At Generation 2004 we make no secret of the fact that we would like to see electoral reform [1]. A standardisation of the electoral rules [2] would make the staff representation not just simpler and significantly more user friendly for all, but also much more transparent.
That transparency would, ideally, also be extended to groupings of trade unions and staff associations (OSPs). It is imperative that staff know for whom they are voting: the voting system is already opaque and any agreements in place between OSPs should be made clear in order to allow staff to make informed decisions when voting. [1]
Why make groups?
An OSP is considered representative [3] if it represents at least 5% of staff at Commission level. Since only representative organisations have access to resources for their operation, non-representative organisations form federations or groupings in order to preserve their functions.
Visibility and transparency
There is a proposal to amend the procedure for election of the Brussels Local Staff Committee to be presented at the general assembly (13 September).
- The distribution of seats between list votes and preference votes shall affect list(s) which gain at least 5 % of the votes cast and in the case of a list composed of several trade unions and/or staff associations (OSPs) which have (a) pre-existing electoral agreement(s) concerning the share of representativeness, at least 10% for each such a composite list;
- One single grouping of several trade unions and/or staff associations which have (a) pre-existing electoral agreement(s) concerning the share of representativeness shall not be allowed to have multiple electoral lists;
- In the interest of transparency, all electoral materials as well as the ballot paper and electronic ballot, should clearly and visibly indicate all and any electoral agreements concerning the share of representativeness signed and which lists and trade unions/staff associations are signatories.
Brussels-based staff, please attend the general assembly and vote!
Everyone, please let us know [4] what you think of this proposal. Feel free to add a comment below. How easy to you find it to navigate (and engage with) the social dialogue at the Commission [5]?
We’d love to hear your experiences!
————————————————————–
[1] Were agreements [6] clear and visible to voters in 2019 [6]?
toolTips('.classtoolTips24','Formal negotiations and meetings between the representative trade unions and staff associations (OSPs [3]) [Organisations syndicales et professionnelles] and HR.'); toolTips('.classtoolTips27','Formal negotiations and meetings between the representative trade unions and staff associations OSPs (Organisations syndicales et professionnelles) and HR.'); toolTips('.classtoolTips37','Alliance (‘Confederal Alliance of Free Trade Unions’)Click for a bigger image.
[7]This is a grouping of 7 entities:
- Renouveau & Démocratie (R&D [8]) [shown here with additional logo for R&D Luxembourg]
- Conférence des syndicats européens et syndicat des fonctionnaires européens (Conf. SFE [9]) [+CISL, see published source [3]: Represented by 2 separate logos in the graphic]
- Union syndicale Luxembourg (USL [10])
- Solidarité européenne (SE [11]) [possibly obsolete, no longer represented in the graphic]
- Save Europe [12]
- Association des fonctionnaires indépendants pour la défense de la fonction publique européenne (TAO-AFI [13]) [\'TAO The independents\' in the graphic]
- Fédération de la Fonction publique européenne (FFPE)