
EUAN McCOLM: Entitled civil servants whining about going back to the office makes the blood boil. Here's a thought - do as you're told...or find another job
Pampered Scottish Government officials have grown accustomed, since the Coronavirus pandemic forced the temporary closure of offices, to working from home.
This emergency protocol was established for excellent reasons: in the months before a vaccine was created, Covid-19 presented a devastating threat to life. Of course it made sense for workers across the public and private sectors to carry out their duties far from the risk of infection.
But, thanks to the development of effective vaccines against the deadly virus, there is no longer any need for employees to stay away from their offices. Indeed, it is some years since such a measure was necessary, or even appropriate.
Yet, long after the threat from the virus was diminished, many Scottish Government civil servants continue to work from home. And many of them appear to have decided that's the way things should stay.
For most Scots workers, going back to the office was not a matter of choice. It was, simply, a return to normality. But Scottish Government bureaucrats don't reckon those rules apply to them.
Following an order that they should return to their offices for just two days a week, toys were ejected from prams across the country. How dare anyone expect these very important people to actually turn up at work?
An edict stating that 9,300 Scottish Government staff who have been allowed 'hybrid' working arrangements since Covid should start spending two days a week in offices by autumn fuelled a backlash among mandarins, with some demanding special treatment simply for getting back behind their desks.
Using the government's internal communications network, Saltire, staff bitterly complained about the hardship they would face if they had to actually turn up at the office to do the jobs for which they are so handsomely paid.
There were been demands for a swimming pool at the government's Victoria Quay building to reopen, complaints that making staff come to work is unfair on their pets, and even questions over whether workers' human rights are being breached by the order.
And, of course, there were calls for a pay rise, as if simply carrying out one's contractual obligations represented a great personal sacrifice.
Senior managers within the Scottish Government want to cut back on the amount of time people work from home for the very good reason that they wish to boost productivity. It turns out that leaving entitled bureaucrats to their own devices is not good for efficiency.
I find it impossible to disagree with Conservative MSP Stephen Kerr's view that those civil servants now complaining about the order to go to the office for a mere two days a week are 'divorced from reality'.
Should you need persuading this is so, consider this comment from one civil servant: 'Many have made big decisions based on balance — whether that be starting a family, getting a pet, getting rid of cars; down to things like starting a new fitness class, being able to take that longer lunchtime walk for their mental health or meet a friend after work because there is no commute. The prospect of that now being taken away is undoubtedly causing stress and anxiety.'
The wee lambs.
For workers across the private sector, refusal to come to work would be considered a matter of gross misconduct and instant dismissal would follow.
These same rules should apply to civil servants.
While the backlash from bureaucrats is enough to make the blood boil, who can say they find it surprising?
The culture of any organisation is set at the top and we have grown grimly accustomed to those who govern us acting as if they are entitled to special treatment.
We have watched as First Minister after First Minister has stood behind colleagues who - in the private sector - would have been sacked for incompetence. Why would a civil servant feel the need to perform their duties to any kind of acceptable standard when, for example, health secretary Neil Gray - of taking-a-limo-to-the-pub fame - remains in post? Why would a mandarin feel compelled to turn up to work when so many members of the Government act as if the standards by which the rest of us live and work are for the little people?
There would be something comical about highly-paid civil servants complaining about having to sit at their desks if Scotland's public service were not in such a parlous state.
The SNP have made swingeing cuts to departmental budgets, stripping back services from social work to health to bin collections.
Meanwhile, ministers have retained a monomaniacal focus on the matter of Scottish independence. Not only have those in charge put their constitutional obsession before, for example, the need for a working NHS, they have diverted staff from vitally important work.
All of the hours spent planning for a second independence referendum that the Scottish Government has no right to run could - should - have been spent on the issues that truly matter to voters.
Amid the fear and anxiety created by the pandemic, there were some positives, not least the creation of a sense of community. As old social hierarchies crumbled, the feeling that we were all in it together was very real, indeed. The urge to play one's part was strong and reassuringly widespread.
For most of us, life has got back to normal but for others, the need for friends and family to rally round endures.
There are those, of course, who live with the physical effects of Coronavirus long after infection. Others continue to pay a heavy financial cost.
The UK Government's furlough scheme ensured wages were paid during the worst months of the pandemic but countless jobs lost - particularly in the retail and hospitality sectors - look unlikely ever to be replaced.
The 'suffering' of a highly-paid mandarin, asked to come to work two days a week - without even having access to a swimming pool - doesn't compare to that of someone whose career was destroyed by the pandemic, does it?
There is a case for the intervention of First Minister John Swinney, here.
I suggest he contacts those civil servants complaining about the return-to-the-office demand and makes them a generous offer: They can do as they are told or they can leave and find work more suited to their fragile temperaments.
