On 9 October 2019, Commissioner Oettinger visited Luxembourg in order to talk to Mr Asselborn, Minister of Foreign Affairs Luxembourg, and discuss with him the follow-up of the Georgieva-Asselborn-Agreement[1] about the reallocation of 250 posts from Brussels to Luxembourg. The Commissioner took this opportunity to meet also the Board of the Local Staff Committee and representatives of OSPs in Luxembourg for a one-hour meeting before his meeting with Mr Asselborn.
The agenda of the meeting was as proposed by Commissioner Oettinger:
- A correction coefficient for Luxembourg
- The situation of contract agents in the childcare centres
- The implementation of the Georgieva-Asselborn-Agreement
The composition of the invited delegation did not truly reflect the representativeness of the OSPs at Luxembourg level. Around 50% of the delegation was set up by members of Union Syndicale Luxembourg (USL), who represent only 25.6% of staff in Luxembourg, but occupy all positions in the Board of the Local Staff Committee Luxembourg. Almost naturally, the meeting was therefore dominated by their core (or only) subject, a correction coefficient for Luxembourg, which they consider being the answer to all questions and the cure for all problems. In their opinion, the introduction of a correction coefficient would solve the financial problems of contract agents obtaining salaries along the poverty lines and would make Luxembourg attractive to staff to move here from Brussels. Furthermore, as they pretend, it would not even need a change of the staff regulations. Oh yes, maybe, but only a minor/small/cosmetic change… (Just recall: the latest cosmetic change of the Staff Regulations increased weekly working hours for everybody, lowered pension accrual rate and increased pensionable age for newcomers.)
Generation 2004 also participated in the meeting and seized the opportunity to point out to the Commissioner that OSPs representing the vast majority of staff in Luxembourg are rather sceptical about the usefulness of a correction coefficient and propose a housing allowance. The introduction of a housing allowance compared to a correction coefficient would not necessitate the opening of the Staff Regulations. It would also be a more appropriate measure to address the high cost of living in Luxembourg, which is mostly due to high housing costs. We also stressed that a correction coefficient as defined as a simple percentage of your salary would direct most of the money to the top of the salary grade leaving little financial benefit to the bottom. The least would go to those colleagues at the poverty line, mostly contract agents and AST/SC.
Generation 2004 also drove the attention of the Commissioner to the situation of contract agents in childcare centres who are currently recruited at function group II step 5 after only 5 years of working experience in broad sense without relevant qualification. This is the result of changing the rules in view of the difficulties to recruit qualified staff with the required at least 7 years of relevant experience for the offered salary. Generation 2004 asked the Commissioner when the promised screening exercise for qualified staff recruited at even lower grades before 2017 would be finally carried out. This would be urgently needed in order to improve their situation and prevent an exodus of qualified teachers to the European School who recently increased salaries by 35% in response to diminishing attractiveness vis-à-vis public and private schools operating in Luxembourg. Generation 2004 stressed that it is the quality of the service to our children which is at stake.
On the implementation of the Georgieva-Asselborn-Agreement, the Commissioner reported that already 50% of the committed posts have been transferred to Luxembourg and that the Commission is doing its best to avoid a violation of this agreement. Generation 2004 expressed its disappointment that the agreement does not include any obligation on the side of the Luxembourgish government, such as an obligation to take appropriate actions in order to release the serious tension on the housing market before forcing more staff to move to Luxembourg and to improve the transport infrastructure to be more suitable for the way of functioning of the European Institutions and for expatriate life. Generation 2004 noted that the recent decrease in home leave days particularly hit staff working in Luxembourg and originating in Member States that do not have a border to Luxembourg. Direct flights from the Findel airport to other places than international hubs are very rare so that home travels even by plane often take a full day or even more. This is a big disadvantage of this place compared to Brussels. Travelling to Brussels – the target of frequent missions – takes at least 3 hours by public transport. Travelling to Frankfurt – the seat of the European Central Bank, one of the main users of Eurostat data – takes at least 4 hours by public transport.
At the end of the meeting the Commissioner warned that putting demands to the Luxembourgish government could mean losing an ally in case of attacks coming from some Member States and informed that the Commission study about the cost of living in Luxembourg would soon be published (the study [1] was published on October 28). This study would take into account the fact that part of the staff working in Luxembourg actually lives outside the country. Yes, you got it right: you move out of the country as you cannot afford living in Luxembourg and this will be in the end turned against you!
[1] ‘DG HR continued to monitor progress under the 2015 ‘Georgieva-Asselborn’ agreement between the Commission and the Luxembourg authorities towards ensuring that 12.5% of the Commission’s total staff work in Luxembourg by 2022. […] Despite all the activities and projects launched to increase the attractiveness of the Luxembourg site since 2017, the percentage of staff has fallen from 11.7% to 11.4%. In order to analyse the situation and the relative attractiveness of the site compared with Brussels, DG HR commissioned a statistical study by an independent contractor, which found a 10.5% difference in the cost of living, mainly due to the cost of housing.’ (DG HR, General Report on the activities of Human Resources and Security, HR in 2019 [2], p. 86)