Editorial
High-level group and budget discussions: the two main deadlines concerning the future of the European civil service.
In the summer of 2025, the European Commission established a high-level think tank. Chaired by Catherine Day, the former Secretary-General of the Commission, it is composed of leading experts from international organisations and public administrations across Europe. Understanding why this is important and how to participate matters to us.
Furthermore, discussions on the next MFF are well underway. We are advocating for a significantly increased European budget to address the challenges facing European society and the need for action by the European civil service. It is also important for us to be involved in the upstream discussions here.
Regarding the first issue, the European Commission set up a high-level reflection group in the summer of 2025. Chaired by Catherine Day, former Secretary-General of the Commission, the group comprises leading experts from international organisations and public administrations across Europe.
This group’s aim is to produce a general assessment of the Commission’s organisation and functioning by the end of 2026, to be completed before or at the same time as the adoption of the next multiannual budget. This assessment will be accompanied by a benchmarking exercise. The intention is to strengthen, streamline and better equip the organisation to continue serving European citizens. The presentation of this initiative also indicates that it is intended to enhance the Commission’s attractiveness as an employer. One of the stated objectives is therefore to create ‘a working environment where everyone can flourish’.
U4U welcomes this initiative as we believe it is important to periodically review the relevance and validity of our professional practices.
In the same July announcement, Commissioner Serafin appears to value the staff’s input on this matter, particularly since the various committees of this high-level group will address “our operations, our structures, and inter-service collaboration” to “improve strategic workforce planning and resource allocation”.
We agree that these issues are of primary interest to staff, and given their expertise, they require active staff involvement. This is one of the two issues we want to emphasise.
We were not involved in this initiative, either prior to its publication or, for the time being, in its implementation. While we are not necessarily asking to be part of the working group, we would like to be involved and consulted on an ongoing basis. For example, we would like to be provided with working documents and data held by this high-level group. We hope that the administration will agree to our request, as it is fully in line with the Commissioner’s comments that he welcomes our ideas, which he says are ‘essential for shaping a Commission that truly walks the talk, is effective, and is ready for the future’.
Finally, Commissioner Serafin notes that ‘the last major review of the Commission’s organisation and functioning took place 25 years ago’.
Staff will recall that this review preceded the reforms of 2004 and 2014. This is why we are asking the new Commission to formally commit to ensuring that this review will not lead to a third reform of the European civil service statute. The first two reforms to the Staff Regulations generated substantial savings for the EU budget, which satisfied the Member States’ desire for savings. However, there were consequences for staff, as evidenced by the Court of Auditors’ 2019 report on the effects of the reform and Eurostat’s report on the long-term budgetary evolution of our pension system. The inter-union group recently issued a clear and united statement on this subject (Cfr Note sent to Commissioner Serafin).
Regarding the next MFF, the Commission’s proposal is for a budget of €2 trillion, apparently larger than that of the current programming period.
However, this new proposal actually announces an amount equivalent to the previous budget, which was accompanied by additional amounts from the recovery plan financed by borrowing. Furthermore, the €2 trillion is expressed in current prices, which do not take inflation into account. Additionally, this budget will have to cover the repayments agreed for the recovery plan. It should also be noted that this proposal falls well short of the recommendations set out in the Draghi report for getting the Union out of the current crisis.
It is feared that discussions with Member States will be difficult, as quite a few capitals would like to see our budget reduced. This is a sensitive issue because a new reform could potentially be imposed on us through budget cuts, with the institution subsequently reducing certain budget chapters, including the operating budget. Furthermore, the budget structure is changing, which could affect the Structural Funds and, consequently, our profession and organisations. This will certainly be the subject of the high-level group’s work. This is all the more reason for us to be involved in the ongoing discussion. For now, however, the door is closed to us. The inter-union group is also expected to give its opinion on this matter soon.
Measures to promote geographical balance in staff recruitment?
Discussions are underway within the European Commission regarding potential amendments to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. The proposed changes aim to introduce “additional measures” that would grant preference to candidates from underrepresented Member States when qualifications are substantially equal. This approach, while intending to foster geographical balance, has sparked debate concerning its implications for fairness and candidate perception.
The core of the proposed amendment to Article 27 revolves around a “soft affirmative action” approach. This means that in instances where candidates possess demonstrably equal merit, preference could be given to an applicant from a Member State identified as underrepresented within the Commission’s staffing.
However, this approach is not without its critics. Concerns have been raised that such a policy, even with the “equal merit” caveat, might lead to a perception of discrimination among other candidates. There is apprehension that applicants from well-represented countries might be deterred from participating in selection processes if they fear that their nationality could disadvantage them, regardless of their qualifications. As noted by U4U, candidates from underrepresented countries should be clearly informed before interviews if positive action might be taken in their favour, ensuring transparency and allowing all candidates to decide whether they wish to participate under such conditions, thus avoiding misunderstandings or perceived unfairness.
Ensuring a steady supply of qualified colleagues from underrepresented Member States is undeniably a crucial objective for the European Commission. The principle of geographical balance is deeply embedded in the EU’s Staff Regulations, aiming to reflect the diversity and unity of its Member States within the administrative structure of its civil service. A shortfall below 80% of a Member State’s guiding rate is considered significant underrepresentation.
To effectively address underrepresentation, a multi-faceted strategy beyond preferential hiring at the interview stage is necessary. This includes robust external communication campaigns that highlight the numerous positive aspects of working for the European Commission, in addition to the inherent interest and impact of working on European citizen-focused dossiers.
Legal Challenges to Targeted Recruitment: The European Parliament’s Experience
The discussion around “additional measures” in the European Commission is not isolated. The European Parliament, in its efforts to rebalance geographical representation, has also introduced specific interventions, including the organisation of nationality-specific competitions in 2024. While this action aimed to address severe imbalances, it raised legal concerns in some Member States. This underscores the sensitive nature of preferential recruitment mechanisms and the careful balance required to avoid legal challenges rooted in discrimination based on nationality, which is explicitly prohibited by the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Such instances highlight the ongoing tension between the pursuit of equitable national representation and the fundamental principle of merit-based selection, requiring robust legal frameworks and transparent application to ensure fairness for all candidates.
Understanding the Roots of Underrepresentation: Insights from Member State-Specific Analyses
Investigations into underrepresented countries have revealed several underlying reasons why citizens from these Member States may be less inclined to seek careers within the EU institutions. These factors often extend beyond simple lack of awareness and point to deeper structural and perceptual issues:
- Robust National Labour Markets: Countries with strong domestic employment rates and attractive public sector careers may find it challenging to encourage their citizens to consider EU roles. For example, Austria exhibits a “pipeline problem,” with lower-than-expected participation in EPSO competitions despite above-average success rates, suggesting that competitive national opportunities might be a disincentive. Similarly, Germany’s underrepresentation is primarily attributed to its robust and high-wage labour market. Denmark also faces this challenge, with a significant share of Danes choosing domestic opportunities due to a strong labour market and differing work cultures.
