Mr President,
The political and institutional crisis that we are experiencing since the dissolution of the national assembly demonstrates, once again, that for President Macron nothing matters, especially not the expression of universal suffrage, with the exception of the particular interests of a minority. in power or acting financially.
With the appointment of a prime minister from an ultra-minority political party post-legislative, E. Macron turns his back on history and the exceptional mobilization of citizens which made it possible to remove the National Rally from power. It thus remains deaf to the cry of alarm emitted by millions of our fellow citizens about the current social context and the injustices born from successive liberal policies.
This cry of alarm has been raised in many ways in recent years and at the DGFiP in the bodies, Solidaires Finances Publiques, the inter-union DGFiP have denounced the partisan tax policies, the austerity cures, which have contributed to create social suffering which fueled the rise of the RN.
The comments made by the new Prime Minister, Michel Barnier, prove to us that the fiscal and economic choices will not change and worse will undoubtedly further worsen the situation of the majority of the population. Our organization will continue to support fair, progressive and redistributive taxation. With the same determination, we will fight the breakdown of the public service on the altar of austerity and in particular the public service of the DGFiP. The latest discussions with the General Director make us fear a return of job cuts despite the previously implemented sanctuarization. We will continue to demand sufficient resources to ensure the quality of the DGFiP’s missions, particularly in terms of statutory employment, a real improvement in the working conditions of staff and an increase in remuneration, whether in terms of index point or of its value than at the level of the compensatory part.
To make the link with the subject of our GT, a drop in jobs, beyond that, would mathematically have effects on promotions.
We are not going to give you the detailed demands of Solidaires Finances Publiques on the careers of the agents.
But we will still remind you:
– that for Solidaires Finances Publiques, the career must be linear and without obstacles,
– that higher grades should be obtained as soon as the statutory conditions are met,
– that individual evaluation is in no way an objective tool, that it goes against the status of the Civil Service and that we denounce the use you make of it for pseudo recognition of “merit”.
We will first return to the DGFiP salary negotiations with the section on promotions from October 16, 2023. You will have to, once all the trainee controllers have started their theoretical training on October 1, communicate to us the reality of the category promotions carried out. for the year 2024 because the figures that you communicated to us last spring did not take into account cancellations, waivers, etc.
We are re-emphasizing a problem that is poorly understood in our eyes. This is the distribution of the volume of promotions for access to category A between the different types of promotions.
Still on the subject of the professional exam, we asked you about the need to review the statutory conditions for colleagues moving from 2nd class controller to first class before taking the EP. Indeed, we remind you that it is abnormal and unacceptable for us that a colleague fulfilling the conditions as C2 no longer fulfills them if he passes C1.
Concerning grade advancements, we note in sheet 3 that our repeated requests during the salary negotiation cycle were heard and that you “noted bottlenecks concentrated at the end of grades”. You indicate that you contacted the General Secretariat on March 28, 2024 to request an increase in the rates of 2 points for the end of grades C and B for the period 2025 to 2027. This request goes in the right direction, but we would like to know if the DGAFP has validated or not this request.
To conclude on the themes debated during the cycle of salary negotiations on component 1 of October 16, 2023, we note that, despite our epistolary exchanges on the effective date of promotions by professional competition within category B, the The administration has not convinced us of the reasons which lead it not to promote all the winners on January 1 of the year of the competition or on the date on which the statutory conditions are met. We regret, however, that nothing is changing even though the administration managed to move the effective date from December 31 N to December 30 N.
You cannot ignore our clear position on the subject, it is up to you to take your responsibilities on the basis of your analyzes which we do not share!
On reading the documents provided, we note that you welcome the selectivity in terms of promotion thanks to the application of the LDG that you have unilaterally decided.
However, you are not wondering about the problem of evaluating agents, linked last year to new instructions upon the arrival of Esteve. Whether it is the reduction of the crosses requested by certain managements or the change of evaluator (SHD instead of CDS). You also do not analyze the number of agents who would have been excluded following mobility. It is true that all this was the subject of another GT, the GT review of LDG promos. Ah but yes, you did not provide us with these elements in the GT Bilan documents nor were you able to provide them to us during the meeting or even afterwards… But it is true that the figures are not the strength of the DGFiP!
But the biggest area of misunderstanding in these sheets is sheet 4 with your treatment of the promotion of non-evaluated colleagues.
We noted with amazement that between May and September, this sheet is now classified as “for information”, however we intend to discuss it since the consequences are serious for colleagues.
We were opposed to LDG promotion in principle and we were particularly against the 30 point system. It is arbitrary and penalizes agents who have any evaluation interruption. We alerted you in 2020, you did not hear us. Your decision to apply this system for colleagues with more than 180 so-called “absence” days for union activity (CTS) is unacceptable. Indeed, to be or not to be evaluated is not a Shakespearean choice but a difficult choice for agents who are not in the last grade of their corps.
While of course it is obvious that it is complicated for a superior to evaluate an agent that he or she barely knows sometimes, the agent’s career must not be stopped because of union activity. The analysis of previous CREPs can agree with a missing evaluation of a year or 2 but the problem of union activists is different since they may not be evaluated for several years, in this case it is clearly an exclusion of progress tables which will be the result. Shouldn’t we eventually be able to talk about union discrimination?…
Furthermore, informing about the system after the evaluation campaign is frankly unacceptable. You indicate in the documents of this GT, the consequences of a choice that colleagues had to make previously. It’s not like we had a GT Evaluation on March 20, 2024…
And indicate that the agents have the choice to ask to be evaluated, even if they do not have the required number of days, but conclude by specifying that it is the evaluator who has the last word whereas it is the The agent who suffers the consequences is a perfect illustration of the arbitrariness in force at the DGFiP! For Solidaires Finances Publiques, even if we will come back during the examination of the sheet on the consequences that you wish to impose, it is the agent who must be the decision-maker as is also specified in the Evaluation Guide .
Regarding the other files, we will intervene as we examine them.
