Ten years after the entry into force of the Kinnock reform, we have now full access to all data that will allow us to perform an indisputable analysis of the its real consequences on the careers of colleagues recruited after 2004.

 

R&D delivers its contribution to clarify the debate.

 

As you can see, it is misleading to strive against colleagues who entered the Institution before 2004 – as a certain union is so doing in a very populist way and without carring an analysis on the effects generated – and to actually enjoy the freezing of the careers of all staff, claiming to defend post-2004 colleagues, on behalf of the career equivalence foreseen by the former article 6 of the Staff Regulations.

 

But it is equally unfair to deny the harmful effects of the reform on colleagues recruited after 2004 as the Commission is doing, or even worse to exploit their expectations for the benefit of cabinet members like it has been the case during the recent scandalous internal competitions!

 

Post-2004 colleagues were heavily penalized by the Kinnock reform! This damage must be repaired: what has been done is far from being enough!

 

– What does the famous Article 6 say?

 

Brief flashback: the former Staff Regulations provided for the drafting by the Commission of an annual report to ensure “the equivalence between the average career progression in the career structure in force before 1 May 2004 andprogression of the average career in the career structure in force after 1 May 2004″. The latest version of this report, which presents a comparison of two completely closed career structures, concluded that “administrators with experience tend to earn less, while secretaries / clerks earn quite more.”

 

The comparison was made from the career of officials who retired before 1 May 2004 and those who were recruited after 1 May 2004: in other words, it compares two populations who have never met, compared themselves or even coexisted.

 

Beyond the conclusions drawn by the Commission (that R&D does not share: they opened the way for blocking AST career, which has unfortunately been imposed and, even worse, extended to AD), it is absolutely useless to seek an update of this report.

 

On the one hand, a new version of the report will show nothing new compared to the previous report, except that blocking AD and AST careers, supported by a union claiming to defend the post 2004 staff and imposed as part of the 2014 Reform, will instead penalize the same staff and make the equivalence of careers even more illusory.

 

On the other hand, such a request has no legal basis: Staff regulations in force from 1 January 2014 actually do not mention this report anymore.

 

Under these conditions, it was therefore too easy for DG HR to confirm its analysis and deny the obvious problems of our post-2004 colleagues which R&D, for its part, has always denounced.

 

– Why do post-2004 colleagues rightly feel that their career is not equivalent to that of colleagues recruited before 1 May 2004?

 

The reason is simple: we compare our careers with the ones of those who were recruited before 1 May 2004 and are still working. This comparison is totally absent in the abovementioned report. R&D can, however, provide an answer to the thousands of colleagues who do not understand the refusal of DG HR to recognize a difference between the two career structures which seems indisputable.

 

– On which basis did R&D compare the two career structures?

 

R&D has chosen two indicators to compare the career structures of PRE and POST-2004.

 

– What is the current grade, after 10 years of career, of colleagues recruited between 1 May 2003 and 30 April 2004 (PRE-2004) and colleagues recruited between 1 May 2004 and 30 April 2005 (POST-2004)?

 

– What is the current grade of colleagues between 40 and 43 years old, recruited before 1 May 2004 (PRE-2004), and recruited after 1 May 2004 (POST-2004)?

 

These indicators are not intended to estimate, as did the Commission, the difference, down to the euro, between typical average careers yet largely hypothetical.

 

These indicators allow, on the other hand, to evaluate, on an actual basis, firstly, the career difference between populations recruited one year apart (before and after the reform) and, secondly, the career difference, at a particular age, between populations recruited under two different Staff regulations.

 

And the results are quite different from those obtained in the Commission’s report!

Current grade, after 10 years of career, of colleagues recruited between 1 May 2003 and 30 April 2004 (PRE-2004) and colleagues recruited between 1 May 2004 and 30 April 2005 (POST-2004)

                         

Current grade of colleagues between 40 and 43 years old, recruited before 1 May 2004 (PRE-2004), and recruited after 1 May 2004 (POST-2004)

 

R&D leaves it to the union (leading expert on animal science…) that claims to defend all POST-2004 to conduct a thorough analysis to determine which animals best describe these graphs…

 

For its part, R&D will never categorize staff in a series of snapshots which could easily appear in gossip columns.

 

The Commission is not a zoo full of camels, dromedaries and other fat cats: the Commission is made up of a staff who, in its entirety, invests day after day in the construction of Europe.

 

Post-2004 colleagues were heavily penalized by the Kinnock reform! This damage must be repaired: what has been done is far from being enough!

 

This does not justify, however, embarking on constant settling of scores or fanciful and legally untenable proposals – such as widespread or discriminatory reclassifications – aiming to favour only one part of the post-2004 colleagues, namely the elders at the expense of the others, introducing additional and unwarranted discrimination amongst post-2004 colleagues.

 

In keeping with its policy, R&D conducted and will keep on conducting comprehensive analyses and proposing legally founded initiatives.  R&D is not only interested in one single issue – the career of a minority – but is involved in all aspects of professional life of ALL staff: career, evaluation, promotion, pensions, statutory rights, working conditions at the office, harassment, burnout … including in the external services.

 

As part of the inter Trade Unions conference “2004-2014 … see 10 years of injustice and inequality in the European Commission” to be held on 17 and 18 November, R&D, will as always work in the largest unit of action of the staff representatives, but is not afraid to set itself apart from unacceptable approaches, and will submit detailed proposals to the new Commission, within the frame of the implementation of the new Staff regulations!

 

R&D welcomes the commitments made by President Juncker, putting fairness at the heart of his action and showing the desire for a more inclusive staff policy as expressed by Vice-President Georgieva, which will be permitted by the resources freed by many upcoming retirements.

Following the same usual principles that have always prevailed in its action, R&D has defended in Court, is currently defending, and will always keep on defending the post-2004 colleagues.