- Lengthy and Complex Selection Procedures: The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) competition procedures have historically been criticized for their length and complexity, often discouraging potential applicants. The long waiting periods between application and recruitment (up to 18-24 months in some cases) significantly exceed international best practices. This sentiment is echoed by concerns from Luxembourg, where the median recruitment time in the national public service is much shorter (two to three months).
- Relocation and Family Concerns: The necessity of relocating to Brussels or Luxembourg is often a major deterrent, particularly for candidates with families or dual-career concerns. High living costs and perceived lower quality of life in Brussels compared to home countries are also cited.
- Attractiveness of EU Careers: Beyond the procedural issues, the overall attractiveness of working for EU institutions has declined. Reforms in 2014, while fiscally prudent, led to less favorable employment conditions, including reduced entry-level salaries and perceived career caps, affecting staff morale and recruitment.
A Forward-Looking Approach: Beyond “Additional Measures”
To genuinely address geographical imbalances and attract top talent from all Member States, the Commission should prioritize robust external communication that emphasizes the multifaceted benefits of an EU career. This includes:
- Meaningful and Impactful Work: Highlighting opportunities to contribute to European-level projects and policies that directly affect the lives of 450 million citizens.
- Career Stability and Growth: Stressing the long-term career prospects, internal mobility opportunities that allow for career changes without leaving the institution, and predictable career progression within a meritocratic system.
- Work-Life Balance Initiatives: Showcasing the Commission’s commitment to supporting a healthy work-life balance, particularly for families, with access to amenities like European schools for children.
- Diversity and Inclusivity: Reinforcing the message that the EU civil service values diversity in all its forms and is actively working to create an inclusive environment where all nationalities feel represented and empowered.
U4U is dedicated to improving the dialogue between staff and administration to optimize the workplace in line with evolving expectations. This includes discussions on modern working arrangements such as telework from abroad for more than 10 days, and adapting to technological advancements like the introduction of AI (Artificial intelligence) in the workplace. This proactive engagement aims to ensure that the European Commission remains an attractive and equitable employer for all European citizens, fostering an environment where all can thrive.
Expressing, listening, acting: Direct Expression at the heart of social dialogue
In a constantly changing professional environment characterised by intensifying reorganisations, statutory reforms and workloads, it is becoming essential to empower those who bring our institution to life on a daily basis: the staff.
We have witnessed this first-hand in a number of European agencies, where challenges are evolving rapidly. These include internal reorganisation, increased workloads, organisational and budgetary pressures, adapting to institutional priorities and growing governance challenges. These challenges have a real impact on our work, our working conditions, and our well-being..
In this context, it is crucial that the voices of staff members are heard and respected. That is why our trade union organisation strongly believes in the importance of direct and collective expression as a tool for fostering an active and meaningful social dialogue.
❓ What is it?
Direct and Collective Expression is a participatory mechanism organised during working hours. It allows each employee to freely and confidentially express their views on their professional experience, working conditions and difficulties, as well as their ideas and proposals for improving the organisation, without any influence or pressure from management or trade unions. It is not just a survey, but a genuine space for collective reflection on your daily professional life. The results of this mechanism are discussed in social dialogue between the unions and the administration.
🎯 Why is this important?
Because:
- We are the first to be affected by organisational decisions
- Good social dialogue begins with actively listening to the needs on the ground.
- We must respond to specific challenges, such as HR frameworks, pressure to deliver results and budgetary constraints, with tailored, jointly developed solutions.
- The voice of employees is a strategic resource, not background noise to be ignored.
We must:
- Give everyone a voice, beyond traditional channels.
- Identify the real issues, such as workload, recognition, work-life balance, the working environment and managerial consistency, etc.
- Build realistic solutions based on feedback from the field.
- Strengthen the legitimacy of social dialogue by anchoring it in the reality of the workforce.
- Protect mental health and prevent psychosocial risks by listening and taking action.
🤝 A tool for everyone, helping everyone to move forward together
Recognised by agencies such as EASA and F4E, this exercise is not just an HR survey or a mere formality. It is a tool for active listening and collective transformation. We believe it is an important means of structuring social dialogue, on a par with negotiations or formal consultations.
Direct Expression allows you to: Identify what is and isn’t working. Come up with concrete solutions. Create a space for discussion outside of the hierarchy to ensure authentic feedback. Foster high-quality social dialogue based on shared facts and feelings. |
In conclusion, it facilitates the formulation of robust demands that align with the genuine requirements of staff and enables these issues to be raised with management in a compelling and legitimate manner.
| 🛠️ And in concrete terms? Each unit expresses its views through meetings led by the relevant staff outside the hierarchy. A facilitator and a writer are appointed within each group and supported by independent experts if necessary. The results are analysed by independent experts. Clear reports, summaries and recommendations are produced by such experts and shared with staff representatives, followed by an action plan. |
🧭 What our experience in our agencies reveals
📌 EASA (European Union Aviation Safety Agency) – June 2023
In a tense situation, the Direct Expression exercise allowed hundreds of colleagues to freely and collectively express their working realities.
➡ The findings are clear:
- A great sense of pride in working for the agency, but growing fatigue due to excessive workloads.
- An urgent need for recognition, clear career paths and more humane management,
- A desire for greater transparency, dialogue and simplification within the organisation.
- Finally, there was a strong call for the results of the survey to be followed up with concrete action.
📌 F4E (Fusion for Energy Agency) – May 2025
The results speak for themselves here, too.
➡ Despite a unifying project (ITER) and a positive perception of working conditions, colleagues expressed:
- A sense of unease linked to inequalities in treatment (between AC, AT and civil servants),
- A lack of recognition and opportunities for advancement,
- Management was often perceived as distant or disorganised,
- Poor communication leads to frustration and demotivation.
This feedback highlights the need for reconnection with meaning, clarity and active listening.
| 🧩 What Direct Expression enables: ✅ Identify what works well and what causes problems. ✅ Encourage open, horizontal communication without hierarchical filters. ✅ Create a shared diagnosis to inform HR and management policies, ✅ Mobilise colleagues around concrete proposals, ✅ Give meaning to social dialogue by reconnecting it to real-life experiences. |
| 📌 What we ask for ✅ That the Direct Expression exercise becomes a regular feature within our institution and all its agencies, particularly before any organisational changes or to alleviate any persistent or major tensions. ✅ That it is organised regularly and independently, during working hours with clear results and action plans. ✅ It should be integrated into human resource governance practices. ✅ That it serves as a basis for discussions with management and transparent follow-up. ✅ Let it give rise to independent analyses and transparent reports and concrete action plans. ✅ Ensure that the Administration commits to processing the findings and proposals resulting from this exercise. ✅ Recognised it as an official tool for social dialogue, commensurate with its potential. |
💬 In summary
Direct Expression is not “just another survey”. It is an act of trust in staff, recognises their expertise and is a powerful lever for organisational transformation.
