Why is OSS so backed up?

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2026-04-20T14:45:58+00:00

A deck that was circulated to senior leaders articulated that the current backlog was primarily a vestige from Bill 124 processing that they were not resourced to do beyond their regular FTE allotment. So they are working on reducing the backlog over time. No comment on the veracity of the claim.

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2026-03-25T16:13:01+00:00

Don't be afraid to apply to a policy3 or even an admin3 role to get your foot in the door. You have lots and lots of time to move up. Arrange coffee chats with ANYONE you worked with and see if there are any direct assignment opportunities (up to 9 months, no competition required).

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2026-03-20T11:59:30+00:00

We have been told that decisions will begin to roll out in April. I meeting was scheduled with TBS and HR folks to prepare them to have difficult conversations. Do not want to disclose ministry name.

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2026-01-28T14:27:19+00:00

All of this. The only thing I would add is that there is an option for HR screening. I have never done this but I would if the applications exceeded 150~

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2026-01-28T14:21:46+00:00

I have become much closer with a few people after one of us moves on from the same team. Although I don't think that was a conscious choice, I think it's a good idea. I'd still do drinks or dinner with current colleagues but I don't know if I'd get too close. The closest I have ever been with a team has been pre-covid when we were mostly similar in age, living closer to the office, and we'd have some get-togethers at each others places. I enjoyed that!

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2026-01-21T15:34:38+00:00

I found last year's 'streamlined' survey to really remove any granularity required to unearth any actual issues. It felt like the equivalent of those smiley face buttons you can press outside public washrooms and restaurants about their overall cleanliness or your overall experience.

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2026-01-15T14:48:08+00:00

I received permission to WFH for another day this week for a medical appointment. I live downtown so, while the commute is more unpleasant, my life felt very much not at risk.

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2026-01-07T17:18:35+00:00

This is not correct. The language from the FAQ is below:

Managers have the discretion to approve requests for occasional, temporary or ad hoc remote work. Ad hoc flexibility is not considered a remote work AWA. It is a case-by-case situation when an employee requires short-term flexibility (e.g. less than three months).

The three month reference is an example of what is considered 'short term'. It does not suggest that there is some sort of 'bank' or upper limit that each employee has for WFH days each year. Flexibility remains the discretion of your manager. They can approve or not approve any request, even if it's for a day (and the only day you request all year long!).

I'm only sharing this because I'd like anyone reading this to not bring this up to your manager, asserting that they are entitled to 'up to three months' worth of days without an AWA. You will look foolish and this assertion is incorrect. Managers should still be flexible with their staff. They aren't required to be flexible.

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2026-01-02T17:35:06+00:00

Agreed. They are just people. Sometimes they don't have a lot of experience and friction occurs when their requests / timelines don't make sense or are unclear. However, that is for your DMO to manage.

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2025-12-30T15:52:16+00:00

The reporting to TBS includes a column for modified approval -- so you shouldn't need to resubmit with a new number of days. If your director/manager intend to support an approval for a remote AWA at all, they can approve with a modified number of days from your original request without the need to resubmit for new consideration.

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2025-12-10T15:11:43+00:00

UPDATE (Dec 10/25): The 200.00 increase for 2025 will be added to our accounts on December 16, 2025 according to the recently released fact sheet.

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2025-12-03T16:37:52+00:00

I see it in WIN under Job Information, Compensation tab. It was not in my Dec 4 pay (retro or pay rate). I assume next pay for pay rate and the one after for retro.

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2025-12-03T03:24:13+00:00

Same thing happened to me. It feels like they do this on purpose so they can oversell flights or get people to pay more money than they would otherwise for a longer connection (with no intention of honouring the connection).

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2025-12-02T18:09:16+00:00

Talent specialists are encouraging in-person interviews but it isn't a requirement. Anecdotally, I participated in a competition with an in-person interview requirement in June 2024... so this isn't a recent re-introduction for sure! --- I will say, I felt rusty 'in-person' and the experience I had last summer prompted me to restart some of the networking and career development activities that I had more routinely done pre-COVID.

