Shocking partial research results! Individual public polls show so far that the Resource Package should disappear or be reduced drastically! Convention ILO98 Art.2 also fully supports public opinion.
- Should trade unions receive benefits/ privileges from the employer? No 70% (this is also supported by ILO Convention 98 Art2)
- Should members of elected unions work in dedicated, separated/ double physical offices? No 58% (this shows that staff may want to manage public money / resources better than unions or DG HR)
- Should elected unions benefit from 100% secondments? (this means some of their members not doing the work they were recruited for but receiving normal salaries) No 75% (this means they should not have 100% secondments – what do they do with their 100% of working time dedicated to “union work” anyway? If thousands of people lost jobs without any help at all is it normal for unions to still pretend, shamelessly, that they still represent workers’ interests? Where is their work results? Don’t we all need some proof?)
- Should elected unions benefit from 50% secondments? (this means some of their members not doing half the work they were recruited for but receiving normal salaries and more than one office) No 79% (half time wasted and neither job done right! No 50% secondments!)
- Should elected unions benefit from 25% secondments? (this means some of their members not doing 25% of the work they were recruited for but receiving normal salaries and more than one office) No 52% (this lower value shows some possible space for negotiations: perhaps 20%, or 15% secondment, in the same – only one – office could be sufficient for union work, and from home during spare time – while receiving a normal salary, no additional privileges!)
- Should elected unions benefit from reimbursement of travel costs to other cities or countries? (considering that each working site has its own union or staff association) No 70%
(No mission trips are actually necessary, since everybody knows that “travel for union work” does not bring any benefit to staff! There is no proof to show otherwise! In addition, all locations should have their own staff representatives and unions! Why should somebody travel from Brussels, on public money, to talk to Ispra colleagues, when Ispra has its own staff representatives group? They know best what they need and they can communicate it themselves, with no extra services needed. If really necessary (e.g. for a strike) then everybody should at least buy their own tickets to travel to Brussels, instead of buying a few beers or wine. Alcohol is not good for health, anyway!).
- Should all members of elected unions, who still receive a salary, appear in Sysper with a full job description (like any other staff member)? Yes 70% (this number could have been easily 100% if “normal staff” only would have answered. But the 70% actually shows us that some “hidden unionists” may have answered to this poll, trying to influence the results in their own favourJ – and it has been fully expected! They must understand that nobody honourable could honestly support the lack of transparency in Sysper. If everybody else (including directors, heads of unit etc) appears in Sysper with a very clear job description, picture and contact details, then why unionists should be hidden? They should be the most transparent colleagues, having their full CV’s actually published on both the intranet and the web! Showing maximum openness to staff, to MEPs, to EPSU, ETUC and to public! Do we elect unionists to keep them hidden? Is it normal that they stay hidden in the dark? Or perhaps some “grades” / promotions are hard to justify…? Who knows?)
- Should elected unions and/or elected independent staff members who refuse to sign the “framework arrangement” (especially the “resource package” part) be allowed to take part fully in formal Social Dialogue process, without any discrimination? Yes 59%, I am not sure I need more information 35% (showing important lack of access to information- these numbers show lack of access to social rights)
- Social Dialogue to modify the internal rules for contract agents (GIPs-CAs) took longer than 2 years: it started in 2015 and ended in 2017. Do you find this duration normal, considering the important resources dedicated exclusively to these activities? 92% (in normal world, this means that somebody in DG HR should be fired because he/she took as long as over 2 years to pretend having a social dialogue process going on, then eventually end up with such an unbelievably bad document generating more unemployment, exclusion, unfairness, fragmentation, and staff demotivation than before!)
- Should unions’ electoral lists include all staff categories in a proportional way? Yes 87% ; No 10% ; I don’t know 3% (A solid majority of respondents shares European values of equal opportunities and Human Rights, supporting fairness. They should also find ways to become more and more convincing with the other 10% who do not share these democratic values. The latter group most probably belong to current unions)
By: NPS Collective Study: The Added Value of Resource Package (open until end April 2018)
Brussels, 24 April 2018