Sorry civil servants, your WFH dream is over: the public purse demands accountability
It was my greatest achievement of the week. It demanded perseverance, patience and intellect. But I got there. I got through to a chap at the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, my ambition being to seek clarity on eligibility for delinked payments (don't ask). To reach this civil servant, I first manoeuvred deftly through acres of text on the Government's website, before finding a number. I called it and was slightly scared by the, albeit recorded, gruff Northerner who directs calls. And then I waited. And waited. Before my call was finally answered by someone who was very helpful, except that I was struck by the meowing.
I mentioned the cat and the man told me: 'Yes, he's asking me to open the kitchen window for him.'
It was very charming and all necessary information was usefully conveyed, except, after I ended the call, I wondered how different the world is today.
Once upon a time, our civil servants, neatly tucked into their pinstripe suits, grabbed their hat and brolly and made their commute to their office. And there they toiled between Monday and Friday, a nine to five, 48-hour week.
Nowadays, the average number of hours worked is 37 and you'll likely find that civil servant, not at a desk in some traditional office garb, but at home, iPad on the kitchen table, dressed in jeans and T-shirt and with a cat on their lap.
Which could account for why it takes so long for phones to be answered or emails to be read. All of which is irksome enough for the tax-paying public and was why so many of us cheered when Jacob Rees-Mogg, in April 2022, as minister for Brexit opportunities and government efficiency, left printed notes on the empty desks of civil servants saying, 'So sorry you were out when visited. I look forward to seeing you in the office very soon'.
Since Covid, many civil servants now practice what is called 'hybrid working' with, a recent survey showed, 35 per cent saying that when they worked from home, it was in a non-work specific space, so that's the kitchen or in bed.
But what is worse is that, as we learnt this week, some of those hybrid workers are not just juggling policy documents and cats, they're nipping off for a few hour's paid work elsewhere, specifically in one case reported as an Uber driver.
Flexible working has meant that a considerable number of civil servants are taking on second jobs. And it's becoming increasingly common with public sector workers employed by councils. Wakefield, Enfield and Kensington and Chelsea councils have all reported catching staff who had multiple jobs. And now investigators from the National Fraud Initiative are scouring online forums in which civil servants swap tips about how to best manage a covert second job.
There was the thorny issue of diary clashes, for example, when a meeting for the main role was mooted for a time when an individual had a call booked relating to their second job. 'Pretend to have food poisoning,' came the advice.
On the online forum Reddit, one person wrote: 'Do all you can to not get caught,' adding that it was important not to draw attention to yourself. 'Do not over-deliver or under-perform. Just be middle of the pack.'
We should, of course, be cheered that the National Fraud Initiative is investigating because this duplicitous behaviour is exactly that – fraud. As the Taxpayers' Alliance said this week, 'Some public sector staff are taking taxpayers for a ride. Councils and Whitehall departments must get a grip, root out this kind of abuse, and ensure every penny is spent on delivering services, not funding secret second jobs.'
The problem is, how on earth do you bust someone doing a second job? Do agents from the government fraud squad raid suburban houses on a sunny Friday afternoon to see if J Frobisher is moonlighting as a kids' party magician or, worse, working for two councils at the same time?
Of course not. The reality is that when people work from home, there is what Gemma Young, Enfield council's former head of internal audit, calls 'reduced oversight'. Or rather, 'having absolutely no clue what Belinda Smith is up to when she's at home'.
