Salaries of EU officials to increase in new year

Some facts:
Purchasing power evolution of salaries of national civil servants (central government) between 2004 and 2011:
EU civil servants: -7.6%
DE civil servants: -4.5%
UK civil servants: -3.2%
FR civil servants: -0.3%
BE civil servants: +2.3%
NL civil servants: +2.9%

Net salary evolution in 2011:
EU civil servants: +0% (proposed 1.7% rejected by Council).
DE federal civil servants: +1.3% (decision of October '11: +2.44% as of 1 January '12).
UK civil servants: +1.3%
FR civil servants: +2.0%.
NL civil servants: +2.0%
BE civil servants: +3.6%.

Purchasing power evolution 2011:
EU civil servants: -3.6% (given Council's refusal of 2011 pay adjustment).
DE civil servants: -1.1%
FR civil servants: -0.3%.
NL civil servants: -0.5%
UK civil servants: -2.8%
BE civil servants: +0.2%

Weekly working time obligation:
EU civil servants: 37.5h; COM proposal: 40h as of 1 Jan 2013 as compensation for a 5% staff cut (€835 million of savings until 2020).
DE civil servants: 39h for contract staff, 41h for officials.
FR civil servants: 35h.
NL civil servants: 36h (compensation hours if they voluntarily work longer).
UK civil servants: 36h.
BE civil servants: 38h.

Pension contribution:
EU civil servants: 11.6%.
DE civil servants: 0%.
FR civil servants: 7.85% (as of 2020: 10.55%).
UK civil servants: 3.5%.
NL civil servants: 6.42%
BE civil servants: 0%

Annual accrual rate (pension rights per year of service):
EU civil servants: 1.9%.
DE civil servants: 1.79% (note: unlike the EU pension scheme, the German scheme recognises pre-service periods like time spent after the age of 17 on education, studies, preparatory services etc. as service periods on which the 1.79% are applied, see Articles 6 to 14 of the Gesetz über die Versorgung der Beamten und Richter des Bundes).
FR civil servants: 1.81%.
NL civil servants: 2.05%
UK civil servants: 2.3%

Normal retirement age:
EU civil servants: 63; Commission proposal 65, and easier to work until 67.
DE civil servants: 65 (increase to 67 with a transition).
NL civil servants: 65.
FR civil servants: from 60 to 62 in 2018.
The Commission reform proposal will bring the pension age closer to the DE civil service bearing in mind that EU staff works abroad and is expatriate staff until retirement. (70% of EU expat staff leave the host country after retirement.)

Early retirement age/minimum pensionable age:
EU civil servants: 55; Commission proposal 58.
DE civil servants: 63.
NL civil servants: 60.
UK civil servants: 50.

Maximum rate of pension:
EU civil servants: 70% of final salary.
DE civil servants: 71.25% of final salary.
FR civil servants: 75% of final salary (can be increased to 80%).
NL civil servants: no clear information from NL government.
UK civil servants: 75% of highest earning (2007 scheme); 66% (1972 + 2002 scheme).
The maximum pension rate of EU civil servants is comparable to the DE civil service. To bear in mind: 45% of EU staff receive a pension which is lower than 70%. 15% receive less than 50%. The average is currently 62% and will go down to 55% based on the 2004 pension reform and 2012 proposals.

Sources:
Commission statistics
Eurostat statistics

Good to know that the Brussels party scene keeps going strong.

Meanwhile, 12 million Europeans are unemployed. In the private as well as the public sector wages are being cut. The Greek are experimenting a diet other nations might soon have to follow.

"It seems to me that the powers that be
keep themselves in splendour and security.
...
Lower class jackass pay me tax
take out the trash
Working for the world go round."

