*Update 15.01.2025, Here’s our December note on the technical difficulties in application process in a call for expression of interest for the internal competition JPP14 (French and German as language 2).*

*Update 20.12.2024, Here’s our Note to HR on European Court of Auditors Special report: European Court of Auditors, 2024, Special report 24/2024: EU Civil service–A flexible employment framework, insufficiently used to improve workforce management*

Original article: In 2004, Mr. Neil Kinnock who was the Commission’s Vice-President & Commissioner responsible for the Administrative Reform, delivered his masterpiece: The (first) Staff Regulation Reform.  Among the many changes and novelties proposed in the drafts for this ground-breaking reform, was a reduction in the use of Contract Agents (CAs). Incredible, eh?

The very same observations we are making now were known and visible then.

‘… recourse to contractual staff can be wasteful as the cost of employing them can be greater than for permanent officials, yet the Commission cannot count on retaining their skills. The Commission will continue to use contract staff but intends to reduce its reliance on them, especially at headquarters [Brussels]. It will therefore make a proposal to convert part of its budget for such staff into permanent posts.’ European Commission, 2000, Reforming the Commission : A White Paper- Part I

Nevertheless, up until now it’s been entirely the opposite course of action, with no sign of changing any time soon[1]. In 2024 only 66% of the European Commission’s 51000 members of statutory staff are permanent officials: 23% are contract staff and 11% are temporary staff[2]. That means that 34% of staff across 11 institutions and bodies and 6 executive agencies have little job security. Many of these staff will not be able to draw a pension from the Pension Scheme of the EU institutions (PSEUI) and must leave after 7 years or when their task ends regardless of how well they have performed. How’s that for talent management?

‘The Commission is placing greater reliance on contract staff to cope with increased workloads and fewer recruitment opportunities … Finally, less favourable conditions of employment have reduced the attractiveness of working for the EU at a time when it is struggling to attract sufficient staff from a number of Member States.’ European Court of Auditors, 2019, Special report no 15/2019: Implementation of the 2014 staff reform package at the Commission – Big savings but not without consequences for staff, Paragraph VI

A reality check: doing more with less

The composition of statutory staff is changing: there are more and more TA and CA staff with fewer and fewer officials. Those officials are, since the 2014 reform, split across 3 function groups and not two. There is now a lower function group for AST/SC staff. These colleagues are officials but have lower pay and mobility than the others. All staff are carrying out tasks beyond their grade and pay[5]: it’s being made to constantly do more with less and rely on the goodwill of staff to hold things together.

In this same way, while on paper FGIV contract agents are to carry out administrative, advisory, linguistic and equivalent technical tasks, performed under the supervision of officials or temporary staff[3], we can all attest that this is not the case in real life. Are there even enough officials and TAs to supervise the growing numbers of CAs?  Officially CAs are not allowed to work independently nor lead other staff, they are strictly subordinated to officials and TS, regardless of their qualifications, their experience, their seniority and of the fact that they passed the CA selection tool (CAST).

In reality, CA colleagues perform the same tasks performed by officials and TS at a much lower cost, in Luxembourg many CAs earn the minimum wage. Look at the salary scales: contract agents and AST/SC staff are even on a different scale from AST and AD staff.

‘As the use of contract staff becomes increasingly common, there has been a corresponding increase in the diversity of status and pay of the Commission’s workforce. For example, GFIV contract staff meeting the same minimum recruitment requirements (education and experience) as junior administrators may earn 28 % less than the latter. Currently around 6 % of staff, all of them GFI and GFII contract staff, earn less than the lowest paid official (AST/SC_1[4], with a basic yearly salary around €32 400). Another third of staff (across all categories) earn up to twice that amount.’ Special report no 15/2019: Implementation of the 2014 staff reform package at the Commission – Big savings but not without consequences for staff, Paragraph 61

It is indeed true that the institution has saved millions of euros since 2004, but it is clearly false that CA tasks are limited to administrative support activities as we all very well know and see that CAs actually carry out also coordination, leadership and management tasks. We see again and again staff working above and beyond their stated roles, with little recognition. In the Commission’s own words,

“contract staff have made a useful contribution to the work of the institutions by carrying out administrative support activities at a lower cost and by bringing in skills not always readily available within the institutions”[6].

A false economy: what is the cost of training colleagues only to lose them?

Before and after

The driving thought behind the 2004 staff regulations reform could be that suggested by a 2001 Politico article:

“…..Those reforms (within the Labour Party) were based on Kinnock’s early understanding of a paradox of progressive politics which is perhaps best summed by Giuseppe Lampedusa in Il Gattopardo: “If we want things to stay the same then they will have to change”.

In order to safeguard the prerogatives of the pre-2004 (and now pre-2014) EU civil servants (‘officials’), it was necessary to reduce costs and dilute rights among a plethora of staff categories.