The change in working patterns post-Covid is a revolution. Which is fine if you work in the private sector and your boss is happy. But if you're in a secure job on the public payroll, it should be different. And there is only one way of ensuring civil servants aren't dallying with a side-hustle and that's to insist they do what, until relatively recently, was regarded as entirely fair and normal. Which is to go to work to an office, nine to five, Monday to Friday.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel
Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday halted lower court orders that required the White House's Department of Government Efficiency to turn over information to a government watchdog group as part of a lawsuit that tests whether President Trump's cost-cutting task force has to comply with federal public records law. The order from the high court clears DOGE for now from having to turn over records related to its work and personnel, and keeps Amy Gleason, identified as its acting administrator, from having to answer questions at a deposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "The portions of the district court's April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said in its order. "Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications." The Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for more proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the district court's order last month, which allowed the Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump administration's bid for emergency relief. A district judge had ordered DOGE to turn over documents to the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, by June 3, and for Gleason's deposition to be completed by June 13. The underlying issue in the case involves whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW argues that the cost-cutting task force wields "substantial independent authority," which makes it a de facto agency that must comply with federal public records law. The Justice Department, however, disagrees and instead claims that DOGE is a presidential advisory body housed within the Executive Office of the President that makes recommendations to the president and federal agencies on matters that are important to Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. DOGE's agency status was not before the Supreme Court, though the high court may be asked to settle that matter in the future. Instead, the Trump administration had asked the justices to temporarily halt a district court's order that allowed CREW to gather certain information from DOGE as part of its effort to determine whether the task force is an advisory panel that is outside FOIA's scope or is an agency that is subject to the records law. The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, had ordered DOGE to turn over certain documents to the watchdog group by June 3 and to complete all depositions, including of Gleason, by June 13. Mr. Trump ordered the creation of DOGE on his first day back in the White House as part of his initiative to slash the size of the federal government. Since then, DOGE team members have fanned out to agencies across the executive branch and have been part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Institute of Peace. DOGE has also attempted to gain access to sensitive databases kept by the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management, prompting legal battles. In an effort to learn more about DOGE's structure and operations, CREW submitted an expedited FOIA request to the task force. After it did not respond in a timely manner, CREW filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction to expedite processing of its records request. The organization argued that DOGE was exercising significant independent authority, which made it an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper granted CREW's request for a preliminary injunction in March and agreed that FOIA likely applies to DOGE because it is "likely exercising substantial independent authority much greater than other [Executive Office of the President] components held to be covered by FOIA." He then allowed CREW to conduct limited information-gathering, which the watchdog group said aimed to determine whether DOGE is exercising substantial authority that would bring it within FOIA's reach. A federal appeals court ultimately declined to pause that order, requiring DOGE to turn over the documents sought by CREW. In seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said CREW is conducting a "fishing expedition" into DOGE's activities. He warned that if Cooper's order remains in place, several components of the White House, such as the offices of the chief of staff and national security adviser, would be subject to FOIA. "That untenable result would compromise the provision of candid, confidential advice to the president and disrupt the inner workings of the Executive Branch," Sauer wrote. "Yet, in the decisions below, the court of appeals and district court treated a presidential advisory body as a potential 'agency' based on the persuasive force of its recommendations — threatening opening season for FOIA requests on the president's advisors." But lawyers for CREW told the Supreme Court in a filing that the Justice Department's position "would require courts to blindly yield to the Executive's characterization" of the authority and operations of a component of the Executive Office of the President. They said adopting the Trump administration's approach to DOGE would give the president "free reign" to create new entities within the Executive Office of the President that exercise substantial independent authority but are shielded from transparency laws. "Courts would be forced to blindly accept the government's representations about an EOP unit's realworld operations, unable to test those representations through even limited discovery," CREW's lawyers wrote. "It is that extreme position, not the discovery order, that would 'turn[] FOIA on its head.'"