(FGTH, Warriors of the Wasteland)

I realise that many people are Euro-sceptic, but I am amused to see how emotional some people are, and how they refuse the facts. Look at the comments in this exchange and see if you can find any facts in the sceptics' outcry. There are none. In addition we learn that people do not know that EU officials pay a tax on their salaries, in addition to a 5.5% crisis levy that has lasted over 20 years! And we learn that there is a Brussels 'party-scene' but we do not learn what the writer means by it. Then there is the view that 'we Europeans' accept 0% increase, but that writer (maybe Dutch since ARJEN is Dutch name?) does not read (or at least does not comment on) the statistic showing NL civil servants and others do quite well compared with EU officials. Seemingly, the more facts people get, and thanks to Gini for some of them, the more confused they get. Curiously the< do not get more informed and change their minds. Rather they continue mindless, fact-less rants, even wishing that 'we' return to the market as it is/was....neglecting the fact that it was 'the market' which requested the adaptations which made the market fairer, not a consortium of jokers!! So, let's hear some well-argued cases, not blind ignorance substituting for reasoned opinion.

You say

"that EU officials give themselves a raise of 5.5% (or stop
with paying a solidarity tax of 5.5 %,"

but if you read the news properly you will see

1. they are not "giving themselves" something - 'they'' are not the decision-makers.

2. EU officials have been paying 5.5% EXTRA for many years....you should be grateful and respectful of that.

3. A legal agreement, which member states could have changed, but did not, ends 31 December. So, as of 1 january, the 5.5% is no longer paid. It was not EU officials who decided this.

So, stick to the facts, rather than your wild opinions - that is all I ask.

Arjen1969, You say "It would be good to go back to the days where the EEC was still in place, with the only reason to make tradingrules within the EU the same for each memberstate. We are now moving a superstate that 80% of europeans do not want, but it is pushed through by Van Rompuy and his friends, in my point of view for their own glory."

I'm curious, which specific elements of the European Union do you dislike so much, and why? It's clear you are a Eurosceptic, but you refer to the EEC days like they were better times. So it sounds like you support some aspects of EU integration but not others. What has upset you so much (apart from the fact that the Dutch and French "no" votes did not stop Lisbon)?

mke: Regarding the Brussels "party scene." Yes, Brussels has some great restaurants (including some great reasonably-priced ones). This is a good thing.

But in my view these restaurants are by no means any more excessive than what you find in most major European cities...certainly, you have to spend far more to get a decent meal in London, for example

Oli

What I do not like most is that it looks like we are forced into one big political union at the moment. Speak to the man in the street and I can guarantee you that over 80% of the people will oppose to that.

Over the past 20 years I have only seen the influence of the EU increase without the people being asked if they wanted this. And when they asked, our opinion was ignored. I have lost my confidence in politics, to me they are all liars sitting in warm seats making salaries a normal man only can dream of, and it looks as if they are only doing it for their own good, not to improve Europe.

Furthermore the news that comes from the EU simply is not true. We can not help the Greece by giving them new loans all the time (and the loans come from us, the northern european states as net payers). We are however told by all politicians that our help to Greece does work, and we will even get the investments (loans) back with interest.....yeah right.... Be honest and simple to the people and tell them Greece will go broke, it will cost us some money and make an end to it. That is better than the pampering that has been done so far. I think this is done to give the banks and big financial institutions more time to prepare for their losses, but meanwhile again the citizens are paying for the mistakes political and financial big guys made in the past.

To put it simply, I do think the EU should be there to promote the same trading- and productrules between Europe for all memberstates, but that is where it should end. That was the main reason the EEC was started, and that was good. Some politicians wanted to have a single currency, the citizens never asked for it, it was a big project of the politicians of those days and forced to us.....we could not choose.

I simply think the whole idea of the EU is non-democratic, the citizens have nothing to say but they do see one big EU-machine that costs a lot of money.

Arjen1969, thanks for the explanation. I do not fully agree but do understand where you're coming from.

The only thing I would point out is that 'the EU' is not some big homogeneous entity. Beyond the EU officials / civil servants, the Member States are just as influential, if not more so. The Commission is the one that proposes legislation, but the Member States are the ones who amend and approve/reject it. These Member States are your national politicians, and they are certainly thinking about their own countries at least as much as they are thinking about the EU project. Even Van Rompuy, who admittedly has more power these days than before, does not have anywhere near enough power to do things without the agreement of the Member States.

