Downgrading the Commission staff

Find the 1,500 differences (per month) in both pictures:


Recently, EPSO published a competition, (EPSO/AD/125/08), to recruit doctors with two different seniority "branches" even though the tasks to be performed by both types of doctors are the same:

- pre-recruitment examinations
- annual check-ups
- invalidity committees
- medical emergencies
- medical consultations
- preventive medicine
- health advice
- medical and administrative opinions.

The comities in which they will be recruited into are also the same:

- health and safety at work
- ergonomic workplace design
- invalidity
- board of senior medical advisors of the European Union institutions.

Then what are the differences between the two streams?

The first type is for the European Commission, so these doctors will be recruited as AD7 and the Commission only requires of them only 6 years of experience. The second type is for the REST OF THE INSTITUTIONS, so, the requirements are higher: 10 years of experience and they will be motivated on recruitment by being classified as AD9 (1500 Euros more per month).

How on Earth is it possible for officials with the same job, same tasks and same responsibilities to be given different salaries and grades by European Institutions one may enquire?

When and by whom was it decided that the OTHER institutions should be more important than the Commission? Can they establish a ranking of Institutions by criteria of importance, promotion possibilities, etc? Are our Director- Generals less qualified than those of the other institutions for example?

Perhaps the Commission thinking of itself as a second class European Institution, considers that it has second class staff (Commission's staff) requiring only second class doctors.

Why are they trying to downgrade the Commission's staff? It is clear that other Institutions apply better conditions to the staff than the Commission. Are we witnessing a political war of power amongst the institutions?

After the 2004 Kinnock Reform, competitions (for the Commission) have been organized for lower grades. Result: Commission has to fight with big companies to engage the best staff. And year by year it becomes more difficult since the salaries of high skilled staff in the private sector grow much faster than they do in the Commission. The second handicap for our institution regarding jobs in Luxembourg is that it has to compete with jobs in Brussels to convince new staff to lose some purchasing power by coming to Luxembourg. And this is in exchange for a "friendly city without the traffic jams of Brussels" (?)

Now we discover that we also have new competitors: The rest of the institutions. If you are working in the European Commission and need the services of a doctor, the doctor attending you will be at least 4 years less experienced than those in any other European institutions.

SID asks EPSO to stop and invalidate this competition and the one organized for nurses with the same discriminatory terms since these are affronts towards the equal treatment of staff in the institutions.

SID also asks EPSO to create a joint committee of staff and institutions administration representatives to study each competition requirements and pre-requisitions before it is launched. And, in this way avoid the incompetent launching of competitions that go against the Fundamental Rights, or can lead to situations of inequality treatments or professional harassments.