Actually there is an important reason, employers (not just government, but also private sector) do not really want it. They were forced into it by circumstances for a period of time.
Return to office is not some ploy by employers to revitalize our downtown, they have other reasons which I realize employees do not fully understand or appreciate.
You're missing my points. I am
not saying this decision is good or bad - I've made my personal views clear enough in the past. I'm literally just saying some facts; you're the one who's making this some values-based debate.
1. Temporary or not, the politicians were pushing for space reductions to reduce operating and capital costs. This means that there will now be a corresponding increase in costs as new leases are signed, spaces are fitted out, and upkeep is performed over the coming years. It also means that leases that were going to be ended will now have to be retained, and the associated costs retained as well. A lot of people wrongly believe that government already has this space and has been sitting on it, when in fact ministries are now scrambling to find room for people. That's not an opinion on the merits of this decision, it's a fact.
2. Similarly, it's a fact that this decision could have been implemented better. Four months simply is not enough time to retrofit existing workspaces, and lease/fit-out new spaces. Since everyone learned about this today, that also means the work on implementing it is also starting today. Again, that is
not am opinion on the merits of
if the policy should happen; it's literally just a fact about
how it's being executed.
3. I
never said that this is definitively a "ploy" to help downtown. I said that it might the reason, since they didn't actually provide a reason beyond "others are doing this too and we thought hybrid would be temporary," it's hard to believe they would choose not to cite lower productivity trends if they had that data, considering they tolerated hybrid work for five years (especially with how they were so quick to put all the blame on AHS for the procurement scandal), and Ontario's own Premier said he made the decision in order to support downtown businesses, because "There's hard-working entrepreneurs that their business has basically just died when they weren't seeing the flow of traffic." And you know which government Alberta cited in its press release? Ontario. Just sayin'.
So, just to summarize:
1. I mentioned the costs to help people develop an informed opinion; whether that they think it is worth the money, or not.
2. I mentioned the realities of the four-month time frame, which again are just facts - not judgments on the policy intent.
3. I speculated on the potential reasons based on the reason given for a similar policy change by a Premier who is very similar to ours ideologically. And again, that was not to deride the policy, but instead just to get people thinking about the pros and cons for themselves.