To take the advantage of Greece, it's not 'the EU' that's negotiating and giving loans. Why do you think it's always Merkel's face we see on the news when this issue is reported? Because everyone knows that most funds are coming from Germany (a Member State) and that Germany therefore has a big say in the scope of any loans.

The EU is a union, yes, but very much still composed of countries. If there are democratic deficits with the EU system (and I agree with you, there are some) please don't put all the blame on 'the EU' or Brussels. National politicians are just as much to blame, if not more so...and these national politicians ARE elected by the European people in nearly all cases

David: was that comment addressed to me?

@ myself.....start with moving of course is stop with moving the parliament every month and pick one place as their location.

I agree about keeping the Parliament in Brussels, 100%

To be honest, regarding salaries, I've lived in Brussels for years and still do not understand fully whether EU Officials are taxed to a comparable rate. The 5.5% tax I always knew about, but understood it was the sole tax they paid. Then articles like this refer to an additional tax of up to 45% on EU salaries. What is it? I haven't summoned up the courage to rudely ask acquaintances at the EU what their gross and net salaries are, but it is very confusing.

That said, I am actually quite supportive of the EU project and its aims. I think we all agree that it has imperfections, however I also feel that most Europeans do not properly understand how the EU works, either in theory or in practice. It's not something that's easy to explain over the internet. It took me years of working in Brussels to understand, and there are plenty of details I still don't know. Needless to say, it's far more complex than more European citizens understand or should be expected to understand. This leads, in my view, to citizens holding plenty of misunderstandings, generalisations and outright myths about the EU. It's sad that we have a system that the average citizen cannot understand without applied study, but it's even sadder when well-meaning EU Officials cop a lot of hate from this.

"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed." (A. Rand, "Atlas Shrugged")

@ Oli

A couple of Quotes from you:
This leads, in my view, to citizens holding plenty of misunderstandings, generalisations and outright myths about the EU. It's sad that we have a system that the average citizen cannot understand without applied study, but it's even sadder when well-meaning EU Officials cop a lot of hate from this.

...and these national politicians ARE elected by the European people in nearly all cases
Unquote

Oli, on the first quote – Whose fault is that? Could I suggest that it is an education matter but as you say earlier in a quote the whole system is so strange to anything that we in the UK understand that you really can't blame people.

When it comes to the salary and terms and conditions it would pay people to look at the PDF on the EU website which covers the whole shooting match. As so often in these matters the ordinary foot soldier is perhaps not too well off but with career progression it is possible to do very well indeed.
http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/job/official/index_en.htm
The Income tax that you queried earlier runs from 8% to 45% which I assume depends on earning levels.

In the second quote you seem to blame the voters on the basis that you get what you voted for. This is where I have a lot of empathy with our Dutch friend Arjen1969. In National politics if the government is not doing well or gets tired you vote them out. Elections are very rarely about anything other than Jobs/Economy, Education, Health Service.

In the UK the three mainstream parties very rarely talk about Europe and we never ever get the opportunity to vote anyone of any influence or importance in or out. That in my book means that the electorate has been disenfranchised for the past forty years.

EU staff is therefore copping a lot of bad press, not because they are bad people but because they are seen to be protected from the economic crisis that everyone else is having to deal with in their day to day lives. I believe that a lot of citizens of the states that pay the bills are waking up to the creeping loss of sovereignty over the pass 40 years plus and are not happy. I said earlier that the three UK political parties have ignored the EU at election time. I genuinely believe that they will do that at their peril next time.

