OVER the past few weeks we unveiled a number of recent EPO scandals. Internal documents revealed what had happened, including layoff plans, illegal practices and so on.
Those who ruined and still ruin the EPO (on multiple levels, both for stakeholders and workers) are going to face the wrath of high-level legal challenges. We showed hints of that a couple of days ago, as it has been made explicit in a letter that preparations were being made. Then there's this four-page document from last month. It's about the 'trickle-up' effect at the Office, basically passage of wealth from the bottom to the top. The document's publication wouldn't be complete without graphics, so instead of HTML we'll present it as follows:
The Central Staff Committee concludes by saying that "it is therefore with regret that to defend our rights, even in this clear-cut case, we are forced again to resort to a lengthy legal dispute. It is not our intention, and we are simply asking the administration to adopt a fair and reasonable distribution method."
"They've given Campinos ample time and even a public health crisis to exploit; and now the assault of staff is standing at/reaching unprecedented levels, with practically no consideration given to anything staff has to say."The only thing that surprises us is that it took more than a couple of years to do so. They've given Campinos ample time and even a public health crisis to exploit; and now the assault of staff is standing at/reaching unprecedented levels, with practically no consideration given to anything staff has to say. In fact, without physical meetings (because "pandemic!") there's just about nothing to be done to resist it, e.g. protests and strikes. People are isolated in their homes, helpless and divided for the most part.
Here's what the representatives told staff besieged by the management:
On the 6th October 2020, the GCC-SSPR sub-committee met to discuss the proposal of the administration for cash injections into the RFPSS and the Salary Savings Plan (SSP). Once again, Staff representation objected to the proposed distribution of the amounts into individual SSP accounts on the grounds that it heavily favours those in the higher grades and provides disproportionately large sums when compared to those in the lower grades.
The full publication on this topic, which can be found here, provides a more detailed overview of the issue with the cash injections into the SSP. In addition, for those less familiar with the acronyms used, a list including brief descriptions can be found on the last page of the publication.