Generation 2004, together with U4U, will formally request the opening of a social dialogue with the administration to assess the growing financial pressures faced by EU staff and to explore possible support measures.
Recent exchanges within our own structures have shown clearly that realities differ across duty stations and that concerns have been raised about both the focus and the framing of this initiative.
These discussions have been useful and necessary. They have helped refine the approach and ensure that this issue is addressed in a balanced, evidence-based and institution-wide manner.
While the initial debate was triggered by developments affecting fuel prices, it has become increasingly evident that the underlying issue is much broader. This is not about fuel prices alone, nor about one particular location. It is about the overall cost of working and living as EU staff in a context of sustained inflation, changing working patterns and growing pressure on purchasing power.
Across the institutions, colleagues are facing rising food prices, increasing energy costs and continued housing constraints. These pressures manifest themselves differently depending on location. This is also reflected in concrete differences in everyday costs. For example, analysis by the Local Staff Committee Brussels shows a striking disparity in canteen prices between Brussels and Luxembourg: statutory staff spend around €107.80 per month in Luxembourg compared to €275 in Brussels, resulting in an annual difference of over €2,000.
In Luxembourg, long-distance cross-border commuting remains a major factor. In Brussels, the combined effect of housing costs and transport expenses weighs heavily on many colleagues. In Ispra and other sites, concerns have rightly been raised about the limited availability of public transport, which often makes reliance on private vehicles unavoidable. At the same time, this highlights an important sustainability dimension. Any reflection on mobility must remain consistent with environmental objectives, while recognising structural constraints. These differences are not contradictions. They are different expressions of the same structural problem.
Some colleagues have argued that fuel prices may be lower in certain locations and have therefore questioned the relevance of focusing on this aspect. That observation is not irrelevant, but it also points to the real issue. What matters is not the price of fuel in isolation, but the total cost of accessing the workplace, which depends on distance, infrastructure and individual circumstances.
Other comments have pointed to the existence of the salary adjustment method, which is intended to reflect salary increases for civil servants in Member States, which are correlated to inflation. Formally, that is of course true. Yet the current situation raises a legitimate question as to whether existing mechanisms fully capture rapid and uneven increases in the real cost of living, especially in periods of crisis. The purpose of the requested social dialogue is precisely to assess how these instruments function in practice and whether they remain sufficient under present conditions.
The discussions have also underlined another important point: any possible response must be designed carefully. A one-size-fits-all approach would not work. Simply replicating existing models or location-specific schemes could unintentionally exclude those who are among the most affected. Any potential measure must be fair and adapted to the diversity of situations across the institutions.
At the same time, the discussion should not be limited to commuting alone. The experience of the COVID-19 period showed very clearly that costs can shift depending on working arrangements. Extended teleworking transferred part of the financial burden to households, particularly in terms of energy consumption. In a context where energy prices remain high and where future crises could again lead to more remote work, this dimension should not be ignored.
This reflection also builds on the experience of the COVID-19 period. Extended teleworking was widely associated with the greening of the Commission, notably through reduced commuting. However, this shift also resulted in a substantial transfer of costs to staff, particularly in terms of home energy consumption. While environmental objectives are essential, this experience highlights the need to ensure that such transitions are accompanied by appropriate consideration of social fairness and do not disproportionately shift the financial burden onto staff.
This aspect becomes even more relevant in light of ongoing changes to the workplace itself. In Brussels, the sale of several buildings and the reorganisation of office space mean that many colleagues will be relocated and that desk availability may become more limited. As a result, physical presence in the office may no longer be possible to the same extent as in the past, due to structural constraints. This reinforces the importance of addressing the implications of hybrid work.
This is also why the issue should be seen through the lens of crisis preparedness. Recent developments have shown that geopolitical, economic and energy-related shocks can quickly affect working conditions. A resilient institution should be capable of anticipating such situations and responding in a fair and balanced way.
In this context, it is important to distinguish between temporary responses and structural reflection. Exceptional situations may justify targeted measures, while longer-term developments require broader adjustments.
There is also a very concrete social reality behind this debate. Recent exchanges highlight how differently these developments are experienced across staff categories. In one discussion, a higher-level AD official indicated that they do not immediately notice price increases because they do not check prices, while others, particularly Contract Agents in lower function groups, explained that they follow prices very closely and clearly see that they have less left at the end of the month. This example highlights a broader reality: rising costs affect staff unevenly, and for lower-paid colleagues, the erosion of purchasing power is immediate and tangible.
That is why this discussion is also linked to fairness between staff categories and, more broadly, to the attractiveness of the European civil service. If the gap between salaries and real living costs continues to widen, this will affect motivation, retention and the ability of the institutions to attract talent.
Generation 2004’s mission is to defend fair working conditions and the professional interests of staff across all categories and locations. In that spirit, this initiative is not about one site, one category or one specific cost item. It is about recognising a broader trend affecting staff and ensuring that the response is balanced and grounded in reality.
Generation 2004 and U4U will therefore bring this matter to the next inter-syndical meeting with the aim of building a coordinated approach and engaging constructively with the administration.
The objective is clear: to move beyond perceptions and work towards solutions that reflect the realities on the ground, both in the short term and in the long term.
Now is the time to act.