Perhaps instead of people remarking about the salaries going up the EU should report further in much more open detail about the salary structures and banding and the relevant peripheral additions that each person gets.
Simply put....
Senior Secretariat person..qualifications say BA/BSc
Post qualification experience - say 3 years.
1] Salary....€110,000-00 per year
2] Total Tax Rate and Insurance
3.1] Pensions contribution %age by employee
3.2] Pensions contribution %age by employer
4] Peripheral Entitlements...holidays per year 6 weeks say
5] Hours worked per week - mandatory number assumed to be 40 hours.
6] Over-time paid and how it is rated.
7] Terms of Contract...5 years for example, rolling contracts seem to be the normal.
8] Is Appointment to a salary band or fixed, and thence like all Civil Servants world-wide how they are regraded to maximise their incrteasing "importance" and progression...it does happen
9] Is the Pension a %age of some mystical salary ond is it Index-linked and to what?
10] Sickness Pay and cursory entitlements (in the Uk and French Civil Service they call this Seniority/Agony Leave
11] What Expense Account Details they are allowed and what they claim.
12] Do they Get Accommodation allowances? (almost certainly!)
13] Travel Allowances and roughly how much per Civil Servant and Type..no doubt First Class as always whereas muggins sits in the worst seats on all trains and aircraft etc.
14] They get an Education Allowance for Children? What nonsense, so why?
15] Are these people Self-employed Companies like those we hear about in Westmisnster and pay minimal taxes.

So with every perso now accounted for let's see the full published list under the Freedom of Information Act of Every Civil Servant employed in the EU (regardless of location) named - without a Direct Naming - and Country of Origin in the EU (or elsehwere as on occasions it is so) from the lowest paid up to the Mega-Paid High-earners the DGs on their €400,000-00 per year and to the Commisioners ontheir equally obscene salaries laid out for us all to see.

we have the Freedom of Information Act available so let's really see what is being paid and then we can judge the results.

Have a look at the figures the European Commission publishes:

http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/job/official/index_fr.htm

The lower portion is taxed at 8%. In Germany, people earning the lower salary are taxed at 14%; in Belgium, 23% and in Spain, 24,75%.
The upper portion is taxed at 45%. Only Italy has a rate that is lower (43%).

In other words, a top eurocrat does not pay 45% on the whole of his salary, but only on the part exceeding € 6,900 !

Let’s take a eurocrat earning € 4,243 a month. How much tax does he/she pay?
The first € 109,84 are tax-free.
Then, he/she pays 8% on the first € 1,938; 10% on the next € 731,69; 12,5% on the next € 390,04 and 15% on the remaining € 414,75.
This is an overall tax rate of 11%.

Last but not least, the 8-to-45% rate only applies to the basic salary, NOT to the bundle of hefty fees:

- an expat fee: 16% of basic salary
- an “allocation foyer”: 5% of basic salary
- a fee of 247,86 €/month per child
- an “allocation scolaire”: 221,5 €/month per child
- …

All these fees are free of tax.

As you can see, there is really no need to misinform the public –as they stand the figures are sufficiently outrageous.

Eurocrats are always keen to accuse of demagogy anyone who criticizes them.
Yet, any eurocrat who claims he is paying taxes “like everybody else”, even at a 45% tax rate, is a master demagogue.

@ Mike.... thanks for that research. Shows that my gut feeling is not only based upon what I see, but there are also facts to prove it (in contradiction to what someone else here stated). Guess you are right, as soon as Eurocrats are being under fire they tend to walk away instead of discuss, see one example above that told (I guess me) to study the EU better before talking and critisizing....... Btw, I knew your figures, a documentary made in Belgium showed this outrageous salary and benefits program that is in place.

@Inga
Criticise a Eurocrat and he/she insinuates demagogy. Again!

I did not “conveniently forget” mentioning the tax because it is about to expire –that is what above article is about by the way. You are merely speculating about its reintroduction.
Anyway, even with this minor tax you would still be paying less than half of what a local is paying.

Concerning the fee: does it seem unreasonable that, in order to get a fee, one should comply with a requisite? Does that sound unfair in Eurocrat land?

As you should have noticed, I do not take my information from tabloids but from the source itself, the EU website.

You are right, though, in your remark on the Commissioners.