There are plenty of hardworking Scots ready to step up.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Telegraph
We must finally bury the absurd idea that Keir Starmer is honest
The headlines are stubbornly refusing to allow our Prime Minister to look forward to a relaxing holiday as Parliament trundles towards the start of the summer recess. The latest spot of mischief is a new poll by Ipsos that unhelpfully (from Keir Starmer's perspective) asked respondents to compare a range of the Labour leader's qualities with those of Nigel Farage. In almost every category, ranging from understanding the problems facing Britain to being considered a strong leader, Farage comes out on top. In only one characteristic does the Prime Minister beat his opponent: honesty. This will come as something of a surprise to many. Not that Starmer is any more prone to being economical with the truth than many of his predecessors or Cabinet colleagues. But his short but spectacular rise to the top of his party within five years of his first becoming an MP at the age of 52 involved a series of – how to put this delicately? – rebranding of some of his previously stated principles. For example, Starmer bravely resigned on principle from Jeremy Corbyn's front bench in 2016 in protest at the former leader's unsuitability for office. But by the end of the year Starmer was back, this time with a promotion to shadow Brexit secretary and a newfound enthusiasm to make his 'friend' Prime Minister at the first opportunity. That was quite a turnaround, though Starmer was by no means alone in his decision to put his personal career prospects and those of his party above what he had previously described as his principle. There was more. In order to win the approval of the many hundreds of thousands of party members who were crazy enough to vote for Corbyn (twice), Starmer came up with a list of Left-wing policies he promised to support if only they would make him leader following Corbyn's resignation. The members duly complied, after which Starmer ditched virtually every single promise he had made. He fell out with one of his own MPs, Rosie Duffield, over whether women could exclusively claim to be in possession of cervixes ('That isn't right,' he claimed, though not directly to Rosie) and maintained generously and imaginatively that '99.9 per cent of women don't have a penis'. By the time the 2024 general election came along, though, this too had been ditched as a principle that risked losing votes. After a discussion with another man (Tony Blair), Starmer then decided that women could be defined, after all, as 'adult females'. After he reached Downing Street, we jumped on a veritable rollercoaster as the Prime Minister embraced a series of issues then disowned them faster than you could say 'Island of strangers'. First, there was Israel. Starmer was instinctively inclined, when in opposition, to support the nation against the barbarism of Hamas terrorism. But that was before four formerly safe Labour seats were unexpectedly lost to 'pro-Gaza' independent candidates at the election. Both the Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, suddenly discovered the electoral advantages of agreeing to allow the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for 'war crimes' for Benjamin Netanyahu. Previous courageous support for Israel in the wake of the Islamist pogrom of October 7, 2023, was banished by the Labour Government's adoption of export restrictions to Israel. With friends like these . . . There was the Island of Strangers speech itself, which merely warned that immigration rules must be applied fairly to all, but some hyper-sensitive comrades were appalled at comparisons with Enoch Powell's infamous 'rivers of blood' speech in 1968. Soon after, Starmer basically apologised for using the term, leaving everyone wondering how much of the speech he had actually meant. All of that is before the many and sundry U-turns that have entertained the country since then. Steadfast, immovable positions of principle have been quickly abandoned at the first sign of a raised eyebrow from an anonymous back bencher. The Supreme Court ruling that decided that 'woman' in the Equality Act meant biological female – the aforementioned possessor of a cervix, no less – was even welcomed by Starmer and his ministers as confirming what they had always believed, despite a cursory reading of any number of previous statements proving the precise opposite. And yet Nigel Farage is seen as less honest. We must conclude that this is down to Farage's barrow boy-cum-used car salesman vibe, which he has adopted and benefited from for many years, rather than individual incidents of untruthfulness. Unlike the Reform leader, Starmer is actually expected to make dozens, if not hundreds of decisions every day, whereas Farage can get away with simply telling his audiences whatever it is they wish to hear on any given day. This is not to say that the poll's respondents were wrong in their judgement: despite Farage's success, particularly in the last year, he has not yet sealed the deal with a naturally cynical electorate. He benefits from the simple fact that he is not seen as part of the political establishment rather than possessing cohesive alternative platform for government. As for Starmer, he should be well pleased that in this one measure for outstripping his populist rival. He might be as surprised as the rest of us, but at this stage in the game, it's best not to look a gift horse in the mouth. Especially while there's still a consensus on what a horse actually is.