Let’s not allow this opportunity to become a formality with no follow-up. Let’s make it a pillar of our work culture for the benefit of us all.
Your voice matters. Let’s make it heard.
We invite you to actively participate in Direct and Collective Expression when it is offered, and to demand it where it does not yet exist. By making your voice heard, you can help us to build a fairer, more humane and more effective working environment.
To promote a vibrant social dialogue, let’s make your voice heard!
Reorganisation of INTPA presence within the network of EU Delegations.
Context
The reorganisation of the EU Delegation’s network will progressively be articulated around the following types of EU Delegations.
11 Minimal Diplomatic Delegations with only EEAS diplomatic presence – Eritrea, Guinea Bissau, Eswatini, Lesotho, South Sudan, Papua New Guinea, Trinidad and Tobago, Haiti, Kuwait, Timor Leste & Belarus.
6 Reinforced Delegations (Hubs): South Africa, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Fiji, Barbados.
Standard Delegations attached to a hub with a reduced INTPA Partnerships section.
Delegations Status quo: Delegations which are not (yet) serviced via one of the 6 regional hubs continue as normal for the moment being.
This note intends to clarify the implications for staff and the working arrangements to reach this new setup.
Minimal Diplomatic Delegations
The 11 minimum delegations have been identified by the EEAS based on diplomatic criteria.
Organisational Perspective :
By 1 September 2026, these delegations will have a reduced EEAS staff: an ambassador, an advisor, and a small support team.
A minimum delegation will not offer services for commission missions. During visits, these services must arrange their own hotel bookings, car rentals, and appointment scheduling.
Staff Perspective:
All expatriate staff from the Commission, mainly from DG INTPA, will be redeployed.
In summer 2025, each expatriate agent received three options:
Option 1: Redeployment to the relevant reinforced delegation by 1 September 2026. Agents will have priority and take a role in the new reinforced delegation for the total assignment duration (4 years for officials; 6 years for contract agents).
Option 2: Transfer to headquarters. Agents will have priority in the 2026 rotation or mobility list at headquarters.
Option 3: Transfer to another delegation and enrolment in the 2026 mobility and rotation process. Agents can apply for available positions offered during this period based on available posts.
Local staff contracts are expected to end. EEAS will manage all contractual matters concerning local agents.
Operational Activities Perspective:
This is not a reduction of operational activities in the minimum delegations.
Operational activities will be managed from the parent delegation, whether it is reinforced or standard.
The regional section of the parent delegation will undertake all functions related to implementing operational activities. The Head of the parent delegation will be the sub-delegated authorising officer. In other words, the Head of the delegation, but with minimum diplomatic presence, will not be a sub-delegated authorising officer.
All contracts and agreements will be transferred to the regional section of the parent delegation by 1 September 2026.
Reinforced Delegations
The locations for the reinforced delegations have been identified through an agreement between the EEAS and the Commission based on specific criteria. These include the diplomatic and geopolitical context, quality of life and available services (School, Health), favourable security conditions, and connectivity with regional countries.
Organisational Perspective:
By 1 September 2026, two new sections will be added to the reinforced delegation’s organigram, replacing the current cooperation and contract finance sections:
Bilateral Partnerships Section: This will comprise a section head (AD), 3 to 4 contract agents, and 2 to 3 local agents.
Regional Partnerships Section: the remaining current cooperation and contract finance sections’ staff will move to this new section. It will be reinforced with positions from nearby standard delegations and relevant minimum delegations. This section will be organised into three teams: Global Gateway, Complex Settings and Migration, and Strategic Communication. In some cases, the global gateways team could be sub composed with teams such as global gateway corridors; global gateway energy and climate change ; Global gateway health and education. It will have a section head, a deputy section head, and team leaders. Profiles within this section will be updated to match the diverse responsibilities covered by the regional section. Financial and contract operations will be integrated within these teams, meaning no separate finance and contracts section will exist.
The Head of Delegation will act as the sub-delegated authorising officer for the Bilateral Partnerships Section, the attached minimum delegations, and for bilateral and regional actions carried out by the Regional Partnerships Section. They will not be sub-delegated authorising officer for bilateral actions managed by the Regional Partnerships Section related to other standard delegations.
Staff Perspective:
There will be no dismissals in the reinforced delegations.
Staff present on 1 September 2026 will be distributed between the Bilateral and Regional Partnerships Sections.
INTPA’s geographical directorate, in agreement with the delegation, will allocate staff among sections based on available profiles and portfolio needs. This is not a reset. Rotation or mobility prospects will continue from the initially planned date (e.g., if an AD started on 1 September 2023, their rotation target remains 1 September 2027, even if they change sections during their assignment).
Staff on rotation or mobility in 2026 will continue as planned. It is not anticipated at this time that those rotating or moving in 2026 could apply for positions in the same Reinforced delegation that year.
Operational Activities Perspective:
Bilateral Partnerships Section will handle two types of activities:
Policy dialogue with national counterparts concerning the implementation of DG INTPA programs and activities.
Management of bilateral program activities related to grants for CSOs (Civil society organizations), human rights, and governance activities.
Regional partnerships Section will focus on operations in relation with bilateral complex activities or transnational activities involving more than one delegation
Blending contracts.
Contribution agreements with entities assessed by pillars.
Advisory support for implementing budget support activities.
Launching complex calls for proposals.
Guarantee contracts.
The legacy portfolio of the reinforced delegation will be divided between the two teams based on the types of interventions involved.
Standard Delegations
Standard delegations are linked to a reinforced delegation. Please refer to the annexed maps for details.
Organisational Perspective:
By 1 September 2026, the current operations and contract finance sections will merge into a new Partnerships Section. This will include a head of section (AD), 3 to 5 contract agents, and all local agents. All the other expats are progressively transfer to the regional hub or to the HQ.
The Head of Delegation will retain sub-delegation authority for bilateral activities.
Staff Perspective:
No layoffs are planned within the standard delegations. All current local agent positions will be retained in the new Partnerships Section. Vacant local agent positions will only be refilled after assessing the delegation’s workload.
Expatriate staff will be offered four options to choose from by 1 September 2026:
Option 1: Redeployment to a relevant reinforced delegation by 1 September 2026. Agents will have priority for roles in the new reinforced delegation for the full assignment duration (4 years for officials; 6 years for contract agents).
Option 2: Transfer to headquarters. Agents will have priority in the 2026 rotation or mobility list at headquarters.
Option 3: Transfer to another delegation and enrolment in the 2026 mobility and rotation process. Agents can apply for available positions based on open posts.
Option 4: Remain in the current delegation until the end of the assignment period. No extensions will be granted.
Operational Activities Perspective:
Bilateral Partnerships Section will handle:
Policy dialogue with national counterparts concerning the implementation of DG INTPA programs and activities.