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why NYC mayoral candidate Ramos says she endorsed opponent Cuomo
NEW YORK - In a surprising political twist, mayoral candidate and state Senator Jessica Ramos endorsed former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, despite her previous criticisms of him, including his handling of the COVID pandemic and sexual harassment allegations. Cuomo, however, declined to endorse Ramos in return. What they're saying Ramos, who has been critical of Cuomo's record and even compared his mental acuity to that of former President Joe Biden, now sees the race as primarily between two candidates: Cuomo and State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani. LIST: Meet the candidates running for NYC mayor She says that Mamdani does not have the experience to run the city and that Cuomo is better suited to take on President Donald Trump. "Andrew Cuomo and I definitely don't have the same style in governing, and I am hoping that we are focused on tackling the very serious threat of Donald Trump upon our city," she said. Ramos will remain on the ballot, but her endorsement acknowledges the fact that she sees no path to victory. Since entering the race, Ramos' campaign struggled to get off the ground. She never raised enough small-dollar contributions for public matching funds and never gained any meaningful support among the city's labor unions. The Working Families Party also did not initially include her in their slate of candidates, and Ramos made it clear that she felt spurned by the organization. Cuomo brushed off Ramos' past criticisms on Friday, stating that campaign rhetoric often leads to strong statements about opponents. He acknowledged her endorsement but clarified he is not endorsing her in return. "She is endorsing me. I'm not endorsing her," he said. The other side Mamdani said he is disappointed that Ramos chose to endorse Cuomo. "To see him continue to be legitimized is something that will always trouble me, especially given the fact that we have run this campaign," he said. "Many of us as candidates being crystal clear that while each of us thinks we will make the best next mayor of New York, we all share the agreement it should not be Andrew Cuomo." Meanwhile, protesters interrupted a housing rally being held by Mamdani in Lower Manhattan that ended with a man, Raul Rivera, allegedly biting one of the tenant organizers. The NYPD said Rivera was arrested for assault, and the woman who was bitten was treated on the scene. Mamdani and others have called on Cuomo to condemn the violence. What's next New York City's primary elections are on Tuesday, June 24. The Source This article uses candidate statements
Hamilton Spectator
3 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Doug Ford calls out municipalities as housing money goes unspent
Ontario is having trouble giving money away for housing, but challenging times are making it hard to get. As Premier Doug Ford presented Toronto with a $67.2 million cheque to help build new homes amid a shortage that has pushed prices higher, his housing minister lamented more municipalities aren't meeting the housing targets entitling them to cash. 'We're going to hand out some nice 'building faster fund' cheques, not as many and for as much this year as we did last year,' Rob Flack said Friday at city hall with Mayor Olivia Chow. Toronto broke ground on 21,000 new homes last year, 88 per cent of its target. 'That's why we have the big cheque,' said Chow, who noted 'building is slowing' because of high interest rates, and higher costs that mean 'builders just can't afford to build.' The $1.2 billion housing fund was established in 2023 to provide financial incentives for municipalities over three years to build homes. It's intended to pay for infrastructure like water lines, sewers, roads and sidewalks. Money is paid as a reward to municipalities reaching 80 per cent of the target set out by the province. Ford promised in 2022 to build 1.5 million new homes by 2031 but the province is at half the pace needed to reach that number in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the challenging business conditions that followed. While an average of 150,000 new homes a year is needed over the decade, the Progressive Conservative government's spring budget projected housing starts will fall this year to 71,800 — down from 74,600 in 2024. To spur construction, Ford's PCs passed Bill 17, the Protect Ontario By Building Faster and Smarter Act, which streamlines the approval process and fees for homebuilders, allows municipalities to reduce development charges on developers and delays payment until new homes are occupied instead of when a building permit is issued. As well, the legislation given royal assent this week extends the power to grant minister's zoning orders that override municipal bylaws, raising concerns among critics about preferential treatment for some builders. Ford repeated his calls for the Bank of Canada to lower interest rates and said economic uncertainty caused by U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs isn't helping the housing business. 'People are nervous if they're going to have a job or not.' Ford also pointed the finger at mayors of some municipalities he did not name, but who he said 'absolutely refuse to build.' 'We are going to work with the ones that want to build,' the premier added. 'They're going to get the money. The other ones aren't.' The premier reiterated that he would like to axe the provincial portion of the 13 per cent HST on new homes and has asked Prime Minister Mark Carney to scrap the federal portion. 'We just have to get everyone on the same page,' Ford said.
