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.
Independent Scientific Advice for policy support
After
our recent messages to Mr Juncker concerning the repositioning of the JRC, many
of you were asking us why we mentioned in that context the uncertain overlapping
roles of the Chief Scientific Adviser and the JRC.
You may
have already heard last week that Mr Juncker has finally decided to suppress
the function of the Chief Scientific Adviser.
Following
this development on Friday we wrote to him again explaining how this decision
offers a great opportunity to clearly put the JRC at the very heart of independent
scientific advice within the Commission.
****
Ispra, 14th November 2014
Subject: Independent Scientific Advice for policy support
Dear Mr Juncker,
In our last letter sent to you on 2nd October, we questioned the unclear overlapping of the roles of the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Joint Research Centre. In your reply you informed us that a discussion about the CSA position was still ongoing, and you reassured us about the continued key role of the JRC in scientific policy advice.
Yesterday we learned from press reports of your decision to suppress the function of the EU Chief Scientific Adviser. Having already appreciated the clarity of your reply to our previous communication regarding the JRC repositioning in the new Commission, we now welcome this development which provides an unambiguous answer to our last question.
We support your reported trust in independent scientific advice. However, it appears that you have not yet decided how to “institutionalise” this function.
As the Commission's in-house science service, the Joint Research Centre's mission is to provide EU policies with independent, evidence-based scientific and technical support to our fellow DGs throughout the whole policy cycle. This makes the JRC the de facto scientific adviser, already present within the Commission.
Currently this already existing institutional solution is not fully exploited. Your recent decision leaves space to a new possibility in which the JRC could see its central role in the policy making process reinforced by creating a formal link with the newly established European Political Strategy Centre (EPSC).
We are confident that you will take our consideration into account and we would welcome any comments you may have.
In our last letter sent to you on 2nd October, we questioned the unclear overlapping of the roles of the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Joint Research Centre. In your reply you informed us that a discussion about the CSA position was still ongoing, and you reassured us about the continued key role of the JRC in scientific policy advice.
Yesterday we learned from press reports of your decision to suppress the function of the EU Chief Scientific Adviser. Having already appreciated the clarity of your reply to our previous communication regarding the JRC repositioning in the new Commission, we now welcome this development which provides an unambiguous answer to our last question.
We support your reported trust in independent scientific advice. However, it appears that you have not yet decided how to “institutionalise” this function.
As the Commission's in-house science service, the Joint Research Centre's mission is to provide EU policies with independent, evidence-based scientific and technical support to our fellow DGs throughout the whole policy cycle. This makes the JRC the de facto scientific adviser, already present within the Commission.
Currently this already existing institutional solution is not fully exploited. Your recent decision leaves space to a new possibility in which the JRC could see its central role in the policy making process reinforced by creating a formal link with the newly established European Political Strategy Centre (EPSC).
We are confident that you will take our consideration into account and we would welcome any comments you may have.
Click here for the original letter
Click here for the earlier messages
Click here for the answer to this letter
********
Additionally, you can get our Press Review alerts by subscribing to our dedicated mailing list: be always informed about press articles which are relevant for the JRC!
Click here for the earlier messages
Click here for the answer to this letter
********
In a continued effort to reduce spam, we are going to change the way we address our messages to staff. If you haven't done it yet, please subscribe to our new dedicated mailing list. You can easily unsubscribe anytime, if you wish so!
Juncker scraps chief scientific adviser post
...
Juncker emphasised the need to “make sure that Commission proposals and activities are based on sound scientific evidence”. And he changed the reporting lines of another scientific unit, the Joint Research Centre, so it works with the education rather than research commissioner. As recently as last week, a spokeswoman for Juncker told Science|Business that the President “values independent scientific advice;” but she declined to comment how and where the new administration will get it."
Read the full article (Source: Science|Business)
R&D: discounted insurance policy with UnipolSai Assicurazioni
We have agreed special conditions for car insurance policies with UnipolSai.
Thanks
to this agreement, for the first time ever your full driving history with your current foreign company can
be taken into consideration!
Additionally, up to 15%
discount is offered to all our members.
More advantages are also available
for house insurance, personal injury cover, health cover and pet insurance cover.
Compare your current insurance policy with UnipolSai offer, it's free and it can be done through our secretariat.
Contact us at 9645 or by e-mail: JRC-RD-ISPRA@ec.europa.eu
to find out how to receive an individual offer by the area insurance advisor available on the Ispra site every Monday afternoon by appointment or can be contacted by phone every day!
to find out how to receive an individual offer by the area insurance advisor available on the Ispra site every Monday afternoon by appointment or can be contacted by phone every day!
Pension contribution rate: end of litigation
The 2011 pension contribution rate should have been decreased too, but
remained frozen so far as a decision was pending at the Court of Justice.
Last Friday, the Commission and the Member States representatives found
a political agreement that solves this last pending litigation between the
Council and the Commission, and avoids any potential risk of an unfavourable
Court judgment.
It also integrates new changes to the 2012 and 2013 pension contribution
rates, caused by the 0,8% salary adaptation for 2012 applied earlier this year.
In summary:
- the 2011 contribution rate will decrease from 11,6 % to 11,0 %
- the 2012 contribution rate will decrease from 10,6 % to 10,0 %
- the 2013 contribution rate will increase from 10,3 % to 10,9 %
The Council should approve the decision later this week and the changes would
then be retroactively applied on the December salary slip.
Staff recruited before July 2011 will receive money back (0,6 % gross x
12 months); staff recruited after July 2013 will have to pay money back.
The 2014 contribution rate is still under discussion and no information
can be disclosed at present.
As usual, we will keep you informed on any future update.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
No comments :
Post a Comment