The implementation of the Decision on Working Time and Hybrid Working (WTHW) was evaluated by DG HR at the end of 2023 and, while targeted actions are now expected, there will be no big revision, the promised flexibility is still one-sided. Generation 2004 was pleased to notice that the evaluation is overall very positive and that many managers also appreciated the enhanced flexibility of WTHW and made use themselves of the possibilities to better reconcile their private and professional lives.
‘Overall, staff and management appreciate the changes and the flexibility in working conditions. It increased the autonomy of staff, their sense of empowerment, ownership and responsibility. It leads to staff going the extra mile with increased productivity and efficiency, finding more solutions and being more creative. therefore, it can be considered that the institution benefits through better performance and higher motivation.’
However, among the several different areas identified for improvement in the 8 broad recommendations and in spite of the positive evaluation, we do not see more flexibility in general nor do we see any additional flexibility regarding working from home (‘teleworking’). For example, the evaluation does not address the long-anticipated extension of the current 10 days of teleworking from anywhere (TWA)[1]. This is in sharp contrast to the demands of a large number of staff members (and Generation 2004) and the practices in place in many other EU institutions, agencies and the private sector[2].
On the contrary, we do see a tendency towards more control and a policing of staff working patterns, which is the opposite of that culture of trust on which WTHW was based[3]. Clearly, such trust is still to be created in the minds of some high-level senior managers and middle managers in our institution. We ask whether the training and guidance promised in the WTHW Decision for managing hybrid teams was sufficiently used[4].
Staff continue to demand more teleworking flexibility
Given that even DG HR evaluated positively the results of the WTHW decision, and the fact that we all exclusively teleworked for 2 years proving it works, Generation 2004 asks again – as it has been doing since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic – to move to a more flexible approach to TWA, allowing 60 days/year to all staff.
Moreover, we ask for a more flexible approach to TW within the place of employment, with office days being calculated on a monthly basis (instead of the current weekly counting), as is done in other institutions. This would give much-needed flexibility to many colleagues who have to juggle work, transport difficulties, family responsibilities, sick relatives and other commitments. Especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, it became very clear that work-life balance is a key aspect for the majority of workers, which even gave rise to a phenomenon known as “The Great Resignation”, (starting in the US in 2021 and then extending also to Europe, Asia and beyond) which saw a huge acceleration as employers began to insist on a return to the office.
It is now clear that a modern and attractive employer must guarantee a set of measures to ensure flexibility and pay closer attention to work-life balance. This holds even more true for an institution that needs to recruit staff from all over the EU and maintain geographical balance while ensuring sufficient diversity and representativeness. This becomes difficult when considering that the social measures available at the Commission e.g. leave relating to parenthood, sickness and caring duties are often very limited and outdated when compared to the laws in place in many Member States.
Generation 2004 reiterates its requests on TWA
Since 2020, Generation 2024 has been requesting two main types of teleworking from outside the place of employment (TWA): 1) 60 days/year for all staff members, without requiring specific justifications, and 2) TWA for ad hoc needs, including health issues, family needs, study, pre-retirement etc., to be authorized.
Furthermore, we request that the exceptional teleworking set out in the WTHW decision for “imperative family reasons” be extended to cover other important cases. Such cases would include (non-exhaustive list!): medical reasons, family reasons, being a caregiver for a family member, pregnancy and maternity[5].
Special circumstances where additional flexibility would mean a lot!
For example, colleagues with serious illnesses – including cancer – that have to undergo regular check-ups and are not under treatment in a clinic in their place of employment, would greatly benefit from the possibility to do some TWA during that time. Let’s not forget that working and feeling active has an important therapeutic value for many colleagues in this situation, as is the confidence that your planning does not depend on an arbitrary decision made elsewhere.
Similarly, the rules in place at the Commission for cases when the staff member has to be the caregiver of their spouse or a relative are totally insufficient, and fall short of the comprehensive and more protective and flexible legislation in place in many Member States. Again, although not the perfect solution, TW and TWA would allow to make the situation easier to manage for those involved.
Special circumstances where modernisation would mean a lot!
In the case of having a child, it is striking to see that the Commission offers only 20 weeks of maternity leave with limited possibilities to have additional time (e.g. breastfeeding[6]) or to extend that leave (even with a progressive salary reduction, as set out in many countries[7]). With only 10 days of paternity leave for the birth itself (the additional 5 days available is restricted to those with the financial capacity), the Commission offers worse conditions than the vast majority of Member States.
