HR has stated its intention for the new time-registration tool to allow for comparison with office badging data at DG level: is this a solution in search of a problem?

One of the pillars of the Decision on working time and hybrid working (WTHW) is the culture of trust: a word used repeatedly at the December town hall. At the end of the day, staff are responsible for drafting European law, managing European funds and responding to the needs of the general public and Members States. A large part of European staff perform basically intellectual work; they are information workers and this can be difficult to quantify on a daily basis: only by the results in the mid and long term. Other staff members perform important tasks for staff, be it in canteens, crèches as drivers or security staff, and much more. It is impossible to achieve these goals without trust between colleagues, between management and staff, between European and national officials.

‘Hybrid working together with more flexible rules on working time will bring along a higher degree of autonomy for staff, as well as a greater sense of responsibility. For line managers, that will imply taking an objectives-based and results-oriented approach and developing an efficient remote management based on a culture of trust.’

‘Line managers shall respect the principles of trust-based management, which entail a high level of autonomy for staff and no unnecessary control.‘ (WTHW decision)

Surprisingly, the main conclusion of the Commission evaluation on the WTHW decision is that … more time registration tools are needed.

‘Improve time registration tools for accurate, effective and efficient encoding and monitoring including tools to measure effective office presence in buildings (morning and afternoon), to be able to follow trends in behaviours, but also to determine and address non-compliance.’

In contrast to the trust present in the decision itself:

‘5. In accordance with the principles of a trust-based working culture, staff shall ensure that the time slots of presence at the office and the time slots of telework conform to what was agreed with their line manager. In cases where such principles are not respected by the staff member, the line manager may increase monitoring.’

Since the Commission is lately flirting often with all sorts of data protection intrusions (exchanging personal data illegally, intruding on personal phones, and many others), Generation 2004 requested that HR clarify this new perceived need. We present their response here:

‘…the intention is to have a tool that would compare, at a directorate level, the percentage of presence at the office from badging data with the percentage of presence at the office from data recorded in Sysper. … Regarding the introduction of a monitoring system of telework/presence, where laptops logins would be compared with Sysper time encoding, I want to clarify that there is currently no plan either to implement or to explore this possibility in the near future.’[bold not present in original]

In short:

• Tracking the entering and leaving Commission buildings by staff
• Comparing this with the information typed in (times and locations)
• Not now, but in the future, possibly also to compare this data to PC logins (IP addresses)[2].

While it makes sense that the institution take disciplinary measures where an official or agent fails to fulfil their obligations, one would expect their direct manager to be the person best placed to know the context. The manager would normally be the person best placed to know the situation of each individual and to know of any arrangements made. It would normally fall within the competence of the line manager to raise concerns as necessary. Physical presence in a building can be relevant, particularly where a task cannot be done remotely[1] e.g. where you check entry tickets at the theatre or sell bread in a shop; but in an institution devoted nearly exclusively to develop knowledge services, the main concern should be whether a staff member is actually delivering something useful within the expected deadlines. Who is better placed to assess this than the direct manager of such a colleague? Does time spent in the office, in and of itself, equal work, as the HR letter seems to suggest? Are we  heading for a culture of presenteeism, where the most important aspect of all is to be present?

We also wonder whether a corresponding Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) has been done? (the Commission is a champion in failing to comply with the laws it passes: e.g. EPSO, sensitive data or MS 365). Has the data protection supervisor (EDPS) been informed about the HR snooping plans?

In accordance with Regulation (EU) No 2018/1725 HR needs legal grounds to extract the sysper data and compare with the badging data. Currently the badging data can be extracted for security purposes and where there is an investigation (see Commission data record: DPR-EC-00655.3 Commission Physical Access Control System (PACS)). Also Sysper is not envisaged as a monitoring tool, which can be found in the corresponding privacy statement.

This future HR ‘tool’ is clearly a solution in search of a problem, unless HR is genuinely promoting the idea that what matters is warming up a chair while sitting in a building rather than what you do with your brain.

It’s not difficult to imagine what might come next:

• Since only Commission buildings can be monitored, worktime spent in Council, Parliament, the Committees and stakeholders’ premises might be flagged as potential unjustified absences.
• Since the statistics are at Directorate level, immediately directors will need statistics at Unit level, so that the head of the ‘problematic’ unit takes care of the problem. We can be pretty sure the search will continue until a “problematic” individual is found.
• Heads of unit will have to increase their burden by trying to identify whether these flagged ‘absences’ are justified or not, for sure via requesting statistics at person level.
• Sooner or later, colleagues working hard until late in the evening to again meet an impossible deadline might realize that they didn’t encode perfectly all their hours and so receive a reprimand, a reprimand which is subsequently used as an unofficial criteria in the promotion process
• Generalized frustration and a reduction in efficiency and output

All this effort to deploy an all-Commission action to maybe find a couple of colleagues who weren’t taking their job seriously and whose direct manager already knew about it and was not addressing it[3]. It is a perfect example of a method of punishing a few individuals for the purpose of intimidating a whole population.

Is this a culture of trust or the wish come true of a micromanager control freak?

Generation 2004 requests that the budget and workforce devoted to this absurd endeavour be redirected to more pressing needs, such as opening a few cafeterias to facilitate colleagues coming more often to the office and have more face-to-face discussions rather than remaining stuck the whole day in front of a screen. A positive “nudge” many times works much better than policing, and threats. Who wants to be under the eye of the ‘Big Brother’, after all, instead of being treated as an adult and a professional?

As always, we would love to hear from you. Please do not hesitate to get in touch with us or leave a comment below.

If you appreciate our work, please consider becoming a member of Generation 2004.

——————————————————————————————————

[1] The register of tasks (whether listing incompatible or compatible tasks) has not (yet?) been done (March 2024)

‘DG HR should publish the register of tasks that are not compatible with teleworking, which is required by the Decision. This should provide in a comprehensive way, full support to managers with the implementation of the Decision, in particular when managing staff carrying out tasks on the register.’ (WTHW evaluation)

‘Commission staff mostly carry out knowledge-based activities, which are in principle compatible with teleworking. However, tasks that require physical presence, such as receiving the public, working as a driver, catering, physical mail distribution, on-site technical and logistical support for conferences and meetings, child care and certain medical services, are incompatible with telework. The rules on teleworking laid down in this Decision should therefore not apply to staff carrying out tasks which require physical presence.’ (WTHW decision)

‘DG HR shall set up a register of types of tasks incompatible with teleworking.’ (WTHW decision)

[2] It is not clear whether this was the means used to confirm location in the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) case of the colleague who worked from abroad for a month without permission IDOC activity report 2021, page 12, oddly under ‘unauthorised absences’.

[3] Training for managers is mentioned throughout the decision and its corresponding evaluation, though no figures are offered on uptake. Are managers being offered the support they appear to need to transition to managing hybrid teams? Is any of the training obligatory? It is much easier to measure time or presence than output: are managers struggling in this new environment?