Hybrid work: key questions remain

 

While awaiting the new version of the guidelines (renamed "Frequently Asked Questions" for the occasion) on hybrid work and working time, which should be discussed in depth by the Joint Committee on Hybrid Work (JCHW), it is important to re-launch the reflection on a number of issues of major importance to staff that could be discussed in this context.

​

As a reminder, the Committee's role is to "make recommendations to the Director General of DG HR in the event that it detects inconsistencies and/or unequal treatment in the implementation of the Decision by the DGs". It must also examine the consistency of the decisions to be taken with the objectives set out in the Decision in terms of the principle of equality, the gender dimension and the specific needs of staff with disabilities.

 

In 2021, U4U developed 21 theses on teleworking to launch a debate within the European institutions and prepare negotiations on the General Implementing Provisions (GIP) on hybrid work . In this pamphlet, we insisted that telework can only be a voluntary, reversible, variable, monitored, flexible, supported, controlled and negotiated way of organising work in a modern administration that wants to respect the needs and diversity of its staff and operate effectively in a rapidly changing world. We accompanied each of our demands with concrete proposals for effective implementation in the mutual and well-understood interests of administration and staff.

​

​

1. Ensuring fair and equal treatment of all colleagues, through relevant indicators

​

In the light of our 21 theses, we would like to draw lessons from the experience of more than a year of hybrid work in the Commission. Drawing lessons is, of course, only possible if one is able to objectively evaluate the effects observed on the basis of clear criteria and indicators.

In this respect, the issue of collecting and accessing relevant data and constructing appropriate indicators on this basis is crucial. We must be able to measure what we are talking about.

In particular, we will ask for accurate figures on:

• proportion of staff by DG and by category of staff working in hybrid arrangements,

• actual office and remote working time, again by DG and by category of staff

• the impact of hybrid work on psychosocial risk factors (trends in absenteeism, medical complaints related to working conditions), etc.

 

The aim of this request is twofold:

• It is essential to assess whether the implementation of the Commission's decision is accompanied by inconsistent practices or even unequal treatment between DGs and categories of staff;

• It is also important to assess as objectively as possible the impact of the new work organisation on well-being at work and the prevention of psychosocial risks.

​

The necessary information can be gathered through testimonies, surveys or systematic data collection.

The key issue, however, is to agree on what should be measured in order to inform the reflection and proposals for a possible revision of the decision.

 

​

2. Monitoring and limiting the impact of hyper-connectivity

 

A second set of questions concerns the organisation of working time and hybrid work. We are well aware that these must be organised according to criteria of flexibility and trust between the hierarchy and the staff, taking into account the nature of the work and certain specific situations.

 

In this context, the issue of the right to disconnect, i.e. the right of a worker to be able to refrain from participating in work-related electronic communications, such as e-mails or other messages, outside working hours, but also to be able to concentrate on work-related projects from time to time, needs to be examined in all its aspects.

​

For example, in an earlier version of its "guidelines", the administration insisted on the obligation for staff to be available within 15 minutes of a call. Does such a proposal make sense in the context of the concept of the right to disconnect?

 

The widespread use of smartphones and other digital devices means that being 'always on' has become a reality in many workplaces. This constant remote access inevitably puts pressure on employees to be available at all times.

 

Recent Eurofound research shows that while practices vary across Member States (despite the lack of a European legal framework) and at company level, the expectation that workers are available for online or mobile communication at almost any time is seen as potentially hazardous to workers' health.

 

In this context, it will be necessary to take account of the specific nature of the tasks, to agree on time slots, to introduce a code of conduct limiting the sending of electronic messages and, finally, to give meaning to the presence in the office in order to preserve the collective work, the team spirit and the sharing of knowledge within the units.

​

It is equally important to ensure that the implementation of hybrid work does not lead to gender and income discrimination, e.g. in terms of access to basic facilities, availability of autonomous workspaces without compromising the necessary work-life balance.

 

​

3. General re-thinking of health and safety at work

 

The new culture of the working relationship that has emerged in the context of hyper-connectivity, referred to in the previous point, must finally be studied and its impact properly assessed. This will enable any negative effects to be corrected.

​

In particular, the issue of the atomisation of work groups and isolation, which leads to a loss of sense of purpose in the tasks assigned and a lack of personal fulfilment, needs to be addressed.

 

These issues need to be addressed through targeted staff and management training, including issues such as preventing digital overload, maintaining team spirit and combating isolation.

 

Occupational health and safety is increasingly being addressed by labour law specialists.These crucial aspects have been somewhat neglected in the current regulations and guidelines, as they are dealt with in special provisions.

 

It is therefore important to ensure that these concerns are taken into account, for example in the context of building policies that aim to compress workspaces and encourage 'hot desking'. This practice often has a negative psychological impact on employees and does not result in any particular productivity gains.

 

In addition, many studies have shown that the intensification of work inherent in the use of remote communication technologies often leads to psychosocial risks and work-related stress, which can be a source of mental illness.

 

This raises the question of the humanisation of work: an ethical dimension that aims to see work as a source of personal fulfilment seems to be neglected today.

 

 

4. Developing real flexibility that benefits the organisation and the individual

​

Finally, the DGE provides for a minimum period of presence in the office in order to facilitate collective reflection, to create a sense of belonging to a team or even to an institution, to allow for a proper welcome of new agents, etc. How do the two days of minimum presence in the office achieve this objective? Does the maximum of three days of work at home allow the teams to function effectively, and in sufficiently healthy and safe conditions? The DGE does not prohibit a flexible application of this separation between home and work. There is a perception that the application is rigid. What is the situation in practice?

 

Moreover, we have the impression that building policy, which aims to reduce the number of buildings, is taking precedence over work organisation policy, whereas the opposite should be the case.

 

These questions - which are by no means exhaustive - are intended to stimulate the necessary debate within the framework of the social dialogue, based on the consultation of independent experts. It is impossible to overemphasise the much more fundamental issues at stake in hybrid work, which is indeed a major undertaking, rich in potential and risks for the future of the European public service. Its full success will depend on the ability and willingness of the European institutions to win the support of all stakeholders.