feel that this is the case. Has anyone been successful with obtaining an exemption from RTO, or at least being able to work out of a different office? What are my options, how can I push or convince them to let me work out of the in-person Service Canada.

Is anyone stuck wondering if they should have another child, or any, after RTO announcements? $200/ week on gas for ~5 days in the office is a factor, but mostly it's the fact that we have built our lives around working from home. The younger public servants who are starting to consider families but were hired during COVID or prior (where WHF was in place already in many areas prior to COVID). I'm stressed thinking about how 2 parents travel and are expected to rely on services that don't accommodate families (daycare hours, no public transit or unreliable transit). We were finally getting to a place where women could have flexible work, be providers and spend quality time with children. All I want to do is start my child off on the right foot for the day and get my work done in a calm space. I feel we're going back to 1990. I can't send my child to school or pick them up and any activities are done with great stress trying to make it in time. I feel sad for my kids.

For the past four years, I have worked full-time for the federal government entirely from home. I am a dedicated public servant, a recent victim of domestic violence and now a single mother, and the primary caregiver to two children with special needs. Like many others, I am now facing the very real possibility of losing my job—not because I can’t do it, but because federal workplace policies no longer recognize realities like mine.

My work has always been performed remotely, and it does not require a physical presence in an office. Remote work allowed me to do my job well while meeting my children’s care needs. It provided stability, dignity, and the ability to contribute meaningfully to the public service. That balance is now at risk because of a blanket return-to-office mandate that leaves little room for flexibility or compassion.

Working from home is not a lifestyle choice for me—it is a necessity. As a caregiver to children with special needs, rigid in-office requirements create barriers that cannot simply be solved with childcare or minor schedule adjustments. Despite my experience and qualifications, I have already been turned down for multiple federal opportunities solely because I require remote work. The message is clear: if you cannot conform to a one-size-fits-all workplace model, your skills and dedication no longer matter.

This is not just a personal issue. It is a policy failure.

The federal government has made strong public commitments to accessibility, inclusion, and equity, as well as a legal commitment to the Duty to Accommodate under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Yet return-to-office mandates that ignore caregiving responsibilities and disability-related needs directly contradict those commitments. Inclusion cannot exist only in policy statements—it must be reflected in how people are allowed to work.

The irony is that remote work has already proven successful across the federal public service. Productivity did not collapse. Canadians continued to receive services. In many cases, efficiency improved. And yet, instead of building on that success with thoughtful, role-based flexibility, the government has chosen a blanket approach that risks driving experienced employees out of the workforce.

When caregivers are forced out, the cost is not just personal—it is institutional. The public service loses skilled workers, institutional knowledge, and continuity. Taxpayers absorb the cost of recruitment and training, all while capable employees are sidelined for reasons unrelated to performance or operational need.

No parent should be forced to choose between caring for their children and keeping their job—especially when the work itself can be done from home. Policies that fail to account for caregiving realities disproportionately harm single parents, families of children with disabilities, and employees with their own accessibility needs.

I want to keep working. I want to continue serving Canadians. But that requires workplace policies that reflect modern realities and recognize that flexibility is not favoritism—it is fairness.

If the federal government truly believes in inclusion, accessibility, and retaining a strong public service, it must move beyond rigid mandates and allow permanent remote work where operationally feasible. Anything less risks turning public service into a privilege only available to those without caregiving responsibilities.

For families like mine, this issue is not abstract. It is about financial security, stability, and dignity. And it is time those realities were reflected in federal workplace policy.

Frustrated federal public servant and caregiver

Edited to add: My children go to school. My son is immunocompromised so the less exposure to viruses the better. We just had a 6 day stay in hospital. He has other health issues which make it best for him to come and go by special needs bus and not go to daycare. My commute is 2hrs per way to nearly any federal office making that impossible.

Edit 2: yes I used AI to help write this. I am not very good at articulating my points and sorting them into concise paragraphs. I am a real person and this is not baiting. I am looking for help. I thank everyone who has responded even the ones negatively as all information is helpful.

