Cadre Financier : les syndicats rencontrent le Commissaire Hahn

MFF: Trade Unions meet Commissioner Hahn 

Intervention commune des syndicats au Commissaire Hahn (extraits) :

Concernant la nécessité et l’urgence de mettre en place un véritable dialogue social structuré

Pour cette réunion avec le Commissaire, les syndicats sont arrivés, au-delà de leurs différences, à se mettre d’accord sur leur message. Leur première demande concernait la mise en place d’une « véritable structuration du dialogue social respectueuse de l’accord cadre que les OSP ont signé avec notre institution » . Les réunions d’informations, appréciées, ne sauraient suffire. Il est nécessaire d'assurer des réunions de concertation en bonne et due forme. Ils ont ajouté : « Les difficultés liées à la pandémie COVID 19 dont nous sommes parfaitement conscients, ne peuvent pas justifier de telles attitudes (..). Nous demandons votre impulsion politique pour mettre enfin en place le véritable dialogue social structuré et efficace que notre personnel et notre institution méritent ».

Par ailleurs les syndicats ont demandé aussi « la planification de rencontres régulières avec vous qui sont à nos yeux absolument essentielles pour aborder avec vous les enjeux politiques, disposer ainsi d’un cadre clair devant être mis en œuvre par notre administration et aussi pour vous soumettre les aspects qu’il n’aura pas été possible de résoudre au niveau technique ».

Ce dialogue social est d’autant plus nécessaire face à la nécessité de mettre en œuvre les résultats de la négociation des MFF en ce qui concerne plus particulièrement sa rubrique 7, ont-ils ajouté.

Concernant les MFF

Les syndicats ont affirmé qu’ils auraient aimé en effet être associés plus en amont sur les perspectives financières.

Puis ils ont ajouté : « Nous souhaiterions d’emblée savoir quel est le lien entre le MFF et la new HR strategy. Il convient de dire avec la plus grande clarté que cet exercice, d’ailleurs assez confus comme les propositions concernant la politique immobilière et l’aménagement de l’espace de travail, ne vise pas en réalité simplement à obtenir de nouvelles économies et à introduire de restrictions supplémentaires, au détriment des perspectives de carrière, des conditions de travail et du bien-être de notre personnel. Ceci après les restrictions très lourdes que le personnel a déjà subi à la suite des réformes successives et qui ont même mis en cause l’attractivité de notre fonction publique, comme la Commission a dû le reconnaître ».

Ils ont aussi demandé « à être étroitement associés (…) à l’analyse des conséquences du MFF sur les politiques du personnel et l’environnement de travail.

La représentation du personnel considère que dans le cadre du statut actuel, il parfaitement possible d’améliorer notre politique du personnel et notamment la situation de certaines catégories du personnel tout en ne mettant pas en cause les acquis et en respectant le cadre budgétaire. (NDLR : c’est nous qui soulignons).

Intervention de U4U:

We are satisfied to finally have an opportunity for dialogue on this subject, which we requested before the summer of 2020. For us, the staff unions must be involved upstream in decision-making.

We are also satisfied with the adoption of budgetary resources for the next programming period.

However, we question the reasoning behind the reduction of the already very reasonable proposal made by the Juncker Commission: this reduction is incomprehensible in the current context of the global health, social and economic crisis.

We also regret the reduction of 2.5 billion under heading 7 (staff costs), at a time when the European Civil Service task load is increasing. Furthermore, the launch of this major Recovery Plan is envisaged without any additional funds being made available by the Commission for its management.

Moreover, this is happening at a time there are so many areas where improvements for staff are necessary and where there are not enough funds being made available. The European civil service has witnessed budgetary reductions for the past 16 years with inevitable negative consequences for both its staff and services.

In addition, we also regret the reduction in the share of subsidies in the recovery plan in favor of loans;

Also, how can the absorption capacities of Community funds be improved? Is the Commission planning any initiative on this?