I am sorry to hear that you will have to leave Brussels because of financial reasons.
If it is any consolation: think of all the natives who have to leave Brussels due to Eurocrat property speculation.

@mike
Re-introduction of the special tax is not a speculation, but certainty. As certain it is that the new tax rate will be higher than the current one.
I hope that if somebody hikes up your taxes by 5,5% -or more-you will consider it as minor as you believe it for us. I do feel the difference.

Belgium indeed has high payroll tax rates, with many possibilitites to reduce them (children, mortgage, solar panel installation etc. lead to deductions) which btw we do not have. Most people, were they not working for the EU, would never come to Belgium in the first place and would pay they national payroll tax. Which, just for example, in Czech Republic is a flat-rate 15%. Many pay in fact more in EU-tax than they would under their national regime. And of course we pay all the Belgium taxes which we do not have in [some] of our countries, e.g. for car ownership.
How come nobody criticises NATO, OECD, EBRD etc.? The employees there pay no income tax, yet they never make headlines.

As for conditions to qualify for allowance: my point is that you - and most- make it sound as if anybody gets it, while in fact it is few persons.

And as for the housing: in city where purchase of a property means paying non-recoverable tax of 12,5% of its value, there is no speculation. And, just FYI, there are indeed people in Brussels who can not afford to buy and need to rent. I and many of my colleagues are some of them.

Congratulations, Mike discovered progresssive tax system! Nobody ever pays top tax rate on ALL of his salary, that is not how it works anywhere.

In GB the first 8.105 GBP/year (that is 845 EUR/month) is tax-free, as opposed to 110 EUR/month in the EU Institutions. Just to compare.

Tax rates in certain states (especially the Eastern ones) are much lower and linear. They are often also paid 'per family' and not 'per salary' [spouses declaring income jointly and dividing by 2], which is an important difference for a group where the spouse either is unemployed or earns well below average as the "bloody foreigner" on the local job market.

Personally, I would prefer my national regime. But applied wholly and not a cherry-picked basis, that is: increases in line with the nationals (as opposed to a salary freeze since mid-2010, which we have 'enjoyed' in reality), all the tax deductibles, joint income declaration with my wife, same health-contribution with the same % of own coverage, and the same pension contribution in return for the same pension scheme. No exceptions, all the same.

If anybody thinks we are protected from the crisis, just read Gini's post above. Real salary evolution, for example.

Incredible how WE are blamed because heads of states could not agree, while they have had months to do so!

Already 30% of EU staff is local, as the conditions are not good enough to attract professionals to emigrate here. That is the best measure of the 'atttractiveness'.

@Thomas

Instead of trying to make a joke out of it, read my post carefully.

The point is:
- your lower tax rate is lower than any national rate, except for France and the Netherlands;
- your higher tax rate is lower than any national rate, except for Italy.

And do not downplay the package of tax-free fees: 16% + 5% + several lump sums are not irrelevant.

@ mike
So you say that OECD etc ARE a constant aim of criticism? I certainly missed it in the papers, could you provide some links?

Comparing "oranges with oranges" would be comparing EU with other internationals, expats and permanent representations. Not many of me peers have to be able to work in two foreign languages, move 1000's of km from home to another country etc. If governemtsn want to have qualified people from across the EU, they need to attract them somehow. And anybody who wants to have my work consitions etc needs only to pass the competition, which is open to every EU citizen. No need to bite one's hand off.

And congratulations for knowing already what pension I will get in 30+ years, as I do not have a clue. So far each EUR paid out to EU pensioners came from our contributions, and the member states did not pay out anything. Since now the number of pensioners grows but the governments are still not willing to shell out their share, and start to pay up their debt to our pensions system, the pension conditions will certainly deteriorate. I may well receive less in real terms than I paid in. And since the EU is not covered by national laws, including on the minimum wage or pensions, I may well receive less than the minimum pension in my coutrny in the end.