This extract may bring to our mind another very famous and very well tested strategy about dividing and ruling…..

This is exactly what happened over the following twenty years. Some officials maintained their privileges and grip on the decision-making process while an increasing army of those recruited to non-permanent contracts or the new AST/SC function group helped the institution absorb the ever-increasing amount of work at a cheaper rate, neutralise the financial impact of questionable decisions, secure business continuity, etc., etc.

The underclass

Today, the lower ranks of the Commission’s staff represents well over 30% of its workforce. Nevertheless, they have very little say on the decisions affecting their working conditions, their well-being and their professional development.

Such exclusion from the decision-making process, actually reveals a slight conflict of interest, as those doing well with the status quo have little interest in changing the system.

We cannot deny that non-permanent and post-2014 staff are invited to participate in social dialogue activities and are indeed vocal and active in proposing improvements. However, their claims and proposals are not bearing much fruit: they appear to fall on deaf ears or to be welcomed in sterile staff surveys or in phantom reform plans.

It is worthwhile to mention that this newer underclass of staff is not begging for a salary surge, some feel privileged and are actually very happy and grateful for the remuneration package they receive. Nevertheless, they are all begging to be recognised as humans firstly and professionals secondly in the same way as established staff.  After all, they share the same capabilities, have the same needs, face the same problems, come from very similar backgrounds, nourish the same professional expectations, suffer the same setbacks, etc.,etc.

In 2004 this first staff regulations reform divided the institutions into those already inside and those not yet recruited.

Supreme principles the institution bravely promoted on the global stage, such as equal opportunities for all, equal treatment, equal job equal pay and no discrimination were much vaunted, but difficult to see in-house. Such a new staff configuration cannot prevent another well-known quote from crossing our minds: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”

In real life

Here is a selection of the highlights:

• Professional careers are reserved for certain function groups of officials only [7]. The others are limited in their options to participate in internal competitions (there are a number of artificial restrictions to those competitions) or accept a career path where advancement is slow or perhaps even  non-existent. In spite of doing many of the tasks which nominally belong to other function groups, the underclass will not be recognised as leaders or permitted to become heads or directors of sections, units or DGs. Many of the underclass therefore, might (on paper, at least) carry out the same exact job from the day they enter the service until they retire. They might also see their tasks increase in scope and responsibility, without that ever being formally recognised or rewarded.
  • Consequences:
    • Lack of motivation;
    • Lack of self-esteem;
    • Psychological stress;
    • Feeling of being a second-class employee;
    • Depression;
  • Further restrictions are applied to CAs working in EU delegations; they can work in Brussels (‘HQ’) only once in their lifetime for a very limited period;
    • Consequences:
      • 20 to 30 years of service in often difficult environments far from close relatives, parents and friends takes a serious toll on well-being;
      • Family impact: their children might have to leave their family environment for better education opportunities;
      • CAs are likely to live very far away from their aging parents;
      • CAs will frequently find themselves living in countries with lower health facilities while suffering particular medical conditions;
    • Unpaid leave for personal reasons is disproportionately limited in its application for different categories of staff;
    • Allowances, such as those for living conditions and entitlement to rest leave (ICV), installation or expatriation are worth much less for some staff than others in spite of living and working in the same place and facing the same hardship;
      • For example, a CA FGII with a family might receive much less than a single official colleague in spite of having greater installation costs: a fixed allowance might better address the well-being of CAs with families.
    • Some officials enjoy a faster and constant promotion pace. The new underclass suffer a much slower pace with increasing time frames;
      • Consequences:
        • It takes on average 27 years for a FGIV CA to climb all the way from grade XIII to grade XVIII, with a salary increase of approximately EUR 3,500
        • It takes 30 years for an AST/SC to climb from ASTSC1 to AST/SC6, with a salary increase of approximately EUR 2,700
        • The same time frame will bring an AD official from grade 5 to grade 12, with a salary increase of EUR 7,700 and a remarkable professional career
      • CAs and AST/SCs carry out many of the same jobs as those in other staff categories, but are paid significantly less[8];
        • Consequences:
          • Frustration;
          • Feeling of being a second-class employee;
          • Feeling of inferiority.
        • Certain CAs in HQ, as with many non-permanent staff in the Commission are forced to leave the institution after 6 years of service notwithstanding the permanent nature of the post;
          • Consequences:
            • The institution must keep recruiting and investing on new staff while losing valuable expertise;
            • Staff are not particularly motivated, lack the feeling of belonging and of being valued as professional assets.
          • this underclass are not considered an asset of the institution. If they wish to leave the locked box of category restrictions, they will probably have to take the outside door like any other outsider and do an external EPSO competitions. Very strict barriers have been erected to limit their access via internal doors.
            • Consequences:
              • Feeling of being a stranger in your own house;
              • Frustration;
              • Lack of motivation.