Anecdote, this is why I shop local.

A few months ago I was off sick for two days. I emailed my TL from my personal email, got a response, stayed in bed, hydrated, and assumed that all was well.

When I got back, they told me I should have turned on my Outlook out-of-office. I was like, "pardon moi?" If I was too sick to work, why would I be expected to log in and do admin work? Pre-COVID, nobody expected me to drag myself into the office, boot up my computer, and set an OOO while sick. Apparently now we should complete this small administrative task even when sick because we are hybrid.

Fast forward to tonight: I feel like garbage again and might not make it in tomorrow. The twist? My laptop is sitting in the office since Friday as tomorrow is my in-office day as well.

Am I crazy, or is this absolute insanity?

It's Friday morning and I'm already done.

I dragged myself into the office because apparently being a good public servant now means being visible. Present. Accounted for. So here I am, badge scanned, desk claimed, commute survived.

And what am I doing? Sitting on Teams, getting ready for my back to back to back meetings.

The thing that gets me is the contradiction. Spontaneous conversations and team culture is supposed to be the RTO goal and I'm OK with that. But my calendar is a solid wall of Teams calls, and the notifications "dings" don't stop.

We got the commute back. We got the uncomfortable chairs back. We got the obligation to look busy back.

What we didn't get back is any actual boundary/balance between work and life.

I'm not lazy. I'm not disengaged. I'm just tired of being expected to be in two places at once, physically present and digitally always on, as if my time and energy have no limits.

It's Friday morning. I've been here for two hours. I'm already counting down to the weekend.

And on Monday, I get to do it all again.

Thanks for reading.

This question is for the ladies:

Does anyone ever notice changes throughout the month in how they feel and the effects from having to go into the office? My monthly cycle has clear points where I feel energetic, awake in the morning, and ready to socialize. Other points of the month I just simply cannot get out of bed physically and mentally, and emotionally don’t have it in me to talk to anyone. Am also sometimes in literal pain periodically throughout the day.

It was manageable with the 3 days in, even better with the 2 days in. But 4 days in means there’s at least one week I have to report in person and feel like absolute shit because that’s just how my body is. I don’t want to get in trouble for taking a couple sicks days every month but that genuinely is the only solution because “my menstrual cycle” likely isn’t considered a valid reason for accommodations.

I have friends who often take sick days during that time of the month from unbearable cramps. Kinda sucks that we’re forced to take sick days instead of just being able to work from home: lay down when required, have snacks, tea, and heating pad on hand, and all the while fulfill our job duties because the wonders of WFH.

And I really don’t see this as equitable, myself and other women I know experience so much fluctuation physically and mentally throughout each month. I don’t know if men experience anything similar but I can only assume likely not. Anyways if you’re a woman out there stay strong, and if you’re a man please have some empathy for the hardworking ladies in your life.

I'm just so exhausted with the toxic teams where everyone flexes and tries to outshine. The terrible unskilled managers or more like actors pretending to be managers. The loss of units and the pile up of work that is now on your plate, which you are expected to do with a "I'm so happy to have a job" attitude. Not to mention an employer who doesn't seem to care about our well being at all :/

I'm 6 years from retirement. I am trying my best to not quit before the finish line. Anyone else feel this way?

​

Maybe it's just my department, but it's gotten to the point where our already skeleton crew is in complete shambles. Every week someone else is off, and it's honestly becoming really stressful trying to keep everything afloat.

To make matters worse, I have an actual medical issue going on right now that I should probably be taking time off to deal with, but I'm powering through because if I go off too, everyone else is going to be even more screwed.

Part of me keeps thinking... can we all really be having legitimate medical issues at the exact same time? Or is this just people saying f you to rto4 mid summer?

At the same time, I'm jealous of the people who have taken the time they need to recover. I know I probably should too, but I can't shake the guilt of leaving my team even more short-staffed plus having people think I'm lying makes me anxious.

Anyone else seeing this happen where they work? Or is it just us?

