-- Leo's gemini proxy
-- Connecting to gemini.techrights.org:1965...
-- Connected
-- Sending request
-- Meta line: 20 text/gemini;lang=en-GB
Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link
http://techrights.org/videos/epo-threats-to-suepo.webm
Summary: Contrary to what “Orange Man” says, the staff union told staff the truth and does not need to apologise to anyone (let alone retract any statements)
THE STAFF Union of the EPO (SUEPO) has been doing a very fine job for at least a decade. We’ve seen many SUEPO publications. They’re all polite and courteous. They’re professional. Unlike Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos, who end up shouting at people to compensate for their incompetence and insecurity (temper issues are associated with low self-esteem or a lack of self control, which is a weakness, not a strength).
“Don’t believe the lies from Campinos. SUEPO told the truth.”Many EPO insiders, some of whom have spent decades of their lives working for the EPO, yearn for the days the Office was run by competent individuals, appointed based on their skills rather than based on their connections. And who can blame them? In my personal experience, scientists always prefer to be managed by scientists because if the manager understands the staff (on a technical level) there’s decreased chance of misunderstandings, unrealistic expectations, and workplace harassment (typically hiding from an inherent disconnect). The poison inside the Office — some say “cancer” or “tumour” (yes, EPO staff habitually uses those exact words as analogies) — is a cabal of people who don’t know what the heck they’re doing. They want the public to think that scattering or pouring out there a growing batch of low-quality patents (i.e. unjustified monopolies) is “success” or “growth” or “production” (remember that monopolies and manufacturing are profoundly different things, which mustn’t be conflated or mistaken one for the other). This wheelbarrow of papers does no good for Europe. That much has been repeatedly demonstrated by scholars across Europe (at least those not corrupted by EPO bribes).
Techrights strongly and categorically supports SUEPO. Everything we’ve been seeing from SUEPO is consistent with sincere commitment to EPO staff, even at personal risk at times (and collectively a risk to one’s family).
Don’t believe the lies from Campinos. SUEPO told the truth. SUEPO did what it promised to do for its members. It informed them. Battistelli tried really hard to demonise SUEPO (comparing them to “Nazis” and violent things like “snipers”), but tribunals outside the EPO repeatedly sided with SUEPO. Because they had the opportunity to examine actual evidence (or a lack of it).
To end this series we’d like to post (for the public record) the full correspondence from and to SUEPO. The person in charge of SUEPO handles the situation calmly, unlike the ‘wicked witch’ who is rumoured to be behind these repressive/oppressive actions (not the first situation of this kind).
First, here’s the message sent by Campinos to not only caution SUEPO but basically threaten SUEPO (notice the use or misuse of the English language, torturing words like “management” to say “colleagues” instead, even when referring to just one individual).
It is dated 10 Feb 2021.
>
>
> European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
>
> To the Chairman of SUEPO Central
>
> via email: xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Date: 10.02.2021
>
> SUEPO publication of 4 February 2021 ‘Salary Adjustment Procedure 2020: Loss of Head in Directorate Compensation & Benefits’
>
> Dear Mr Chair,
>
> On 4 February, SUEPO published a letter regarding the situation of one of our colleagues and their line manager.
>
> It is abundantly clear that red lines have been crossed in this publication. It constitutes not just an attack on two of our colleagues, but also on the values of the Office and all its staff. I am therefore writing to inform you of the gravity with which this publication – and your decision to publish it – is now being treated.
>
> First and foremost, it is our assessment that the letter questions the ethics and integrity of one of our colleagues, merely for representing and expressing the views of the Office in joint meetings. I would like to underline, that whatever communication efforts or tactics are made by a union in the pursuit of its goals, we, as an Office, will not accept actions that have a detrimental effect on the dignity or reputation of any individual staff member. Moreover, in taking this approach in this latest publication, SUEPO is creating a climate in which colleagues may be fearful of public attack, simply for faithfully executing their professional duties.
>
> Secondly, the letter publicly implies by insinuation that the management is responsible for the colleague’s situation. Not only is this categorically untrue, and even libellous, it is an attack on the reputation of the entire organisation, its professionalism and its values.
>
> I accept fully that during the course of our duties, we can naturally expect different views, and even criticisms. You will be very much aware that staff representation and unions enjoy a wider freedom of expression in this respect. Encouraging such a plurality of views is what makes our organisation stronger. It ensures that the views of all our colleagues are heard and that we can try to move forward as a more cohesive Office.
>
> However, like with any other freedom, there are boundaries. As already stated by the Tribunal, “any action that impairs the dignity of the international civil service, and likewise gross abuse of freedom of speech, are inadmissible”. As international civil servants, we are expected to provide the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity. In our organisation we also adhere to the standards of respect, dignity, and tolerance, especially given the different backgrounds, profiles and nationalities which all constitute part of the richness of our organisation.
>
> I have also repeated on several occasions the specific importance of trust, fairness and mutual respect, especially in social dialogue. And finally, from our own Service Regulations, “an employee shall at all times treat others, inside and outside the European Patent Organisation (…) with professional respect and discretion”. This means not only respect for others as human beings, but also respect for their functions and for their professionalism.
