António Campinos is no better than Benoît Battistelli, he's just a better pretender (dictator with a phony attitude)

Summary: The ongoing assault on staff of the EPO isn't going unnoticed and for the impression of consent (acceptance of this assault) a survey is being imposed on workers (with pressure put by line managers to participate); Europe as a whole is under assault from the EPO, whose decision-making groups are entirely infiltrated by special interests (to give an impression of professional consultation)

BACK in September we published this document about the EPO's survey, calling it a "Plot to Dismantle the EPO's Staff" (they just want to try to give the impression of 'their' staff consenting to it).

The Central Staff Committee said: "Many of you contacted us seeking guidance to fill out the survey. Several of you are also feeling the pressure by your line manager to do so. You remain free to participate or not without giving any justification. The Staff representation had therefore on a very short notice created this user guide."

The guide is long, we've republished it as text and images, and the subject will come back again in the near future.

The Central Staff Committee circulated the following message, noting: "This is not social dialogue as it should be, neither does it have a basis in legality. It is furthermore questionable whether the lack of involvement of the Staff Representation is compliant with ISO 45001:2018, the certification the office is presently seeking."

Here's the full publication, dated two months ago:

Munich 15.09.2020 sc20137cp – 0.2.1/1.3.1

Zentraler Personalausschuss Central Staff Committee Le Comité Central du Personnel The administration’s strategic survey

New Normal – How will the EPO look in the future?

Dear colleagues,

The administration is asking staff to fill in a strategic survey. The outcome of the survey on the “New Normal” will be the basis for important strategic decisions by management on how the EPO will look in future!

The outcome of the survey will evidently be determining for the whole organisation. There will be very serious implications as regards inter alia: employment package and financial benefits, seat agreements, bilateral agreements with member states, income taxation, harmonization and quality of work, unity of the organisation, our office culture, communication and collaboration amongst colleagues, well-being of staff, building program, services offered on the premises (e.g. canteens and coffee corners), Amicale, expatriation, the EPO structure possibly leading to a decentralisation of the EPO via the European Patent Network etc.

The changes to come are fundamental to the whole organisation, and Staff Representation has requested to be involved. However, the current survey has been prepared solely by the administration without any input from the Staff Representation. This is not social dialogue as it should be, neither does it have a basis in legality. It is furthermore questionable whether the lack of involvement of the Staff Representation is compliant with ISO 45001:2018, the certification the office is presently seeking.

While filling in the survey, consider carefully the implications and changes on your personal situation, that of your colleagues and friends, be they in active employment or retired, as well as those on the organisation. Your Staff Representation

Further SR publications on New Normal and related topics - The New Normal - Teleworking: food for thought

New Normal – How will the EPO look in the near future?

The assault on EPO staff has parallels in this office's policy regarding patents. The public isn't being given any real consideration. 'Closed doors' meetings with lobbyists, litigation industry [sic] insiders and a bunch of non-scientists who hardly know what patents are (or how they're intended to work) basically make all the big decisions. Only yesterday the EPO gave another example of this (warning: epo.org link), revealing that it had come up with new guidelines having not consulted the general public and without having given consideration to the law.

"Who are those members of the SACEPO WPG? How many of them ever wrote a computer program?"In the "news" section of the EPO's site the EPO speaks of "experts in the fields of biotechnology and computer-implemented inventions (CII)," meaning illegal (in Europe) software patents. These corrupt EPO officials continue to force examiners to grant illegal patents, justifying that using guidelines composed secretly by "members of the SACEPO WPG"; to quote: "This final meeting was preceded by the first-ever public user consultation on the Guidelines 2019, as well as two main and two extraordinary meetings with members of the SACEPO WPG and experts in the fields of biotechnology and computer-implemented inventions (CII) in November 2019, May 2020 and June 2020. The results of the discussions were introduced into a first draft of the Guidelines 2021 that was reviewed and commented on by the SACEPO WPG members over the summer. [...] As usual, recent developments in technologies such as biotechnology and computer-implemented inventions (CII) were followed with great interest. As in many previous meetings, collaboration between the SACEPO WPG members and the EPO proved to be constructive and very fruitful."

Who are those members of the SACEPO WPG? How many of them ever wrote a computer program? As per the EPO's Web site:

I. Industry

Mr PEHAM Alois (AT) Mr ROBERTS Scott (GB) Mr THÃœRER Andreas (DE)

II. Professional Representatives

Ms HEGNER Anette (DK) Mr SAMUELIDES Emmanuel (GR) Mr WILMING Martin (CH)

III: Members appointed "ad personam"

Ms NARGOLWALLA Cyra (FR) Mr ROBERTS Gwilym (GB) Mr RYSTEDT Hampus (SE)

Here's a screenshot (the above page will change over time)



So what we have here is Siemens, Bosch, a bunch of law firms, people added for "diversity" factor, lobbyists advocating software patents for profit, and apparently not a single software specialist (we've checked all the above). These are the people who get to decide on so-called 'CII' policy? Truly disturbing. Might as well let a bunch of fossil fuel companies decide on environmental policy. ⬆