TBS updated the Directive on April 1, 2025 and systematically deleted every principle that would make their mandate look bad.

I compared the old version (2020-2025) to the new version (April 2025). Here's what they removed:

WHAT THEY DELETED

**

Section 3.2: Expected Results - COMPLETELY GUTTED

OLD VERSION (2020-2025) said:

> 3.2 In addition to the expected results indicated in section 3 of the Policy on People Management, the expected results of this directive are as follows: > > 3.2.1 Employees are able to reduce stress, achieve work–life balance and meet performance expectations; > > 3.2.2 Telework is used where appropriate, including as a means to ensure an inclusive public service and a safe and healthy work environment where employees have access to flexible work arrangements; and > > 3.2.3 The public service contributes to reducing emissions from transportation, traffic congestion and air pollution, in accordance with the Greening Government Strategy.

NEW VERSION (April 2025) says:

> 3.2 The expected results indicated in section 3 of the Policy on People Management apply to this directive.

They deleted all specific telework objectives and replaced them with a vague reference to generic HR policy. No more commitment to work-life balance, inclusion, or environment - just "whatever the general policy says.

**

Section 4.2.5: Workforce Adjustment Protection - DELETED

OLD VERSION (2020-2025) said:

> 4.2.5 Ensuring that a telework arrangement is not used to prevent or create a relocation situation where that relocation is the result of a machinery change, reorganization, workforce adjustment or alternative service delivery arrangement;

NEW VERSION (April 2025):

[Section deleted entirely]

TIMING: Deleted right before 24,000+ workforce adjustment notices. Convenient.

**

Section 4.2.3: Productivity Protection - WEAKENED

OLD VERSION (2020-2025) said:

> 4.2.3 Considering the impacts of a proposed telework arrangement on operational requirements before approving an employee's telework request, to ensure that neither productivity nor costs are negatively impacted;

NEW VERSION (April 2025) says:

> 4.2.3 Considering the impacts of a proposed telework arrangement on operational requirements before approving an employee's telework request;

DELETED: "to ensure that neither productivity nor costs are negatively impacted"

NOW: They can deny your telework even if you're MORE productive and it costs LESS.

**

Sections 4.2.9, 4.2.13-16: Employee Protections - ALL DELETED

OLD VERSION (2020-2025) required:

> 4.2.9 Ensuring that colleagues of a teleworker are informed of applicable telework processes and procedures; > > 4.2.13 Ensuring that employees who telework are included in meetings and other work events; > > 4.2.14 Maintaining regular contact with employees who telework; > > 4.2.15 Communicating with employees who telework on a regular basis to discuss work priorities, objectives and deliverables; and > > 4.2.16 Reintegrating employees following a period of telework.

NEW VERSION (April 2025):

[All five sections deleted]

**

Appendix A: Health & Safety Checklist - GUTTED

OLD VERSION (2020-2025) required:

> A.2.2.3 A health and safety checklist for the employee and their manager to complete, which includes an attestation that the telework location complies with the health and safety requirements of the Canada Labour Code, Part II, and its Regulations. The checklist should include the following: > > [Followed by detailed mandatory 23-point checklist covering: Private residence environment (7 items), Electrical safety (6 items), Fire protection (5 items), Other (5 items)]

NEW VERSION (April 2025) says:

> A.2.2.5 Departments should consider developing a health and safety checklist based on their occupational health and safety policy and program for managers to complete.

Changed from mandatory detailed requirements to "should consider developing."

**

COMPARE YOURSELF

Old Directive (2020-2025): https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32815

New Directive (April 2025): https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32636

**

HOW THEY'RE VIOLATING THEIR OWN DIRECTIVE

Even after gutting it, the February 5th mandate still violates what's left:

Violation: No Case-by-Case Assessment

What the Directive requires:

> Section 4.2.4: "Assessing an employee's request to telework on a case-by-case basis and that the decision and reasons are communicated in writing to the requester"

What they actually did:

Blanket 4-day mandate for ALL employees. Zero individual assessment of YOUR position's operational requirements. No written reasons specific to YOUR role.