Let me assure you that in Eastern EU countries they also have police, free schooling, medical access etc.
My point is that the Belgian system is not the default for [still] most EU employees (still 70% is not local), and many countries have lower rates than Belgium. Would you move to another part of Europe, leaving your current job, home etc. if the conditions offered were in fact worse than what you have there?

And thanks for worrying about me, but I worked for a decaade in private sector and know it well, any me coutry has low level of unemployemnt. In fact now I can communicate in 4 language (I learnt some French and Dutch since coming to Belgium), and have more qualifications than most assistants. I do not worry :).

@Inga

I believe you are addressing multiple people @mike.
To set the record straight, as far as I can remember I did not talk about the following topics:
- OECD
- your pension scheme
- you becoming unemployed

Therefore, I will not go into above topics.

I did, however, raise the following topics and will reply.

“Not many of me peers have to be able to work in two foreign languages, move 1000's of km from home to another country etc.”

First of all, bilingualism isn’t that rare in many European countries and regions, e.g. Belgium, Catalonia,… A lot of immigrants share your faith.

Second, nobody FORCED you to move “1000s of km from home”. If you apply with a company, it will not pay you an expat fee because you fancy working abroad. However, if a company asks one of its staff to work abroad, that’s a whole different situation! And no employee –whether asked or not– will receive an expat fee his/her lifelong career when he/she stays in the same country. He/she will move to local payroll after a couple of years.

Third, you are right about other international public servants (diplomats etc.).

“My point is that the Belgian system is not the default for most EU employees, and many countries have lower rates than Belgium.”

That may well be. And many countries have higher rates. But, after all, you are working in Belgium, aren’t you?

“5% is for me c. 140 EUR, which is the same amount as for somebody having similar income. What actually matters is the amount that enters the bank account, not the %.”

But it IS the percentage that matters! Why else would we be comparing progressive tax systems?
Unless I understand you wrong, you are saying that it would be fine if you and a multi-billionaire would each pay € 140.

“And people who make the close-to minimal wage pay effectively lower national taxes than we, due to much higher amount of tax-free income.”

In my reply to Thomas I have proven this claim to be wrong.

“In Luxembourg e.g. there are people working for the EU earning BELOW minimal wage. Their income under the national regime would not be taxed at all, under ours - it is.”

Again, cfr. my reply to Thomas: contrary to a local making minimum wage, the Eurocrat minimum wager makes more once you add the fees he/she is cashing in tax-free. Only in Eurocrat land, I believe, net exceeds a gross.
And I do not even go into the number of holidays, including the so-called “free-days”, Eurocrats have, and a local minimum wages does not.

“I also note your selective approach: according to you we should pay Belgian taxes, but not a word from you about aligning our 11,6% pensions contribution with 0,0% pension contribution of Belgian public sector.”

I am not selective in my approach. Nor do I work in the Belgian public sector. I am sorry for not criticizing the Belgium public servants in this forum as well.

“My advice to you: avoid these English-speaking companies like hell.”

One can avoid these property agencies, but not their patrimony. When the EU will be extended, thousands of natives more will be pushed out of Brussels overnight.

“You also seem to be misinformed: we pay all the local taxes on housing, and the first I heard about 5% 'lodging fee' is from you. Do indicate the source, maybe our HR is not telling us something?”

No, you do NOT pay the tax on secondary homes. You just do not! Any Brussels commune will tell.

Of course, I provide you the source for the “lodging fee”: http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/job/official/index_en.htm.

In official terms it is called “household fee”. And, yes, Eurocrats DO receive it!
And, no, I am not referring to the “dependent child allowance”. And even then, if you do happen to know over a hundred of Eurocrats who do not have children and do not cash in this fee does not mean it doesn’t exist!