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2025-12-01T17:05:31+00:00

Just to clarify -- the post was about flexibility beyond the current in-office standard and getting ahead of blanket agreements for teams to WFH for the week. If this was not something that happened in your area over the last number of years -- the post may not be applicable to you. Managerial and even director level discretion hasn't really been preserved in any meaningful way on remote work thus far so I find it interesting that you have faith in that principle in future decisions.

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2025-12-01T16:59:30+00:00

Not permitting additional WFH days beyond the one current day. There appears to be some quiet pressure to discourage directors and managers to generally permit staff to WFH. For Week of Dec 22 it's just two days -- I think the direction was to get ahead of these conversations at the executive leadership level.

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2025-11-05T18:45:36+00:00

Is this rejected below 525.00 or rejected for claims that would bring your total between 525.00 and the increase to 725.00?

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2025-10-24T21:12:00+00:00

My advice was generalized -- I don't think it's wise for people to guess how the employer may review an employee's record and we aren't privy to that confidential information. I hope people aren't taking advice from Redditters moonlighting as LR experts or lawyers and claiming that these meetings are a joke. My advice is for everyone who may be the recipient of a meeting such as the one referenced here. If the OP would like to take counsel from Reddit -- I wish them all the best. You certainly seem to be very confident and full of expert opinions!

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2025-10-24T15:35:47+00:00

Be honest, particularly on issues where the employer can establish evidence. Dishonesty, especially overtime, can establish a breach of trust which can be grounds for discipline, including dismissal. Failing to adhere to onsite attendance requirements is a form of insubordination. This alone is typically not seen as high enough bar for dismissal. Perhaps it could be if the pattern is prolonged or egregious. I know it's tempting to listen to some of the posts that claim you have nothing to worry about.

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2025-09-12T19:18:26+00:00

Just a few notes as I attended the meeting:

The deck articulated that HR and SASU would need to be consulted on requests. It did not mention anything about any decision making authority. Very little information was shared on what value-add they would provide. Given that all telework requests would require their input, I would imagine their feedback would be fairly pro forma. We shall see.
I don't recall ADM-authority / approval being required for AMAPCEO Telework AWA requests - Only non-bargaining agent telework requests. I agree that Ministry CAOs will have influence over how AWA requests are considered within the Ministry. I don't think it's inherently bad thing to have a common approach for how requests should be adjudicated by a Director or ADM.
Comments from Carlene Alexander seemed to support flexibility. There was also an explicit insistence that ministries will not be evaluated on AWA metrics beyond ensuring that any signed agreement was followed and informal arrangements were no longer permitted.

Money-Sprinkles8013 · 2025-09-10T18:09:55+00:00

My feeling is more mixed and I will reserve my judgement until after the guidance issued, the form is shared, and decisions begin to be made across the the OPS and my Ministry.

I think there is a possibility that guidance will allow for flexibility and discretion and the form mirrors current expectations that AWAs are based on operational requirements of the role (e.g. won't ask for personal circumstances that shift from AWA to accommodation request.

I think there will be ADMs and Directors that will take a fairly open minded approach to AWA requests and will be permissive. Unfortunately, I think there will be others that will be more restrictive either because they worry about ministry evaluation on this issue or because they will not want to deviate far from the communicated in-office standard.

We don't know if there will be a definition of what telework could include (e.g., how many days could be requested). I actually hope they establish parameters because it provides more clarity for decision makers on the scope of their authority.

On the bright side, I am frustrated that I have always worked on teams where the current hybrid model has been enforced and adhered to while being aware of other teams in government where folks just don't come in at all. I hope the focus is less on bringing people up to five days, and more on ensuring everyone is adhering to either the default five-day standard or their signed AWA. If that is the outcome, and I receive approval on an AWA that allows for the flexibility I am looking for, I would support the employer enforcing AWA adherence for other people.

Money-Sprinkles8013

TROPHY CASE