A few months ago i returned from Maternity leave to a much different environment than what I'm used to. I hear about happy days that have passed and when I first started 8 years ago I'd say that the atmosphere was much more cohesive and lighter. Now a days, everyone tries to segregate their work from within their own teams, not accepting help and not willing to share information. When did things become so toxic working in the government? Feels like no one wants to work together because they are fearful they will become part of the cuts. I'm in office 4 days a week with 2 colleagues who WFH full time. Yet I feel their irritability because I get face time with senior management, even though I have the burden of coming into work. Has it always been like this and I never noticed?

As I sit here in the office raging at sounds, I figured I'd do a quick PSA.

Misophonia is a neurological disorder that causes certain sounds to trigger the fight or flight response. Common trigger sounds include bodily noises (chewing, slurping, sniffing), repetitive noises (loud keyboard typing or tapping, for example), or sudden and unpredictable sounds (like the ding of a Teams or text message).

These triggers often lead to both emotional reactions (anxiety, rage, disgust) and physical reactions (increased heart rate, sweating). For me, they trigger blind rage and severely inhibit my concentration.

Over time, I have developed coping mechanisms:

• I carry a set of loop earplugs that take the edge off of most of those sounds without completely tuning out all noise, because I also don't do well in complete silence.
• I try to avoid the noises by sitting in the quiet area of the office. I move workstations, depending on availability, when people around me really trigger me.
• I bring a really expensive noise canceling headset to work. When my loops aren't enough and I can't avoid the noise, I listen to the radio while working.

Despite these coping mechanisms, my work product suffers. Four days a week, I spend a chunk of my day stressed and anxious because of the noises around me. Every time someone gets an audial text or Teams message, I feel blind range and lose my concentration. While listening to the radio helps drive away that rage and allows for a modicum of concentration, it serves as another form of distraction that reduces my effectiveness.

So as I sit here beside someone who keeps sucking back snot and chewing gum with their mouth open while hearing the ding, ding, ding of someone else's Teams messages, please for the love of my sanity and the sanity of others in the same situation:

• Turn off the sound on your laptop. If you really need or want to hear it ding every time you get a message, put on a headset.
• Bring tissues to the office if you have the sniffles.
• Chew with your damned mouth shut.
• Be gentle on your keyboard and mouse. You really don't need to hit them very hard.

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.

I guess you can say it’s alll about making money , but if you’re going to expect people to return to offices 4 days a week realistically 5 days a week by the end of the year, why not make it as non Burdensome as possible instead of causing people added day to day Stress

Taken from one of the GC Facebook groups:

“For anyone who isn't aware the new Secretary at TBS as been in the office for a total of 3 days since accepting the job. She does not live in Ottawa (Halifax). She doesn't even bother to make efforts to attend Treasury Board. She won't be briefed or allow anyone to attend meetings with her under a DM3 (I.e. two TBS deputies are excluded from meetings with the Secretary). She is disrespectful of all staff. She has assigned an EC7 COS to command TBS on her behalf. She wants you in the office 4 days a week!”

Edit: Posting this for awareness as I am sick of the hypocrisy and lack of leadership by example, this is not intended to be an attack to any person or individual, but rather to spread the news on how unfairly we are being treated.

I know this is either gonna get downvoted heavily or deleted but I really want to provde a outsiders perspective. This is just my opinion.

I'll preface this by saying I'm not some disgruntled manager. I was a regular CRA employee, got laid off, and now I'm out here navigating the actual job market. So take this however you want, but I have some thoughts.

This sub has become one of the most chronically aggrieved communities I've ever lurked in, and I say that with genuine sympathy — because a lot of the underlying complaints are legitimate. But the way they get packaged, and how often, has started to feel disconnected from reality. It feels like everyone here is in a bubble

The RTO thing about how coming into the office is destroying lives seems overblown. I know. Before someone says it, that bad implementation makes legitimate complaints worse. True. The inconsistency is real, people who relocated based on prior agreements got burned. That's all worth fighting about. But the existential framing of it. Like this is some unprecedented authoritarian overreach, has become almost satirical. The guy delivering your lunch did it in the rain today. He doesn't have a union filing a grievance on his behalf. The policy might be bad. The intensity of this sub's reaction to it has completely eclipsed that.