Management of bilateral program activities related to grants for CSOs, human rights, and governance.
Merging the former operations and contract finance sections into one aim to simplify the approval process for commitments and payments. One Operational Initiator and one financial verificatory will be maintained, but only one person will take responsibility as both operational and financial verification.
The legacy portfolio of the Standard delegation will be split between the Standard Delegation and the relevant regional Partnership Section in the Reinforced Delegation based on the number of agents remaining in the Bilateral Partnerships Section.
STATUS QUO DELEGATIONS
For all other delegations not identified among the previous categories, the status quo will be maintained.
Organisational Perspective:
Depending on the progress of headquarters reorganisation, the current cooperation and contract finance sections may be merged into a single Partnerships Section.
Staff Perspective:
All current positions will be maintained.
When a contract agent or official position becomes vacant, the job profile will be updated to align with the new system.
If a local agent position becomes vacant, a workload assessment will be conducted to determine renewal conditions, with an updated profile.
Operational Activities Perspective:
Merging the previous operations and contract finance sections is intended to simplify the approval process for commitments and payments. One person will be responsible as both operational and financial controller.
Annexe 1 – List of Delegations
| Reinforced Delegation | Standard Delegation | Minimum Presence Delegation | Commission Offices |
| Delegation Kenya | Delegation Somalia | Delegation South Soudan | |
| Delegation Sudan | |||
| Delegation South Africa | Delegation Botswana | Delegation Eswatini | Office Comoros |
| Delegation Madagascar | Delegation Lesotho | ||
| Delegation Mauritius | |||
| Delegation Namibia | |||
| Delegation Fiji | Delegation Papua New Guinea | Delegation Timor Leste | Office New Caledonia |
| Delegation Ivory Coast | Delegation Burkina Faso | ||
| Delegation Liberia | |||
| Delegation Mali | |||
| Delegation Niger | |||
| Delegation Sierra Leone | |||
| Delegation Barbados | Delegation Cuba | Delegation Haiti | Office Belize |
| Delegation Dominican Republic | Delegation Trinidad and Tobago | ||
| Delegation Guyana | |||
| Delegation Jamaica | |||
| Delegation Senegal | Delegation Cape Verde | Delegation Guinea Bissau | |
| Delegation Gambia | |||
| Delegation Guinea Conakry | |||
| Delegation Mauritania | |||
| Delegation Indonesia | Delegation Timor Leste | ||
| Delegation Ethiopia | Delegation Eritrea |
Cross-analysis: Artificial Intelligence (AI) and trade unionism
Juan Sebastian Carbonell – personal note “AI and trade unionism”
Since the early Industrial Revolution, the impact of machines on employment has fuelled debate, resistance and controversy. The relationship to work and the alienation of workers has also been a key topic of discussion.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is part of this long history, combining the promise of efficiency with the fear of mass job losses. However, beyond the discourse of simple ‘job destruction’ or ‘job creation’, AI profoundly challenges social relations, the organisation of work, and the role of trade unionism.
AI is prevalent in all areas of human life (economic, social, political, etc.), which is why it is important to analyse what this phenomenon represents using a two-pronged approach: at societal level and at work level.
Drawing on the thesis of Belgian academic Juan Sebastián Carbonell in Le taylorisme augmenté (Augmented Taylorism), as well as the reflections and actions of the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), we can identify some initial areas of analysis concerning the actions that trade union organisations should take. Added to this is our previous work on AI and trade unionism, informed by data from sources such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), as well as research by Antonio Casilli. Taken together, these sources provide complementary and contrasting insights into these issues.
Data from the WEF and IMF on AI and employment show the differentiated effects of automation across sectors and social classes. This highlights the responsibility of trade unions to support and resist these transformations. Conversely, in Augmented Taylorism, Juan Sebastián Carbonell refuses to view AI as a neutral technology, instead seeing it as an instrument of political and managerial domination that intensifies control over work to the detriment of employee autonomy. Finally, EPSU’s (the European Federation of Public Service Unions’) position illustrates a more offensive approach: it calls on the European Commission to include workers in technological governance, for example through ‘worker-owned clouds’.
Combining these perspectives provides a clearer picture of the contemporary challenges posed by AI, including the risk of alienation, the importance of trade union mediation and the potential for the democratic reappropriation of technology.
I. AI poses a risk of alienation and devaluation of work
Carbonell’s vision is notable for its radical critique. For him, AI is not just a technical innovation; it is the outcome of political and economic decisions driven by the interests of capital. Therefore, the key question is not how many jobs will be destroyed, but rather how the nature of work will change. Carbonell coines the term ‘augmented Taylorism’: by systematising the fragmentation and standardisation of tasks, AI removes workers’ autonomy and expertise, as demonstrated by the examples of journalism and translation. AI emerges as an instrument of alienation here, reinforcing managerial logic and employees’ dependence on standards imposed by algorithms.
This perspective resonates with certain observations in our previous work. They remind us that jobs in lower social classes involving routine, low-skilled tasks (data entry, accounting and administration) are most threatened by automation. These transformations are therefore likely to exacerbate social inequalities and precariousness. However, it should be noted that AI does not automatically lead to significant job losses. In some sectors, such as banking with the introduction of ATMs, jobs have evolved rather than disappeared. The central issue therefore remains that of job quality and the distribution of productivity gains. Another issue to consider is worker mobility and training.
On 30 September 2025, Jérémy Lamri, an entrepreneur and researcher specialising in the development of employability and human potential, gave a lecture at the invitation of the R&D union. During the lecture, he offered several avenues for reflection.
He emphasised the importance of collectively shaping the future in light of the role that artificial intelligence will play in the workplace. He believes that AI will eventually be capable of performing all the tasks currently carried out by humans, as well as many others. While emphasising that the introduction of AI into production systems is a collective choice and not inevitable, he invited participants to consider different possible future scenarios. He stressed the central role of household consumption in the functioning of the economy and therefore the need for citizens to have an income that allows them to consume and ‘keep the system going’. Among the proposed scenarios, he outlined ‘skills sponsorship’, which, unlike a universal income as advocated by Bernard Friot, would involve paying citizens for activities that do not directly correspond to a job but nevertheless contribute to the production of value and services, such as volunteering. He therefore predicted the emergence of a ‘quaternary sector’, created by the rise of AI, just as the development of the tertiary sector had once resulted from a technological innovation that had displaced part of the workforce from the transformed secondary sector.
II. The role of trade unions: Between Resistance, Adaptation and Alternative Proposals
In the face of these transformations, trade unions appear to be pivotal. Our research into AI, employment and trade unionism identifies two strategic approaches. The first is resistance: as the fight of Hollywood actors against the misuse of AI has shown, it is possible (albeit with difficulty) to impose limits and defend threatened professions. The second approach is adaptation, which involves negotiating retraining, integrating new job classifications, guaranteeing job security, and protecting privacy in the face of the risks posed by digital surveillance. These guidelines outline an expanded role for trade unions, moving beyond simply defending jobs to address the ethical and organisational challenges of AI.