And the 2014 staff regulations reform hit the EEAS hard

Another demonstration of power was exercised under the second staff regulation reform (2014). On top of the many, many reductions made there, the institution unilaterally cut 40% of annual-leave days and reduced the travel allowance from business class to economy class for those working outside the EU.

This time, however, the decision-makers addressed everyone as equal ignoring the fact that the underclass working outside the EU does not have the privilege of choosing where to work, whether in HQ or the EUD, hence may very likely have different needs because of such conditions.

• Additional time needed to carry out administrative, health and personal business that cannot be carried out in countries of posting
• Additional time needed to spend time with aging parents who normally live thousands of miles away at their places of origin
• Staff based around the world might need additional time to spend time with children living thousands of miles away as they seek better education establishments in richer countries.

From the past to the present and onto the future

Again, the driving need is once more to save money regardless of the disproportional impact. Check out the many, many changes already made by these two reforms.

In this context and over the past 13 years, Generation 2004 has been denouncing this situation vocally and has exploited every possible opportunity to bring some meaningful change.

The latest of such opportunity was in the review of the decision laying down general implementing provisions for the engagement and use of temporary staff.

With a view to granting internal candidates priority vis à vis external candidates in the selection procedures leading to the recruitment of Temporary Staff, Generation 2004 proposed to explicitly include in the decision a provision that would require the publication of an expression of interest addressed to CAs before publishing the vacancy to the broader public.

This proposal is a timid attempt to mitigate the effects of some of the highlighted consequences mentioned above.

Giving CAs priority in the selection procedure of TS with respect to external candidates would have the following multiple effects:

• the opportunity to access well-deserved career advancements;
• As TS, the opportunity to participate in internal competitions at a level corresponding to experience and seniority;
• the feeling of belonging to an institution that truly values experience, competence and merit;
• Reignite self-esteem and motivation;
• Give the institution the possibility to capitalise on internal assets, hence improve the efficiency of the management of its human and financial resources.

We hope the administration understands how important every opportunity is for CAs and other members of the underclass and eventually takes our proposal on board.

Step by step

From a general perspective, the only configuration that would eradicate the above-mentioned inequalities and possibly guarantee equal opportunities for all, equal treatment, equal job equal pay and non-discrimination, would be to address the long-standing and growing inequalities in the institutions.

It is time to admit that the 2004 experiment, from a human and professional perspective, has been a total failure: the ‘savings’ have been a false economy and have negatively impacted recruitment, retention and job satisfaction.

Generation 2004 is mindful of such a result and will keep working with staff and the administration to create a more equal and respectful working environment at the European Commission.

As always, if you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact us!

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

—————————

[1] There are two types of CA: 3A are recruited to carry out administrative, advisory, linguistic and equivalent technical tasks and can become permanent (‘indefinite’). CA 3B are to do auxiliary tasks and are limited to 6/7 years: check out the anti-cumulation rule. The name relates to the corresponding article in the Staff Regulations.

[2] European Court of Auditors, 2020, Special Report 23/2020: The European Personnel Selection Office: Time to adapt the selection process to changing recruitment needs. P. 6. The Commission’s 1562 local staff or local agents (LA) are excluded from this article as they fall under the Framework Rules for LA and not the staff regulations.

[3] European Court of Auditors, 2019, Special report no 15/2019: Implementation of the 2014 staff reform package at the Commission – Big savings but not without consequences for staff,  P. 51, Annex III indicative tasks.

[4] Report from the Commission on the use of contract staff in 2017 and 2018Brussels, 15.2.2021 COM(2021) 60 final

[5] The stated ‘indicative tasks’ for each function group have long been out of alignment with what is happening in real life. Special report 24/2024 Paragraph 94 recognises that many staff are performing tasks beyond their function group and the response from the Parliament even suggests that the AST/SC function group might already be ‘obsolete because of the pace of digitalisation’ (P.2).

[6] The secretaries and clerks (AST/SC) function group came from the second staff regulations reform (2014) and corresponds to the pre-2004 staff categories C secretaries and clerks and

D those carrying out manual roles e.g. ushers or drivers. The AST/SC 1 salary is below the subsistence salary reference salary of the staff regulations.

[7] Some 35 ASTs manage to enter the AD function group each year through the certification exercise. There are currently 5855 AST officials in total, but only those AST5(2) and above are eligible to compete for a place.

 [8] A vibrant example in EU delegations (EUDs) is the role of Team Leader. In one office of the same EUD you have a CA TL, in the office next door you have an AD official TL. They both carry out the exact same job but the CA earns half if not less of what the AD official earns. The cherry on the cake is that once the posting period is over the CA is demoted back to Project Officer. Probably the only reputable organisation in the world that demotes its staff after a promotion. In Brussels and Luxembourg we have AST team leaders, something which is not recognised in ‘indicative tasks’. There are teams around the Commission composed of AD and AST staff where they are all doing the same tasks, but their promotion and recognition differences will be significant.