Generation 2004 especially criticizes the notion of still limiting fathers being present with their newborn: this conception of paternity, reinforcing the idea of the mother as the main carer, perpetuating disparity among sexes and old-time family roles, is now being overcome by the legislation of many forward-looking Member States, where are the institutions with this?[8]
In order offer more modern arrangements for work-life balance, teleworking (and TWA) is not the only solution but would at least be a way to start closing this gap and allowing all of us, but particularly new parents adjusting to their new role, to share responsibility better.
Importantly, in all the cases mentioned TW and TWA would preserve the INTEREST OF THE SERVICE, as the staff member would not have to resort to taking time off work (CCP, credit-time leave, etc.) but would still be working. This means also no added burden for their colleagues and managers alike.
If the Commission wants to be a modern employer that takes active care of the physical and psychological wellbeing of its staff, it is time to act! For our institutions to attract and retain the best talent on the market, it is necessary to offer modern working conditions that put the human factor at the centre. DG HR promised this in the “New HR Strategy”: a few years down the line, it is now high time to walk the talk!
In the meantime, please use what you’re entitled to!
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] Also ‘teleworking from abroad’, ‘Telework away from the place of employment’, ‘teleworking from outside the place of assignment’, ‘teleworking from outside the place of employment’ or ‘telework outside the place of employment’ (TWOPE). All are synonymous with TWA as used above.
[2] At the WTHW-evaluation town-hall meeting the Commission was declared to stand firmly in the middle ground as neither the most generous nor the least generous. The (WTHW) evaluation comparison (p.55) does not support this claim and suggests that the Commission is at the less-generous end of the scale: of the 10 institutions evaluated for comparison, 6 had more TWA days than the Commission, 2 had the same number and of the remaining 2, one had only 5 days and one had none at all.
[3] 1 of the 8 broad recommendations is dedicated to just that.
‘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.
Set up a standard procedure that determines the steps to be followed in case non-compliance is suspected and the measures to be taken in case non-compliance is confirmed. Staff should be made aware of the process and the consequences in case of non-compliance.’
[4] The evaluation repeats that training ‘should be organised’ (WTHW evaluation, p15) but makes no mention of the uptake. The wording suggests training is still something hypothetical: it is not at all clear whether this is a question of language or whether the promised training is indeed still wishful thinking. We are certainly seeing many cases where additional support and guidance for those managing people appears to be needed.
[5] While these are currently possible, they are not a right and access to them cannot be guaranteed. You will need documentation and the agreement/permission of your line manager (WTHW decision Article 11(2)) meaning that two colleagues in exactly the same circumstances but working in different teams may find that one is permitted to telework from abroad for exceptional reasons and the other not. We’d like to see staff being able to make use of this option, regardless of their relationship with their line manager or the line manager’s confidence in their own abilities.
[6] We find it hilarious but at the same time disconcerting that breastfeeding ‘should be done: around the lunch break’. While this phrase works grammatically, it is very, very unlikely to work in real life: are babies expected to comply with core time also? (Now called timeslots where you are available for interaction with colleagues: 09:30–12:00 and 15:00–16:30 (16:00 on Wednesdays and Fridays)). (WTHW decision Article 5(1))
[7] ‘Austria offers a minimum of 16 weeks at 100% pay, then an optional 44 additional weeks at 73.1% pay.’ Maternity Leave by Country 2023 (worldpopulationreview.com)
The EU institutions do offer 12 months (52 weeks) of parental leave in for each parent to be taken before the child is 12 years old. This can be used as part-time or full-time and is paid via a set allowance (i.e. you are paid (much) less than your normal wage, meaning that there are financial barriers to using this leave). Parental leave is 24 months for lone parents.
[8] The European Institute for Gender Equality pushes for Gender Mainstreaming to counter many current gender-biased rules. It is unfortunate that the ideals expressed by the EU often don’t materialise in real life.
Parental leave, overwhelmingly used by mothers (to reduce the financial hit) is only a small part of a much-needed solution – especially for low-income households – and this use perpetuates gender stereotypes and traditional power balances inside couples and society at large.
‘Women and men shall have equal access to special leaves of absence in order to fulfil their caring responsibilities and be encouraged to use them in a balanced way.’ (point 9, The European Pillar of Social Rights in 20 principles)
We note here also the disproportionate distribution of the high costs of pregnancy and a newborn: maternity medical care and/or IVF costs are shouldered by the woman alone (15-20%). Why is there no means to split this responsibility/burden between (potential) parents when they are considered together as a single unit for future allowances and education?