The EPSU’s position is a concrete illustration of this proactive approach. Rather than passively accepting digitalisation, the European trade union is calling for the democratic reappropriation of technological infrastructure, proposing the establishment of ‘worker-owned clouds’. The EPSU is also asking the European Commission to explicitly involve trade unions in negotiating digitalisation strategies through collective agreements. This marks a turning point for trade unionism, as it seeks to enter the field of technological and institutional sovereignty by proposing alternatives to the model dominated by large private companies.
Conclusion
he intersection of these three approaches reveals the intricacy of the relationship between AI, labour, and trade unionism. Carbonell emphasises the risk of increased alienation due to ‘augmented Taylorism’, noting that AI primarily serves capital as an instrument of power. Our research into trade unionism, meanwhile, emphasises the importance of a nuanced analysis: while some jobs are disappearing, many are evolving, and trade unions play a vital role in safeguarding workers and facilitating transitions. Finally, EPSU’s position illustrates an attempt at institutional reappropriation, proposing a concrete alternative that combines technological sovereignty and social democracy. Therefore, AI cannot be considered solely in terms of innovation or competitiveness; it is also a domain of social and political conflict. The future of work depends not only on technical advances, but also on the ability of trade unions and workers to influence technological choices and invent alternative models. In this sense, the confrontation between alienation, adaptation, and reappropriation is an essential strategic consideration for 21st-century European trade unionism.
Does the SCIC Administration really care about the occupational health of its staff?
For several years now, the European Commission’s interpreters have been calling, particularly through the Interpreters’ Delegation, for the implementation of a more proactive and preventive approach for working conditions that respect their hearing health. These staff members are demanding better protection against the risk of pathologies and irreversible medical consequences that could be avoided. U4U has always been committed to their side, while promoting dialogue on this matter as in all others.
In this context, U4U welcomed the announcement of an independent study by the Institut Pasteur (an internationally renowned biomedical research center established in France, where it benefits from the status of a private foundation recognized as being of public interest), on the impact of compressed sound on the hearing health at the workplace.
We obviously thought that the SCIC would do everything possible to encourage the participation of its staff in this initiative, and would subsequently undertake to follow the recommendations that would be made after having assessed and compiled the facts reported by personnel exposed to compressed sound (including interpreters within the Institutions but also those employed in other sectors, and not exclusively SCIC staff).
To help the Institut Pasteur obtain as much data as possible in order to achieve results with the highest degree of reliability, the possibility of participating in the Institut Pasteur study was shared, end of July 2025, by some staff members on the ‘interpreters’ forum’, encouraging maximum participation and indicating that a daily allowance would be granted.
It seems obvious to us that the study commissioned by the Institut Pasteur rests upon a voluntary unpaid contribution, even if reimbursement of expenses is proposed, and that its scope is of scientific and public interest. Participation in such a study should therefore in no way be considered as a “professional activity” or “external activity requiring prior authorization” within the meaning of the ethical rules to which we return below.
We were therefore surprised by the answer initially given by a colleague in charge of ethical issues in the HR.F5 unit indicating, on the same “interpreters’ forum”, that participation in this study could be done without prior authorisation, but only on condition that the colleagues concerned waived the proposed reimbursement. We were even more surprised by the SCIC HR correspondent position that, as soon as an allowance was proposed, prior authorisation was necessary to be able to participate in this study, even if the colleagues concerned waived this allowance.
Such requirements seem to be at odds with the internal regulatory framework applicable to the assessment of whether or not it is necessary to submit a prior declaration. The Commission Decision of 29 June 2018 on external activities does not support the positions taken by the HR.F5 and by the SCIC HR.BC.
In the light of the definition of external activity in that decision, it does not appear essential to verify whether participation in a scientific study as a volunteer meets the definition of an external activity. It seems to us, in fact, that the Commission’s reasoning, if it were to support this position, would mean that organ donation, sperm or blood donation, participation in marketing studies in return for a reward in the form of vouchers, etc., should be treated in the same way. All these activities may indeed be subject to compensations that are not remunerative. It seems unlikely to us that the administration has the aim of subjecting all its “activities” to requests for prior authorisations, as this would create an unreasonable and disproportionate workload for its own agents.
Furthermore, Article 4 of the Decision on external activities expressly provides that such activities do not require prior authorisation if they are presumed not to impede the performance of the duties of the staff concerned.
Indeed:
o Participation is not remunerated nor generates income as explained above (moreover, Article 7 of the said rules even expressly provides that reimbursements of expenses are not taken into account for the calculation of the regulatory ceiling for remuneration);
o It is neither undertaken in a professional capacity (you do not have to be a member of the SCIC staff to be eligible to participate) nor is it organised by a commercial entity;
o It is organized outside working hours;
o The impartiality and objectivity of the member of staff cannot be affected, in particular because of differences of interest with the Institution;
o Participation cannot be considered damaging to the reputation or interests of the Institution;
o The other obligations under the Staff Regulations are fulfilled.
An examination of the examples provided in paragraph 3 of that article also confirms that such participation is indeed covered by that derogation.
Several of the colleagues concerned told us that they feared (whether rightly or wrongly does not matter in this case), that submitting a request to participate in this study in Sysper would lead to reproaches from their superiors. Unfortunately, it seems to us that these interventions by the administration on the ‘interpreters’ forum’ are not only erroneous, but that they may also have the consequence of reinforcing this fear and limiting the participation of the colleagues concerned in the proposed study.
From the contacts we have had with these colleagues, it seems that some of them think, in view of the request addressed to them to submit a request for prior authorisation, that the administration could at the very least take a suspicious view of their participation in this study or even consider it to be detrimental to the interests of the Institution.
Of course, we do not want to believe that this is the case, as it seems inconceivable to us that the Commission would not wish to encourage a study that would be useful in helping it to protect the health of its staff and to seriously examine the results of this large-scale study carried out by an independent body. In this case, the administration should therefore promote, or at least not obstruct, the conduct of such a study.
Insofar as we consider that this study should also benefit the Commission in the implementation of its duty of care towards the staff concerned, but also in its duty to fulfil its obligations under the rules of Belgian social criminal public order from which no employer, not even an international organisation enjoying immunity from jurisdiction, can derogate, we think it is important to ask you to clarify the situation.
We urgently ask the competent Commission services to:
o Clarify the applicable rules and confirm to the personnel concerned that there is no need to request prior authorization to participate in the study proposed by the Institut Pasteur;
o Explicitly and publicly support the participation of staff in this study, as its results can only help the Commission to take the necessary measures to safeguard the hearing health of its interpreters.
Understanding the New Windows 11 features
Windows 11 has now arrived on the Commission’s computers, bringing a refreshed look and practical tools to make everyday work easier. If you’re not very familiar with computers, don’t worry: this guide will introduce you to some of the new features in a simple and practical way.
