For many employees, working from home is not only preferred but is the future of the labour landscape. However, while the Prime Minister has dismissed the option, recent findings during an inquiry into the Impact of Work-from-Home and Alternative Work Arrangements, Policies and Initiatives on Public Sector Productivity and Service Delivery during the pandemic could disprove one of his justifications.
Responding to a question on the option of working from home during a post-Budget briefing on Monday, where another fuel hike was announced, PM Dr Keith Rowley said there will be no move to this system. This is despite having campaigned on the point for the 2020 general election.
Rowley justified his claim on Monday by saying, “It requires certain technical infrastructure and a certain level of discipline. This is Trinidad eh and Tobago, so we not ready for a major work-from-home (WFH) policy because some people not even working at the office.”
However, the report conducted by the Joint Select Committee on Social Services and Public Administration was laid in Parliament on September 9, 2022 and outlines a different picture than the one painted by the PM when it comes to employee productivity.
The survey conducted in the public sector found that 46.55 per cent of respondents did not see a change in productivity while employees worked from home, with 10.34 per cent of respondents indicating that productivity increased. Some 34.48 per cent of entities indicated that productivity decreased, with 8.62 per cent uncertain about how working from home affected productivity. This resulted in a net 56.89 favourable result.
It also found that 60.34 per cent of respondents indicated that most employees who worked from home did so just as effectively as when they reported to the workplace, with 5.1 per cent of respondents indicating most employees who worked from home did so more effectively. All the while, just 34.48 per cent of respondents indicated that most employees who worked from home did so less effectively than when they worked from their assigned workplace.
With regard to service delivery, there were more entities that experienced a decrease in service delivery (48.28 per cent) than those that experienced no change (39.66 per cent) or an increase in service delivery (12.07 per cent). However, when the figures reported for service delivery increasing are added to the figures reported for service delivery remaining the same, this added up to 51.73 per cent, showing that the percentage of entities that were adversely affected in the area of service delivery was marginally lower than those that were not.
Taking the findings into consideration, the report recommended the working method be incorporated into the landscape outside the pandemic.
“If extrapolated to the wider public service, this finding suggests that there is significant potential for the standardisation of WFH arrangements in the public sector within an appropriate regulatory framework,” it said.
For employees, the survey found the most frequently mentioned benefits were: Improved work/life balance: more family time, ability to supervise school-aged children, improved eating habits developed, improved mental and physical health, more comfortable work environment, improved sleep patterns and being able to avoid traffic.
However, the survey did lend merit to the PM’s point about technological challenges.
“The most frequently mentioned challenges related to lack of supportive technology followed by inability to access files and documents and the nature of work not being conducive to working from home,” it said.
One suggestion from respondents believed that “WFH, once adequately funded and managed, will facilitate increased output and performance.”
The survey was conducted between December 6, 2021 and January 14, 2022. Requests were sent to 66 entities and responses were received from 58 entities, translating to a response rate of 87.87 per cent of the responses received, 36.21 per cent were Government ministries, 6.90 per cent were THA divisions, 18.97 per cent were municipal corporations, 17.24 per cent were statutory bodies and 20 per cent were State enterprises.