"You are also misinformed about tax rates in other EU countries: the maximal rate in Bulgaria is 10%; Cyprus 30%; Croatia 40%; Czech Republic 15%; Estonia 21%, Hungary 16%; Ireland 41%; Latvia 23%; Lithuania 15%, Luxembourg 39%; Malta 35%, Poland 32%; Romania 16%; Slovakia 19%; Slovenia 41%. Our higher tax rate, which in practice amounted to 50,5%"

No, in a progressive system 45% + 5,5% does not equal 50,5%. It is less.
Besides, the 5.5% levy is not applied to the base salary. It is applied to the base salary minus social security & pension contributions and an amount equal to “the basic salary of an official in grade 1”.

Above, I have taken liberty to eliminate countries that have a higher or equal rate.
Countries like Czech Republic, Romania etc. do not use a progressive but a flat tax system: everybody, low as well as high earners, pay the same percentage.
Given that the bulk of Eurocrats (including yourself, as you insinuate) pay a rate that does not even exceed 13%, you might end up worse in Czech Republic, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia!
Think twice about what you are asking for, I would say.

That leaves us with Luxembourg, Cyprus, Malta,…
Comparing the whole of the EU with tax heavens like Luxembourg, Cyprus and Malta is ridiculous. How on Earth could the EU afford income tax rates the way Luxembourg and peers are doing? The EU as a global tax heaven? Now that’s a thought.

The list becomes small, doesn’t it?
You could, of course, make your point by saying that Slovenia and Ireland, with 41%, and Croatia, with 40%, are lower than the 45%.

I do not work with the EU and have to rely on sparse official documents –I do not use tabloids. You, on the contrary, have all the figures by hand.
I am fed up with talking to Eurocrats who hide information and bluntly deny the facts. You make me look up things over and over in order to refute your denial.

I just hope that David Cameron will be in excellent shape when he will have to deal with Europe’s Pride.

And finally finally: EU's problem is not 'sparse' provisions of data, as everything is on the web and you freely use it. It is transparent.

On the other hand, other internationals, PermReps etc. have better conditions to compensate and attract, but just do not publish them. For example, I am positive you -whoever now reads it- do not know what are the working conditions in your national Permanent Representation to the EU, UN etc. Bye.

"a Prime Minister wants the EU budget NOT to increase. He can/may not tell the EU how to maintain its budget.

Apparently, your employers (first Kinnock, now Van Rompuy) maintain their budget by targeting the lower scaled and last joined staff.

Perhaps that says more about your employers and the Europe they are creating than about the PM and taxpayers criticising it"

You seem to be misled - Cameron et consortes decide not only how much will be spent, but also -to the last EUR- how. Read the blue box on the left.

No, the Council proposals do not affect all equally.
They are more detailed than quoted here, and e.g. the 'overall' 10% cut does not mean cutting wage of a Director and his secretary by the same 10%.
For example, Council's proposal to slower promotions and introduce caps targets directly those at the bottom. The proposal to introduce payments for EU school (thus the Eurocrat children will be the only ones in the EU without access to free education, unless they happen to be fluent in French or Dutch) targets younger people, i.e. also newcomers [average new recruit is already 34 years old.]. Etc.

And of course countries are happy to discriminate in favour of 'their' officials. It is no coincidence that the Kinnock Reform was implemented on exactly the same day as the EU10 accession, i.e. 01.05.2004. Thus, old MS ensured that the 'old' -their- employees will be well ahead in comparison with those from the new MSs, which could not be employed before that date.
Now some MSs, including UK, have more Directors than secretaries. And "58" was not a threshold chosen at random...

My advice is that you read how the EU law is made, e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislature_of_the_European_Union
The Commission only proposes legislation. Once it is on the table the Council [=all governments] and the Parliament rewrite and adopt it as they choose. It applies also to the staff regulations, including the salary grid, allowances etc.

I bet that when you hear your politicians complaining about some 'law from Brussels', they never tell you that its final content does not depend on Barroso and comp., but themselves and their political -and directly elected- colleagues from the EP.

Bye

Wasn't the original point of the article that our national politicians on the Council of Ministers are responsible for the increase in take home pay? That it is their lack of diligence which created the situation despite all their shouting from the rooftops about reducing the costs of EU administration.