New keyboard shortcuts
- Win + A → Opens the Quick Settings menu, where you can adjust Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, volume and screen brightness. Much faster than digging through the full Settings app.
- Win + N → Opens the Notification Centre, showing alerts from apps and your calendar. A quick glance here helps you keep track of meetings and reminders.
- Ctrl + Shift + Esc → Opens Task Manager, a powerful tool for solving problems. If your computer slows down or an app freezes, you can close it here.
Useful Features for Work
Focus Sessions
Ever wondered how much time you have left before your next meeting, without constantly glancing at the clock? With Focus Sessions in Windows 11, you can set a countdown timer that stays on your screen while you work. This way, you’ll know exactly how long you can concentrate before your next task or meeting starts. It’s a simple tool that helps you stay focused and reminds you to take short breaks, so your productivity doesn’t slip. You’ll find it in the Clock app (just search “Focus” in the Start menu).
Resize the Mouse Cursor
When presenting with a shared screen, it’s not always clear to colleagues where your cursor is pointing. Now you can change the look and size of the mouse pointer, so it’s easier for everyone to follow. Go to Settings > Accessibility > Mouse pointer and touch, and pick the size and colour that works best for you.
Show or Hide Desktop Icons
Need a tidy desktop during a presentation? Right-click on the desktop → View → untick Show desktop icons. Repeat to bring them back.
Clipboard and Emojis
Multiple Copy and Paste
Normally, when you press Ctrl + C to copy something and then Ctrl + V to paste it, Windows only remembers the last thing you copied. For example, if you copy a phone number, then later copy a sentence, only the sentence will be available to paste. The phone number is lost unless you copy it again.
With Windows 11’s Clipboard History, you can copy several things one after another, and Windows will keep them all for you. Press Win + V instead of just Ctrl + V, and you’ll see a small window showing a list of everything you’ve copied recently – text, images, even links. Then you can simply click on the one you want to paste.
This is especially useful when you’re working on documents, emails or forms where you need to copy and paste information from different places without switching back and forth every time.
Emojis
Add a touch of fun to your messages or documents. Press Win + ; (semicolon) to open the emoji panel.
Finding Apps and Adding Clocks
Sticky Notes
Think of these as digital Post-it notes – quick reminders that don’t waste paper, so they’re environmentally friendly too. You can pin down ideas, to-do items or numbers just as you would on paper. To open them, simply type Sticky Notes into the Start menu search box.
Alphabetical App List
In the Start menu, select All apps. Click a letter to open an alphabet view, then jump straight to the app you’re looking for.
Additional Clocks
Collaborating across time zones? Right-click the taskbar clock → Adjust date and time → Additional clocks. You can add up to two extra clocks to keep track of colleagues abroad.
Did you know? – Dark Mode
If you prefer a darker background instead of the usual bright screen, Windows 11 has a Dark Mode option. Many users find it easier on the eyes, especially when working in the evening or in low-light conditions.
How to turn it on:
- Open the Start menu → type Settings → press Enter.
- Go to Personalisation > Colours.
- Under Choose your mode, select Dark.
L Is it better for your eyes?
In low-light environments, dark backgrounds can reduce glare and eye strain.
In bright conditions, studies suggest light backgrounds with dark text may still be easier to read.
The best option is personal preference: try both and see which feels more comfortable.
Final Tip – Live Captions
Windows 11 also includes Live Captions, a feature that automatically adds subtitles to any audio playing on your computer. This can be especially helpful if you understand written text better than spoken language.
- How to activate: Press Win + Ctrl + L (or open through Accessibility settings). A caption bar will appear at the top of your screen.
- Languages supported: At the moment, Microsoft provides reliable captioning in English (US), but support for additional languages (such as Spanish, French, German and others) is gradually expanding.
- Limitations: Live Captions are generated on your device in real time – there’s no option to save a transcript afterwards. Still, it’s an excellent tool for following presentations, videos, or calls more comfortably.
Closing thought
Windows 11 may look a little different at first, but once you try these shortcuts and tools, you’ll find it can actually save you time and make work easier. Don’t be afraid to experiment – the more you use it, the more comfortable it becomes.
Having trouble applying the tips from this article? Or perhaps you’d like to share your own Windows 11 trick with colleagues? Join us at the weekly U4U members lunchtime meeting, where every Monday we update our members on the latest developments.
📅 [Insert date] | 🔗 Join here
Reclassification 2025 at EASA: A Step Forward in Social Dialogue, Turning Commitments into Action
This year, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) completed its first staff reclassification exercise under a new Social Dialogue Agreement—an achievement that marks real progress in how careers are managed and valued in EASA.
The agreement, signed between the Administration, U4U and representatives of the Staff Committee, covers the period 2025 to 2027 and introduces more transparent, equitable, and socially responsible criteria for career progression.
One of its key objectives is to ensure that staff, especially those in lower grades, are no longer left behind and can expect a career path that reflects both their merit and their contribution over time.
This is particularly significant in the context of EU agencies, where staff often face structural limitations to advancement, and reclassifications can feel arbitrary or delayed. By anchoring the process in clearer principles—such as aligning with average career progression expectations—the agreement helps bring predictability, fairness, and trust back into the system.
This year’s figures speak for themselves: of the 505 staff eligible for reclassification, 138 were selected, reflecting a more balanced and inclusive approach. While work remains to be done, this outcome already shows movement in the right direction.
For U4U, this is not just a technical achievement but a social one. It shows what can be gained when unions engage constructively, defend collective interests, and insist that principles of fairness and solidarity are applied in practice.
As this agreement enters its second and third years, U4U remains vigilant and fully committed to ensuring that the promises made are honoured, and that every staff member—regardless of grade—has a fair chance to grow professionally in a respectful and supportive environment.
While it represents progress, we remain engaged to ensure fair and transparent implementation in the years ahead.
Together, we continue working for a fairer, more balanced career system for all.
A Catered Commission: Brussels’ Culinary Experiment
The European Commission prides itself on efficiency, scale, and—increasingly—its home-cooked meals. Since 2020, catering services in Brussels have been run under a semi-internalised model: kitchens and equipment are owned by the institution, management is in-house, but most of the staff are outsourced. The idea was to keep control of quality, avoid dependence on concessionaires, and even claw back some margins.
Four years on, the numbers leave a sour aftertaste. What began with 300 meals a day at the Berlaymont has ballooned to 7,500 on peak teleworking days (Tuesdays and Thursdays).
…today we started from… well, we started at the end of 2020 at the Berlaymont where we had 300 meals a day and… now we’re at 7,500. And it’s going to increase again. So every year, I tell my teams, ‘You’ll see, next year it will stabilise.’ And it doesn’t stabilise. Every year, we have pressure to open more cafeterias, to open more restaurants. So we thought we would be able to stabilise a bit, but that’s not the case. It’s… it’s a machine that’s growing …”
Expansion continues relentlessly: new cafeterias and restaurants are opening at Loi, Montoyer and beyond. Yet not a single site operates at financial balance. Managers admit that they cover food losses with margins on drinks and coffee.
