We’ve written a lot already about the issues related to the remotely-proctored EPSO [1] competitions. When we first raised these issues on your behalf with EPSO[1] and its management board in December 2022 (and in April 2023 [2]), we anticipated that they would be addressed (whyever wouldn’t they be, right?). However, to our surprise (and disappointment), not much was done. To add insult to injury, the very same issues we highlighted then continue to be present, even across different providers, in the internal competitions [3]: a situation we find both frustrating and scandalous. Nevertheless, the response continues to be unsatisfactory: ‘everything is fine’ (January [4], February [5] and May [6]).
The fact that staff representatives and staff committees are not always listened to is not new: we are already used to this. Nevertheless, the weight of evidence in this case, with so many testimonies and so many meetings organised where we brought these issues to the attention of those in charge, should have been more than enough for change. We cannot comprehend why this has not happened.
A poor reflection of the institutions
The external competitions are the face of the EU institutions, issues with EPSO put the reputation of the institutions at stake. Internal competitions (when done fairly [7]) are the soul of our institutions, reflecting the best the those institutions as an employer have to offer their staff: giving some staff the opportunity to advance in their careers and others the chance to become permanent Commission employees and thus gain job security. Those internal competitions [8] are a privilege for some (certain categories of staff are systematically excluded), but they are not held every year: your time at the Commission might not coincide with a competition.
Issues with testing: technical
Imagine you have been preparing over several months (time, energy, money) for a once-in-a-career competition, in particular for those with limited contracts as Contract Agents (CAs) or Temporary Agents (TAs). You then face technical issues that are out of your control, having to call an international helpdesk (at your own expense) and in the end, DG HR tells you that it was your fault, and you are out.
The balance of responsibility is now reversed. If there were technical difficulties in a test centre then it would be up to the test centre to fix it. Now, with no test centres you have to do the test remotely. How can you prove that the connection issues were not on your side? Even with such evidence, some candidates were excluded.
Issues with testing: leaks, drafting, scope and everyday functions deactivated
Alternatively, imagine you prepared extensively and the test connection is fine. Unfortunately, you find out that the colleagues who sat the tests after you already had access to all of the EU knowledge questions (somehow shared online): an advantage for them. This, without mentioning that the questions have been found to test very trivial knowledge (national infrastructure projects in Member States?), to include inadvertent spelling mistakes and to have been poorly drafted and sometimes even unfinished.
Many of those sitting the tests complained that their preparation was useless: the tests were on topics completely outside the scope of the tasks described in the notice of the competition. Who honestly knows what the “” is? Who would even know how to prepare for such a wide topic: ongoing infrastructure projects, future infrastructure projects? How many Commission employees could reasonably be expected to have this knowledge? Is it something that is needed for the job at the Commission? Are we testing for the job or testing to exclude? Additionally, we observed that candidates had to face artificial (and pointless?) obstacles such as the absence of some everyday functionalities e.g. copy and paste or formatting.
A new survey
The problems repeatedly raised by the candidates and the staff representatives were often dismissed as though they were more of an exaggerated “urban legend” than corroborated testimonies. For this reason we have launched a survey [9] to get more structured evidence about the situation: please share your experience!
The ongoing transformation
Going to another aspect of the competitions. There is a complete lack of strategy from the services responsible and absence of aligned vision. This can be seen in different rules for different platforms and invigilators (proctors). With the already launched new EPSO competitions model [10], it is still unclear (including to those that are deciding upon these matters) where we are heading. We are already running the marathon without knowing the itinerary. Although the first competition under the new model [11]started already on 22 June 2023 [12], EPSO are still discussing the recruitment phase steps, who will be responsible for which task. Staff representatives should definitely be included in this process as guardians of the rules, champions of transparency and to ensure equal treatment of candidates. Although, ideally, this would have been done before the launch.
Taking ownership
It seems that making savings to the EU budget [13] is of a higher priority than saving the EU institutions’ image and (fading?) prestige. Yet, are we really saving money if the cancellation of the competition EPSO/AST/154/22 costs the taxpayers 300 000 EUR? Saving money is the ‘catch all’ used as an excuse for everything nowadays.
The situation is simply a mess … and the ongoing inability (unwillingness?) to deal with these matters should pose one fundamental question: who should take the political responsibility for this failure? Inequalities and discriminatory measures lead to a negative image to potential future candidates, the institutions are shown to be unprofessional in fixing this mess. Why on Earth were the vision and the strategy not finished before taking any action?
The future
The situation is still fixable: if those making decisions acknowledge and address the issues raised then the institutions can come out of this wiser, better and more robust. Potential recruits can see the institutions as ready, able and willing to respond to feedback and make the necessary change. We are collecting your feedback and testimonies to show where changes need to be made.
As always, feel free to contact [14] us if you have questions: we’re here for you!
———————————————-
[1] We did this in all possible configurations:
Common Front [15]: note 25.01.2023 [16],
Central Staff Committee
| 15/12/2022 (2022)8710389 |
Serious problems related to competition EPSO/AST/154/22 [17] + Annex [18] | EPSO 17/01/2023 |
| 31/01/2023 (2023)704508 | Nouveau modèle de concours EPSO [19] | HR 22/02/2023 |
| 29/03/2023 (2023)2273159 | Extraordinary meeting of EPSO Management Board – EPSO/AST/154/22 competition and next steps [20] | HR 08/05/2023 |
| 11/05/2023 (2023)3298624 | Note for the Attention of The European Ombudsman [21] + Annex [22]1+ Annex [23]2 |