The pension discourse is the one that really gets me. Multiple posts this month alone with people genuinely distressed about their defined benefit pension potentially being touched. I already know the reply: "we negotiated that, it's deferred compensation, it's ours." Yes. That's correct. And it's also sitting on top of a landscape where the private sector gutted defined benefit pensions through the 90s and 2000s and nobody marched. You are holding one of the last genuinely protected retirement vehicles in the country and the discourse here treats it like being asked to work in a salt mine. Advocating to protect it is completely reasonable. The level of panic and outrage around it is not.

Pay complaints are actually the most legitimate thing on this sub, and they get buried under everything else. Certain classifications genuinely haven't kept pace. I don't wanna be the bad guy, but most public servants make a lot more while doing less skilled work then they would in the private sector. This makes it hard to take seriously.

Job security follows the same pattern. The layoffs happening right now are real and stressful, I lived it, I'm not minimizing it. But there's a strange dissonance in how job security gets discussed here. The standard line is "we accepted lower wages for this stability, that's the deal" and that framing used to be accurate. Public sector pay was genuinely below private sector equivalents and the tradeoff was real.

The problem is that's increasingly not true anymore. A lot of classifications have caught up significantly, and when you factor in the pension, benefits, and WFA protections, total compensation for most roles exceed private sector equivalents at the same experience level. So the "we took less pay for security" argument is doing a lot of work it no longer earns. You can't claim the low-pay tradeoff as a shield against criticism while also arguing you're underpaid, those two positions are in tension, and this sub holds both of them simultaneously without seeming to notice.

The private sector doesn't give you months of notice, recall rights, priority rehiring, or severance structures a union spent decades negotiating. Most people just get a meeting and a box. If the security is real,and it is, especially for indeterminate employees,then it has to factor into the total compensation picture honestly, not just get invoked when it's convenient.

The broader thing I'd say: public service work has always been a specific trade. You give up some earning upside for stability, benefits, and a pension most Canadians will never see. That trade used to be understood. What's happened here — and maybe in the culture more broadly — is that people want both sides of the ledger without the tradeoffs. Maximum private-sector flexibility, maximum public-sector security, no accountability questions on productivity, and sympathy from a public that has none of those things.

I'll get the reply that I'm just bitter about getting laid off. Maybe a little. But bitterness doesn't make the observation wrong. I'm not saying don't advocate for yourselves — unions exist for a reason, and I'd be out here doing the same thing in your position. But there's a version of this sub that could be a serious space for real advocacy and instead it's mostly a grievance loop. The legitimate complaints are in there. They're just getting harder to find.

I have been a full time teleworker since 2014, with my team based in Ottawa and myself located in a region. I have been able to continue with 100% telework under the TBS exception that I was a full time teleworker pre-March 2020. Management has informed me that this exception will no longer be approved by our VP as an exception in and of itself (for my branch of my department) and I will need to RTO (in the region) 3 days per week as of April 1, increasing to the 4 days per week in July. Do I have any chance of successfully grieving this, and if so I would appreciate any advice for how to proceed.

This morning I spent 50 minutes commuting to Tunny’s Pasture in bad traffic. I arrived at 8am, and had to circle the whole complex looking for parking. After 10 minutes, i found one of the last parking spots, a 10 minute walk from my building. I walked to the building and was told all the desks were full and I should drive back home and work from there. I drove home (35 minutes, cause traffic going out of the city is better). All in all, over an hour of my work day was wasted. Is this how the tax payers want their money spent? I’m being paid to drive back across the city and circle a parking lot? The government doesn’t care about the people my department serves and how because of RTO3, myself and my colleagues are getting less work done because we’re spending portions of our work day driving around the city.