>
> For all the reasons above, your publication has clearly crossed a number of critical boundaries. You will understand that as a public organisation, the Office must take every measure to protect its staff and its reputation. I am therefore writing to request that SUEPO makes a public retraction of its letter, removes the letter of 4 February from its website and issues a letter of apology to the two colleagues concerned, by 15 February 2021.
>
> Following these measures, we will be able to continue a constructive working relationship, and to work on the issues that we have started to address. As you are well aware, in times of pandemic, it is even more important to be strong together and to act within the basic fundamental principles of decency, politeness and respect.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> xxxxx
>
Just like in ’1984′ (the book), they ask staff to remove truthful information and then, moreover, apologise (to those whom they said the truth about). The EPO did this to me several times via aggressive law firms, which they wasted EPO budget on. If that’s not bad enough, they claim to respect some sorts of values which they clearly violate (nepotism is one manifestation of that) and talk about respect in the same way Code of Conduct proponents do (wherein only those at the top are shielded from the rules they wield, so it’s an asymmetric power relation, favouring the enforcers). They speak of the “reputation of our organisation” as if management itself isn’t the culprit; to them, those who point out what’s going on are the real issue. They never had “genuine and constructive dialogue” as they merely listen (or barely listen) but never take into account, let alone implement, any proposals from staff representatives. They say they wish to “protect all colleagues from such public attacks” while weaponising Dutch and German media to defame judges, notably Judge Corcoran. The immense hypocrisy and the double-standards to be noted in this letter are seemingly endless. We could go on and on…
SUEPO’s letter dated 14 Feb 2021:
>
>
> 14 February 2021 su21005cl – 0.3.1
>
> To: Mr António Campinos President of the EPO ISAR–Room 1081
>
> Your letter of 10 Feb concerning SUEPO publication of 4 February 2021 ‘Salary Adjustment Procedure 2020: Loss of Head in Directorate Compensation & Benefits’
>
> Dear Mr President,
>
> In your letter you raise concerns regarding the SUEPO publication of 4 February 2021 published on the internal SUEPO website. We were surprised by the tone of your letter and the assertion that red lines have been crossed.
>
> Following receipt of your letter we have reviewed our publication, but are unable to find any passage which in our opinion is factually wrong or would even go beyond the freedom of speech and the freedom of association.
>
> Therefore, in order to clarify the situation, we would like to ask you to indicate those particular passages which raised your concerns.
>
> We are ready for an open dialogue on this issue as soon as possible, at the latest in our meeting scheduled for 24 February 2021.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> xxxxxxxx
>
> Chairman of SUEPO Central
>
Campinos to SUEPO on 16 Feb 2021 (same day he publicly shamed them in the Office intranet and simultaneously sought to drive a wedge between SUEPO and the CSC):
>
>
> Date: 16.02.2021
>
> European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
>
> To the Chairman of SUEPO Central
>
> via email: xxxxxxxxxx
>
> RE: Request to retract SUEPO publication of 4 February 2021 ‘Salary Adjustment Procedure 2020: Loss of Head in Directorate Compensation & Benefits’
>
> Dear Mr Chair,
>
> On 10 February, I wrote to you to request that SUEPO retracts a letter it published on 4 February. As you will recall, your public letter concerned the situation of one of our colleagues and their line manager.
>
> Following that publication, I urged you respectfully to retract the statement because it had, very clearly, crossed a number of red lines in attacking the professionalism and reputation of our mutual colleagues and also the reputation of the Office. It included claims that are not just categorically untrue, they could also be considered libellous. However, I also underlined that we would be able to continue normal working relations were you willing to retract the statement by 15 February at the latest.
>
> With your letter of 14 February 2021, besides a proposal to discuss the topic during a meeting on 24 February 2021, we have only received a request for clarification, even though my original letter to you explained in no uncertain terms the nature of the problem. We are convinced that SUEPO is fully aware of the problematic aspects of the publication, and the damaging effects it would have on our colleagues and on the reputation of our organisation.
>
> We are therefore disappointed to see that there has been no visible or meaningful attempt to retract the statement, or apologise to the colleagues concerned. To the contrary, SUEPO has shown its willingness to attack in public colleagues who partake in social dialogue of any kind, whether with the CSC or with SUEPO itself.
>
> As you must be aware, it is our duty to protect all colleagues from such public attacks. I have therefore asked our services to implement a period of three months from 16 February during which all social dialogue with SUEPO will be carried out by written exchange only. The Office will therefore not be fielding representatives to meet with SUEPO either in person or online during this period. At the end of the three months the decision will be reviewed.
>
> Despite the necessity to take this measure, the Office remains committed to pursuing a genuine and constructive dialogue. Our colleagues throughout the EPO expect us to make progress on social dialogue as quickly and as constructively as possible – but also do so in an atmosphere of respect and professionalism.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> xxxxxxx
>
CSC letters were published in a previous part. █
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
----------
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
-- Response ended
-- Page fetched on Thu Apr 18 23:51:21 2024