Post-2004 10 years after...
It would be unfair to deny the harmful effects of the 2004 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 happened during the recent scandalous internal competitions!
What does
the famous Article 6 say?
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 and progression 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 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.
Staff regulations in force from 1 January 2014 actually do not mention this report anymore. Anyway a new version of the report would show
nothing new compared to the previous report, except that blocking AD and AST
careers (supported by a union claiming to defend post-2004 staff and
imposed as part of the 2014 Reform) will instead penalize the same post-2004 staff and
make the equivalence of careers even more illusory.
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 hereafter an answer to all colleagues who do not understand the refusal of DG HR to recognize a difference between the two career structures, which seems indisputable.
R&D can, however, provide hereafter an answer to all 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)
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 and any other aspect relevant to our professional life.
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 and any other aspect relevant to our professional life.
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.
At the same time, following the same principles that have always driven its action, R&D will always keep on defending the post-2004 colleagues in all contexts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
No comments :
Post a Comment