Given a second, or even a third wave of the epidemia, with all its social and economic consequences, will the current recovery plan be enough?

The budgetary agreement envisages its own specific financial resources on a schedule already outlined. How will this be implemented, according to which time scale, and with what rate of return?

Finally, although staff representation has not been involved in the dialogue concerning the Union's budget , it does wish to be involved in defining the savings to be made.

Voir aussi :  Les syndicats rencontrent le Commissaire Hahn : une première réflexion sur ses propos

13/01/2021

Trade unions in the Commission met with the Commissioner on 12 January to receive information on MFFs. Here is their joint intervention as well as the intervention of our organisation.

Joint trade union intervention to Commissioner Hahn (excerpts) :

On the need and urgency to set up a genuine structured social dialogue:

For this meeting with the Commissioner, the trade unions were able to agree on their message beyond their differences. Their first request was to set up "a real structuring of the social dialogue that respects the framework agreement that the trade unions signed with our institution". Information meetings, which are appreciated, are not enough. It is necessary to ensure proper consultation meetings. They added: "The difficulties linked to the COVID 19 pandemic, of which we are perfectly aware, cannot justify such attitudes (...). We ask for your political impetus to finally put in place the real structured and effective social dialogue that our staff and our institution deserve".

Furthermore, the trade unions have also asked for "the planning of regular meetings with you, which we consider absolutely essential in order to discuss the political issues with you, to have a clear framework to be implemented by our administration and also to submit to you the aspects that it will not have been possible to resolve at the technical level".

This social dialogue is all the more necessary in view of the need to implement the results of the MFF negotiations with regard to heading 7 in particular, they added.

On the MFF:

The unions said that they would indeed have liked to have been involved earlier on the financial perspectives.

Then they added: "We would like to know from the outset what the link is between the MFF and the new HR strategy. It should be made very clear that this exercise, which is, moreover, rather confusing like the proposals on building policy and workspace planning, is not in fact simply aimed at achieving further savings and introducing additional restrictions, to the detriment of the career prospects, working conditions and well-being of our staff. This follows the very heavy restrictions that staff have already suffered as a result of successive reforms and which have even put into question the attractiveness of our civil service, as the Commission has had to acknowledge".

They also asked "to be closely involved (...) in the analysis of the consequences of the MFF on personnel policies and the working environment.

The staff representation considers that within the framework of the current Staff Regulations, it is perfectly possible to improve our personnel policy and in particular the situation of certain categories of staff while not calling into question the achievements and respecting the budgetary framework. (Editor's note: emphasis added).

Intervention de U4U:

We are satisfied to finally have an opportunity for dialogue on this subject, which we requested before the summer of 2020. For us, the staff unions must be involved upstream in decision-making.

We are also satisfied with the adoption of budgetary resources for the next programming period.

However, we question the reasoning behind the reduction of the already very reasonable proposal made by the Juncker Commission: this reduction is incomprehensible in the current context of the global health, social and economic crisis.

We also regret the reduction of 2.5 billion under heading 7 (staff costs), at a time when the European Civil Service task load is increasing. Furthermore, the launch of this major Recovery Plan is envisaged without any additional funds being made available by the Commission for its management.

Moreover, this is happening at a time there are so many areas where improvements for staff are necessary and where there are not enough funds being made available. The European civil service has witnessed budgetary reductions for the past 16 years with inevitable negative consequences for both its staff and services.

In addition, we also regret the reduction in the share of subsidies in the recovery plan in favor of loans;

Also, how can the absorption capacities of Community funds be improved? Is the Commission planning any initiative on this?

Given a second, or even a third wave of the epidemia, with all its social and economic consequences, will the current recovery plan be enough?

The budgetary agreement envisages its own specific financial resources on a schedule already outlined. How will this be implemented, according to which time scale, and with what rate of return?

Finally, although staff representation has not been involved in the dialogue concerning the Union's budget , it does wish to be involved in defining the savings to be made.

See also :  Trade Unions meet Commissioner Hahn, a first reflection on his words