This text is part of the special Syndicalism booklet
In the past, teleworking hardly featured on the dashboard of the public and parapublic service in Quebec. But the pandemic has changed that and caused this practice to spread and become more acceptable. If, today, the return to the office is on the agenda, telework will not disappear.
From the outset, Christian Daigle, president of the Union of Public and Parapublic Service of Quebec (SFPQ), admits that teleworking is not suitable for all types of jobs. “We have among our members workers, such as workers and cooks, who absolutely have to be on site to carry out their tasks,” he explains. On the other hand, our call center agents can carry out their work entirely from their home. And in some cases, such as those of inspectors, a hybrid option is possible, i.e. the visit in person, but the drafting of the report by teleworking. »
It is therefore not an all-out plea in favor of telework that Christian Daigle is proposing, but rather a moment of reflection on the parameters of telework and its supervision. “Who decides what type of job can be done in whole or in part by telework? he asks. How long can a worker spend telecommuting from home and how long should they be in the office? Who decides whether a worker can telecommute or not? Currently, it is the employer, therefore the government, that makes all the decisions. »
And some of these decisions may appear arbitrary. “The employer can withdraw the privilege of teleworking from an employee without being obliged to justify himself, he underlines. Where is the evidence on which the employer relies to make such a decision? We do not know. »
Negotiate and entrench
Christian Daigle believes that the time has come for the government and the unions concerned to sit down at the same table in order to negotiate the parameters of telework and then to enshrine them in collective agreements. That way all parties would be on the same page and that would ensure a degree of predictability and transparency.
“Let’s take the question of free choice,” he says. It is absolutely necessary to respect the choice of the worker. Telecommuting is not suitable for everyone, some workers prefer to go to the office to work because they need a friendly environment to function well. Just because a job can be done remotely doesn’t mean it should be. »
Then, how to measure and evaluate the time spent at work? “In the office, nine to five is the norm,” says Christian Daigle. Does this standard still apply to teleworking? Why couldn’t an early riser do his chores in the morning and a night owl in the afternoon and evening? Can we not be flexible and leave the worker the freedom to choose the working hours that suit him? Shouldn’t the quality of the work done and the respect of deadlines be the criteria on which we base ourselves to evaluate the performance of an employee working from home? »
Not to mention that working from home brings new challenges. For example, how to apply occupational safety and health standards and regulations for telework carried out at home? “There is also the issue of communications between a union and its members,” continues Christian Daigle. Currently, a union has a bulletin board in the workplace that serves as a communication tool. Do you need a virtual bulletin board to inform employees working from home? What if an employee wants to file a grievance? Today, grievance forms are on paper and should therefore be scanned. »
And that’s not counting issues like office equipment and software. Who provides them? The employer alone? The employee by providing his own computer equipment? Or a combination of both? “Teleworking is a subject that must be seriously discussed during the next negotiations if we want to see it clearly,” concludes Christian Daigle.
This special content was produced by the Special Publications team of the To have to, pertaining to marketing. The drafting of To have to did not take part.