The cost is borne, inevitably, by staff. A modest 4.2% price rise was confirmed for 2025. That sounds small, but adds up fast. With colleagues teleworking three days a week, many still spend €100–200 a month on Commission canteen lunches. At month’s end, the bill looms large.
Prices are also creeping up within the network of canteens across the Commission’s Brussels buildings. A daily plate once sold for €5.50; now, the “budget” vegetarian or pasta dish costs €5–6, while anything beyond the basics climbs quickly towards €10–15. Staff grumble that portions have shrunk, that add-ons (vegetables, sides) appear as hidden surcharges, and that quality varies sharply from one building to another. “Before COVID, the canteen was half the price it is now. Today, sometimes it feels the same as going out,” one participant noted at a recent Local Staff Committee meeting.
The paradox is sharper for those in the lowest function groups, or for trainees. For them, canteen meals are not a convenience but a luxury. A daily €12–15 lunch consumes an untenable share of a stipend or entry-level salary. Unsurprisingly, more staff bring food from home. Reheating leftovers in open-plan offices saves money—but generates complaints about odours.
The administration insists quality has improved since the old concessionaire contracts, and points to benchmarking showing Commission canteens are cheaper than some other EU institutions. But critics note that the semi-internalised model brings with it bureaucratic headaches and higher labour costs. External staff costs have risen by over 30% since the last tender.
“…in 2024, our first call for tenders on external labour… ended and so we launched a second call for tenders… finally the organisation that was chosen was chosen and benefited from a price increase compared to what we had before on external labour of around 30%. It’s something that’s going to put us in difficulty.”
Procurement rules forbid opportunistic buying, so managers cannot snap up discounted surplus food. Suppliers, facing paperwork and delays, simply build administrative costs into their prices.
“…we are constrained by the financial regulation so I can’t do whatever I want, I can’t go to the national market and say there’s a batch of fish that’s going to end tomorrow… I’ll get it at 50% off. I can’t do that.”
Quality, Quantity, and the Customer Experience
For all the talk of financial balance, what most staff care about is the quality of what ends up on their plates. On that score, views diverge. The model is, in short, heavy, costly, and unsustainable. Alternatives exist. At the Commission’s Ispra site in Italy, a Clubhouse restaurant run with internal staff serves decent meals for around €8. Others argue for re-externalisation to private caterers. Either way, Brussels’ system is under pressure.
Several colleagues complain that the so-called “budget options” – usually a pasta or a vegetarian dish – are repetitive and underwhelming. Portion sizes are often judged too small, and hidden extras (“do you want vegetables with that?”) can double the expected price of a daily special. One staff member noted that at Loi 41, a dish advertised at €5.50 became €10 once sides were added. Another lamented that, for those who rely on the cheapest meals, the quality is simply “not so great”.
Others point to inconsistency: menus sometimes promise one dish, but substitutions arrive when deliveries fall through. The chefs, managers insist, are forced into “flexibility and creativity” when fish ordered turns into pork delivered.
The administration, however, paints a rosier picture. “I am viscerally convinced that in four years, we have never eaten so well at the Commission,” declared the official responsible, citing benchmarking with other institutions and feedback from satisfied customers. For him, internalisation has delivered higher-quality food than the concessionaire model ever did.
Between these two accounts lies a more nuanced reality: while quality may indeed have improved at the top end, the cheapest meals – those most essential for trainees and junior staff – remain uninspiring, and are precisely the ones where quality matters most.
The most immediate need, however, is social. Staff representatives call for targeted subsidies: €2 per meal for the lowest-grade contract agents, €1 for trainees. Even this would be symbolic rather than transformative. Without action, the canteen risks becoming another visible marker of inequality within the Commission: a place where higher-paid officials linger over espresso, while the junior ranks head for the microwave.
For an institution keen to project solidarity and fairness, that is not a good look.
Point of view: From Rumour to Fake News – ‘Have We Been Lied To?’, by Hubert Krivine, 2022
Published in 2022, Hubert Krivine’s Have We Been Lied To? From Rumours to Fake News” is a useful addition to the current climate of rumours, misinformation, and conspiracy theories.
The author has also published works on artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT: Une intelligence sans pensée? (ChatGPT: intelligence without thought?), “L’IA peut-elle penser?” [Can AI think?] and Comprendre sans prévoir, prévoir sans comprendre [Understanding without predicting, predicting without understanding]). GRASPE had the pleasure of welcoming him to give a conference on these works.
Krivine distinguishes between founding myths, which have a symbolic function, and contemporary fake news, which is deliberately created and spread. The book provides a comprehensive overview, covering everything from religious narratives to pseudoscience and political and economic manipulation. However, it is not limited to mere condemnation. Krivine also questions the mechanisms of credulity and the cognitive biases that encourage adherence to fake news. He also considers the upheavals linked to new modes of digital dissemination. The central question is therefore one of trust: who should we believe, and on what basis? In this article, we will summarise the author’s arguments, analyse his approach and examples, and evaluate his contributions and limitations, reflecting on our current relationship with science and critical thinking.
I. Defining and understanding fake news
Krivine begins his essay by making a key distinction: myths, which aim to provide existential meaning, should not be confused with fake news, which relates to current events and is often part of a manipulation strategy. The author discusses the standard definition, which emphasises the intention to deceive, but argues that the effect on the public is more important than the intention of the person spreading the information. From this perspective, errors made in good faith do not constitute lies, whereas other narratives, such as the literal interpretation of religious texts, can be potent vectors of political disinformation. It is important to distinguish between fake news and alternative truths. Unlike fake news, alternative truths form part of a manipulative narrative intertwined with real facts. The following example illustrates this: ‘Ukraine is the aggressor and Russia is under attack’ is a lie that forms part of a ‘Putinist’ narrative. This is reminiscent of the famous mantras that Orwell presented in 1984: ‘War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.’ Conversely, ‘Zelensky fled to the US and abandoned his people’ is fake news.
The book then provides an overview of the various forms of fake news, including conspiracy theories, pseudosciences such as homeopathy and climate scepticism, political manipulation relating to topics such as the Coronavirus pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine, and even state lies that justify military interventions, such as those in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011. This proliferation demonstrates that fake news is not an epiphenomenon, but rather a pervasive phenomenon affecting science, religion, and social life.