Powys County Times
21 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Israel strikes tanks in southern Syria as forces clash with Druze militias
Israel's army said it has struck military tanks in southern Syria as Syrian government forces and Bedouin tribes clashed with Druze militias there. Dozens of people have been killed in the fighting between local militias and clans in Syria 's Sweida province. Government security forces that were sent to restore order on Monday also clashed with local armed groups. The Interior Ministry has said more than 30 people died and nearly 100 others have been injured in that fighting. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based war monitor reported at least 50 dead, including two children and six members of the security forces. Israel has previously threatened to intervene in Syria in defence of the Druze religious minority. Over half of the roughly one million Druze worldwide live in Syria. Most other Druze live in Lebanon and Israel, including in the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Mideast War and annexed in 1981. In Israel, Druze are seen as a loyal minority and often serve in the armed forces. Israel has been suspicious of Syria's new leaders since the fall of former president Bashar Assad in December, saying it does not want Islamist militants near its borders. Israeli forces earlier seized a UN-patrolled buffer zone on Syrian territory along the border with the Golan Heights and have launched hundreds of airstrikes on military sites in Syria. Clashes initially broke out between armed groups from the Druze and Sunni Bedouin clans, the observatory said, with some members of the government security forces 'actively participating' in support of the Bedouins. Interior Ministry spokesperson Noureddine al-Baba told the state-run Al-Ikhbariya TV that government forces entered Sweida in the early morning to restore order. 'Some clashes occurred with outlawed armed groups, but our forces are doing their best to prevent any civilian casualties,' he said. The observatory said the clashes started after a series of kidnappings between both groups, which began when members of a Bedouin tribe in the area set up a checkpoint where they attacked and robbed a young Druze man. Rami Abdurrahman, who heads the observatory, said the conflict started with the kidnapping and robbery of a Druze vegetable seller, leading to tit-for-tat attacks and kidnappings. Syria's defence and interior ministries were deploying personnel to the area to attempt to restore order. The Interior Ministry described the situation as a dangerous escalation that 'comes in the absence of the relevant official institutions, which has led to an exacerbation of the state of chaos, the deterioration of the security situation, and the inability of the local community to contain the situation despite repeated calls for calm.' Factions from the Druze minority have been suspicious of the new authorities in Damascus after Assad fled the country during a rebel offensive led by Sunni Islamist insurgent groups. Earlier this year, Druze groups in Sweida clashed with security forces from the new government. The Druze religious sect is a minority group that began as a 10th-century offshoot of Ismailism, a branch of Shiite Islam. In Syria, they largely live in the southern Sweida province and some suburbs of Damascus, mainly in Jaramana and Ashrafiyat Sahnaya to the south. The Druze developed their own militias during the country's nearly 14-year civil war. Since Assad's fall, different Druze factions have been at odds over whether to integrate with the new government and armed forces.


Daily Mail
27 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Reform council complains Labour is being TOO TOUGH on migrant workers warning clampdown on care sector could see vital staff 'going home'
A Reform-run council has complained to ministers about Labour 's crackdown on migrant workers in the UK - saying it is too tough. Kent County Council leader Linden Kemkaran has written to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper about a new law cutting the number of care worker visas. But rather than being in favour of the change, Ms Kemkaran, whose party wants to drastically cut legal immigration, has complained that it could leave its services and private providers on a 'cliff edge'. In the letter, co-signed by the council's cabinet Member for adult social care and public health, Diane Morton, she said she had 'grave concerns' about the proposed law change. Under changes laid in Parliament earlier this month, care worker visas will be scrapped and the salary threshold for skilled worker visas will rise from £38,700 to £41,700. It will also up the threshold to degree level for skilled workers, which will cut eligibility for 111 occupations. In her letter, Ms Kemkaran wrote: 'Across the contracts for the Council's adult social care and health services there are approximately 150 providers we are aware of who have sponsorship licences which is equal to 20-25 per cent of our social care workforce being from overseas... 'Paired with the changes announced in the autumn Budget in 2024 that resulted in changes to employer National Insurance contributions from April 2025, this is totally unsustainable, and the risk is that many care workers at this level will go home and leave providers on a cliff edge.' She added: This is obviously a national issue, and it is too early to describe the long-term impact on the council and care providers ... however, due to the challenges facing the adult social care system in general, and care providers in particular, we urge you to reconsider these changes and look forward to your support in addressing these urgent pressing matters.' Legislation to end the recruitment of care workers from abroad is set to be introduced as part of a raft of immigration reforms. New rules to be laid in Parliament on Tuesday will also seek to increase salary and skills thresholds up to degree level for skilled workers, which will cut eligibility for 111 occupations. The salary threshold for skilled worker visas will rise from £38,700 to £41,700 under the proposals. A new time-limited temporary shortage list will also be introduced until the end of 2026 for below degree level, where recruiting foreign workers is key to build critical infrastructure or industrial strategy. But those workers will no longer be able to bring their families and will not be entitled to salary and visa fee discounts. The legislative measures are the first policy changes to be introduced from the Government's Immigration White Paper to tighten controls and cut migration to the UK.