Irish Examiner view: Fairness is central to union appeal

If there is resistance to remote working at senior levels in some departments or public sector organisations, we need to know why

The demand for increased remote working is unlikely to diminish even if the Iran war, which sparked the latest spike in fuel prices, ends in the next few weeks; indeed, the demand is likely to intensify as high fuel prices feed in to other price hikes, further adding to cost-of-living pressures. File picture 

The debate about remote working has been reignited by the fuel price crisis. Forsa, the trade union representing close to 90,000 workers in the public sector, wrote to the Department of Public Expenditure this month asking that civil servants be allowed work from home more to mitigate the impact of fuel prices.

The union’s argument is that a cut in the number of days people have to travel to the office would reduce overall fuel consumption, lessen the immediate cost-of-living impact for workers, and help ease traffic congestion for all.

Advocates of remote and hybrid work say that not only do workers save time and money by working from home, but also that productivity is maintained. That would seem to make sense. However, if it is so positive , it raises the question: Why is office attendance back at its pre-pandemic level, and why do so many employers want their employees on site?

Of course, for a sizeable majority of the workforce, the discussion about remote working is entirely academic, as they have to be physically present for their work. These include tens of thousands of frontline health service staff; workers in retail, hospitality, construction, waste collection, and transport; staff in manufacturing and production plants; and the teachers, gardaí, caregivers, and many other publicly funded workers who cannot do their work from home.

Figures released last month by the CSO suggest that, at the height of the pandemic, no more than 400,000 workers were directly affected by work-from-home directives. The same report also shows the number of people working fully
in the workplace, 1.866m at the end of 2025, had reached the pre-pandemic level recorded in the latter months of 2019.

The demand for increased remote working is unlikely to diminish even if the Iran war, which sparked the latest spike in fuel prices, ends in the next few weeks; indeed, the demand is likely to intensify as high fuel prices feed in to other price hikes, further adding to cost-of-living pressures. Before those calls become embroiled in what could become a winter of discontent over the cost of living, there needs to be an honest and open appraisal of the costs and benefits of remote working in the public service. What private sector employers do is between them and their workers, but the public sector affects us all, both as consumers of services and as taxpayers.

If, as appears to be the case, there is resistance to remote working at senior levels in some departments or public sector organisations, we need to know why. Reduced productivity, decreased service delivery to the public, and increased pressure on supervisory-level staff would, if they existed, be valid reasons for the Department of Public Expenditure, as an employer, to resist union calls for increased remote working.

However, if these are not at issue and there are no other obstacles, the department should act in a way that would save employees time and money, reduce national fuel consumption, and cut traffic congestion.

Attitude counts as we age

The good news about ageing keeps coming. The possibility that 70 can be the new 50 was raised at a conference at the weekend by neuroscience expert Ian Robertson, who spoke of several recent studies that show a link between positive attitudes towards ageing and better physical and cognitive outcomes.

Prof Robertson referenced a recent Irish study that compared people over 50 who believed negative ideas about ageing, to people with positive ideas. Researchers found that, over the following two years, those with negative attitudes walked significantly more slowly and showed a significant reduction in cognitive flexibility than the other group. The results echo those of several other international studies which found that people who reject outdated and pessimistic views of inevitable and rapid decline in old age, fare considerably better than those who do not.

These studies are of more than passing interest. We have an ageing population. The number of people over the age of 65 in Ireland has risen rapidly in the last decade — from 629,000 in 2016 to around 861,000 in 2025 — and will continue to rise.

It is a trend usually framed as a problem; the “burden” of supporting ailing older people will be placed on the shoulders of a proportionately smaller cohort of younger, working-age people. However, it doesn’t have to be this way.

Science is now telling us our attitudes towards old age matter greatly; if we believe that we can stay relatively well, physically, cognitively, and mentally, then there is a greater chance we will engage in behaviours that make it happen.

We need to take these studies seriously and act upon them. Prof Robertson was speaking at the annual conference of the Irish College of GPs when he outlined the positive research. GPs are ideally placed to start spreading the good news.

Memorials merit our respect

The sorry state of a war memorial, commemorating more than 100 men from a small community who died in the First World War, was raised at a council meeting last week.

The memorial in Fermoy bears the names of men who fought and never came home. Unfortunately, the monument has deteriorated to the point where the names are no longer legible, a distressing matter for surviving family members and for a community that takes pride in its history.

There is a striking irony in the timing. The issue emerged just days after the country was gripped by an outbreak of historical curiosity brought on by the release of the 1926 census. Over a single weekend, the National Archives of Ireland recorded some 20m hits on its census database, clear evidence of a deep public appetite to reconnect with the past, to understand the lives of our forebears, and to learn about life in our communities a century ago.

The task of preparing the 1926 records for publication was a multi-year endeavour, entailing thousands of hours of cataloguing, conservation, digitalisation, and transcription. Only a fraction of that effort would be required to restore and preserve memorials such as the one in Fermoy.

These monuments are more than historical records; they are tributes to lives lived and sacrifices made by those who went before us. Councillors who raised the issue last week have been assured the memorial will be repaired. That commitment is welcome. It might also prompt other councils to assess similar memorials in their areas, and to do the necessary work to maintain these valuable, visible historic records.

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here