II. The mechanisms of credulity and dissemination
In his preface to the book, Guillaume Lecointre emphasises the universal and persistent nature of the need to believe. He illustrates this with humour by referencing Monty Python’s film ‘Life of Brian’, in which the group depicts the credulity of Jesus’ contemporaries by having them idolise a man named Brian. While belief itself is not problematic, as it forms the basis of the trust necessary for life in society, it becomes dangerous when it closes in on itself and turns into ideological faith. Lecointre demonstrates how some scientists, either by stepping outside their field or by exploiting their status, can fuel abuses ranging from creationism to pseudo-proofs of God’s existence. He therefore emphasises the need to distinguish between science, ideology, and belief, and to clarify the criteria for scientific validity, in order to avoid the confusion that fuels mistrust and manipulation. This clarification enables readers to understand why the ‘bad faith’ analysed by Krivine poses such an obstacle to rational knowledge of the world.
For Krivine, combatting fake news is not just a matter of establishing the truth. Simply telling a believer that the water in the Ganges is polluted will not be enough to shake their conviction. Perhaps the social conditions that fuel the expectation of miracles need to be transformed. The author therefore emphasises the roots of credulity, such as confirmation bias, confusing correlation with causation, and the tendency to look for hidden motives or rely on arguments from authority. These mechanisms explain why fake news is as appealing as, if not more appealing than, scientific narratives.
The author also examines the role of religion and ideology in the history of disinformation. By blending myths and social norms, sacred texts have justified colonisation, inequality and countless wars. Meanwhile, Stalinism operated as an ‘atheist religion’, complete with dogmas, heresies and rituals. The book also highlights the profound changes in the means of dissemination: from Gutenberg to the internet, each media revolution — via the press and television — has broadened the scope of fake news. Digital technology, with its algorithms and the viral speed at which information spreads, represents a turning point at which disinformation has become more accessible, more profitable, and more difficult to counter.
III. Science, truth and trust
n the face of this proliferation, Krivine reminds us of the unique features of science: peer review, refutability, reproducibility, consistency, and the universality of results. These criteria distinguish robust hypotheses from seductive illusions. Rather than being a search for absolute truth, the scientific approach is based on constant testing and integration with existing knowledge, as well as recognition of its own limitations.
However, the problem is not only epistemological, but also social and political. Krivine notes that public opinion is often suspicious of science, either because it is exploited by those in power, or because scientific and political institutions have sometimes betrayed trust (e.g. health scandals and government lies). Beyond the scandals, we seem to be living in a ‘post-truth era’, as described by philosopher Myriam Revault d’Allonnes.
In his afterword, Jacques Treiner builds on Hubert Krivine’s thoughts by examining the concept of ‘post-truth’ and the spread of ‘alternative facts’. Referring to the media episode in which Kellyanne Conway (then Trump’s adviser) coined the term to justify the lie that Trump’s inauguration had attracted the largest crowd ever, Treiner illustrates how the distinction between truth and falsehood can be erased in favour of seductive narratives driven by emotion or belief. Unlike founding myths, which retain symbolic and literary value, Treiner points out that alternative facts are artificial constructs with no depth. They fuel conspiracy theories and can lead to violence.
Here’s another example. During the pandemic, the French government’s approach to wearing masks was inconsistent: first it was advised against, then it became compulsory due to insufficient stocks. Even worse, the government insisted that the vaccine would prevent people from getting sick, before backtracking and assuring us that its only purpose was to limit contagion. Finally, in 2019, President Macron told elected officials in Martinique that ‘we must not say that chlordecone is carcinogenic because it is not true and it fuels fears’. When challenged by scientists, the Élysée Palace responded to Le Monde that ‘the President never said that chlordecone was not carcinogenic’. Alternative facts are not an American monopoly.
In contrast, the author highlights the uniqueness of modern science, which is based on robust, testable and always revisable explanations. He reminds us of the importance of defending this approach in the face of post-truth excesses.
In this context, scepticism can turn into outright rejection, paving the way for religious fundamentalism and pseudoscientific beliefs. Krivine’s analysis therefore raises a key question: how can trust between society and science be restored? While the author focuses on the scientific and religious fields, exploring the question of rebuilding trust between society and political discourse would also be interesting.
IV. A rich, albeit fragmented, work.
The book’s main strength lies in its original approach, which is based on a wealth of documentation. Krivine presents a series of striking examples, ranging from false scientific discoveries such as the Piltdown Man or N-rays, to contemporary debates on figures like Didier Raoult, the Bogdanov brothers, and homeopathy. This accumulation of anecdotes brings the subject matter to life and makes it accessible, while demonstrating the diversity of disinformation.
The book also stands out for its educational commitment, reminding readers of the scientific method and emphasising the importance of critical thinking. It also shows how fake news exploits our biases. Rather than merely denouncing fake news, it invites readers to understand it and protect themselves intellectually.
However, certain limitations are apparent. Some subsections could have been developed further to fit better into the book’s narrative. The analysis of the Koran or the Bible alongside science would seem less like a digression if it were more explicitly linked to the rest of the arguments. In this respect, the afterword is a perfect complement to the book. Finally, the author seems to underestimate the impact of minor false beliefs, which could create an environment conducive to more serious manipulation (such as the doubt cast on the Apollo 11 mission and our entire understanding of space). While these remarks do not detract from the book’s interest, they encourage critical and selective reading. Krivine wisely limits himself to consensual examples that do not leave him open to accusations of militancy.
Conclusion
Ultimately, On nous aurait menti? offers a thought-provoking exploration of fake news throughout history and in the present day, from religious myths to pseudoscientific excesses. The book’s strength lies in its originality and its desire to highlight the criteria that distinguish the scientific approach from unfounded beliefs. Hubert Krivine highlights the crucial issue of the need to develop a scientific culture and critical thinking that can resist the allure of disinformation. The book is therefore an invitation to reflect on the role of science in our societies, and on the important question of how to develop trust in institutions of knowledge.
Given Hubert Krivine’s experience, we can only hope that the sequel to this book will address the issue of fake news in political discourse more specifically, and its consequences for citizens’ trust in legitimate narratives. This would be a particularly interesting development, given that the lies and distortions of reality perpetrated by politicians largely shape prevailing scepticism and fuel mistrust of authority. In turn, this feeds everything that challenges established institutions and collective frameworks.
U4U, serving you better!
| U4U’s main resolution is to serve you even better. To achieve this, we have created direct links between you and the team that can best help you. So : – If you require personal support, please email to HR-REP-PERS-U4U-ASSISTANCE-INDIVIDUELLE@ec.europa.eu – If you would like information about training or coaching, please email to training.u4u@gmail.com – If you would like to contact colleagues in Luxembourg, please email to rep-pers-osp-u4u-lu@ec.europa.eu – If you would like to contact colleagues in the European Parliament, please email to u4u@europarl.europa.eu – If you wish to contact colleagues in the External Service, please email to u4unity@eeas.europa.eu – If you have any other questions, please send an email to our general mailbox: rep-pers-osp-u4u@ec.europa.eu We invite you to visit our website frequently and to join our Facebook page so that you have easier access to the latest news from the union about the training/coaching/workshops on offer, the conferences/cultural walks in Brussels and the events we organise throughout the year, as well as more general information about our statutes and our articles and reflections on the issues that concern us all. |