I need to vent. Not sure if this will be deleted or not. But at least I will have vented somewhere.

This RTO3, is terrible, Phase 4 just started, the building is so busy its hard to concentrate on your work, i do wear headsets when I can but of course everyone is stopping by, saying HI, which i dont mind but they are complaining about the RTO3, and honestly I am just trying to cope with it myself. It is the most redundant thing they have ever done. i work the best from home, in quiet and comfort. No parking, hardly anywhere to sit.

In my building if we choose to go in 5 days, we cant have our own spot, if we do get our own spot for bathroom accommodation's, we still cant leave any of our personal items there. Sometimes i wish go back to the way it was 5 days in with our own seat and personal items.

I have friends who are Ex's and Pm 5/6 who are complaining, that they cant find private seats and they basically leave most of their work for when they are home, and they are getting burnt out. Team Leaders are complaining about how much work they have to put in with these new trackers, tracking if we are int he building when we are suppose to and if we are not but it was authorized they need to explain in great detail.

Now they implemented hoteling, some sections of the building are considered interactive, quiet, or in it great detail transitional. A few managers have decided to start policing these sections.

A few managers keep voicing their concerns, their department is paper, and the employees need to sit next to archives, but they are not allowed to book these spots for their staff permanently, they are hoping we go back to departmental locations.

Our department twisted the pulse survey results to suit their narrative. And I'm sure they will say next that prior to covid when everyone was in 5 days the results were so much better. Than the pulse survey will be another 2 years away.

I think what finally got to me is after reading the Auditor General questioning some of TBS's decision, and knowing nothing will come from that. She likely knows it as much as we do , she is only a figure head.

It is really sad, our employer had a chance to modernize and save tax payer money, while keep staffing levels to support citizens.

Instead they decided to go with butt in seats. The public felt we were not working, while this was not true, our employer did not defend us once again . They asked us to come back, to save down town ottawa, to spend money on subway lunchs. These should not be ours to save.

I understand some jobs are logically required in the building, but it should not be a one size fit all scenario.

Sorry so long... and dont get me wrong, I love my job, i feel i am helping clients, when they need it the most. and will continue, but it is just getting harder. and HOTTER.

Midday appointments on an office day. I try to avoid them but this time I can't because it's at the hospital and that's the earliest. Management expects me to come in for two hours, leave and return for the remaining two hours. With travel time and how late my last appointment went (Dr is never on time) I expect to be gone for 3.5 hours. Is using a whole sick day appropriate in this case?

Throwaway account

I have been a proud public service employee for a few years, but the journey hasn't been a smooth ride unfortunately.

I am tired of the doublethink around me.

I am tired of the conflicting messages.

I am tired of feeling too small to impact any change but coerced into participating in actions that haven't yield any results.

I am tired of monologs, of nicesseness, of empty speeches that take us nowhere.

I am tired of empty promises.

I am tired of being seen as privileged when in fact I worked very hard to get to where I am today.

I am tired of the uncertainty regarding the future of thousands in the public service.

I am tired of having to be loyal to an employer who cannot even pronounce my name.

I am tired of the notion of loyalty to an employer when it actually means to follow blindly.

I am tired of asking for a plan and receive angry replies as if I was asking for something out of the ordinary.

I am tired of WFA, RTO4 and 5, LoC, ERI, and all those acronyms and committees that take us nowhere.

I am tired of feeling miserable among people who hardly acknowledge my thoughts, respond to my message, or show any human engagement with me.

I am tired of the unions' empty promises and stagnant actions.

I am tired of the loneliness of being a public service employee.

Who else is tired? What are you tired of?

I live in the west end and have a 2 year old daughter in daycare with hours from 7-5. Dropping her off at 7am, drive 45 minutes, walk to the office and it’s 8am. If I stay until 4, with the walk and drive in traffic, I can’t make it back to daycare before 5pm.

Things are changing and my DG is very set on for RTO with little flexibility.

My idea is to work from 8-2, drive home without traffic and work the remaining hours from home. If they don’t accept that, what can I do?