Excellence: impossible without a stable and experienced staff

The whole world had their eyes set on CERN on 4 July 2012 when ATLAS and CMS announced they had discovered a particle “compatible with the Higgs”. At the beginning of 2013, it took only a few days to adjust the LHC and have protons and heavy ions collide in the accelerator.

All these discoveries and technical prowess have only been possible thanks to the experience and the pursuit of excellence by close-knit teams of technicians and engineers who have designed, built, developed, and finally operate this accelerator complex, unique in the world.

An excellence of service within an adequate framework

Between 2002 and 2012 (see Fig. 1), the number of users has risen from 5912 to 10823, fellows have increased from 215 to 540 and associates from 293 to 372, while the staff complement has remained essentially stable, going from 2550 to 2512. In particular, over the past six years, the number of users has almost doubled, proof of the huge success and attractiveness of CERN as an international scientific organization. The workload carried by staff members has steadily increased to now reach a critical point; it is more and more difficult for them to:

• provide high-quality support to this ever-increasing number of users (office space, administrative support, communication and computer infrastructure);
• organize, integrate, train and supervise the temporary staff (fellows, students, associates, apprentices);
• ensure the safety and maintenance of CERN’s machines and infrastructure.

Consequently, not only should the continued erosion of staff numbers be stopped and reversed, but, first and foremost, to fulfil its mission, which is to ensure the excellence of service to the community of particle physics, CERN needs an adequate number of stable staff: staff members experienced, efficient, and above all dedicated to the Organization.

Fig. 1: Evolution of the various populations at CERN

LD to IC capture ratio: critical years

Our colleagues holding a limited duration (LD) contract may obtain an indefinite contract (IC) on one of the long-term positions that will be published in August 2013. Figure 2 shows the number of IC contracts awarded during the period 2001−2012. In particular, in 2007 and 2008 the number of IC contracts awarded was approximately 50. On the other hand, in 2009, 2010 and 2011 it was three times higher, a direct  consequence of the insourcing exercise six years earlier in 2003 and 2004. In 2012 this number decreased to 58 (see also Table 1).

Fig. 2: Number of IC contracts awarded

Tab. 1: Recruitments, IC post openings, IC holders who retire

Management’s commitment before CERN Council in June 2012 (see below) to keep constant, for the next years, the number of IC contracts around 1750 (1751 today), has as a result that the number of IC post openings is equivalent to the number of IC holders who leave the Organization, either through retirement or, rarely, by resigning. Indeed, the demographics of staff members between 55 and 65 years of age (Fig. 3) shows that only around 40 people per year will retire in the next five years. If we compare this number of 40 for 2013 with the number of staff members whose LD contract (Fig. 4) ends before the end of 2014 (recruitment in 2009 and 2010), there will be fewer than 30 % of LD who could get an IC.

Fig. 3: Age distribution at the end of career

Fig. 4: Arrivals and departures

For 12 years, we have never witnessed such a low capture ratio, which, except in 2007 and 2008, has always been above 60 % (see Fig. 5). Moreover, in TREF of May 2012, the Management told the Member State delegates that the LD to IC conversion ratio would be about 40 % in the next few years. Even though this ratio of 40 % is still too low for the Staff Association, there remains an inconsistency between the literal interpretation of the two declarations. What can be done?

Fig. 5: LD to IC conversion ratio

More flexibility for recruitment and its unintended consequences

At the meeting of the Finance Committee in March 2011, the Director-General, Professor Heuer, presented the Medium Term Plan (MTP) for the period 2012−2016, with the activities and objectives planned at CERN up to 2016. He stressed that the ceiling of 2250 full time equivalents (FTE) imposed by Council is a constraint detrimental to the optimization of scientific performance and makes an effective response to new demands very problematic. As a result of this request Management was given the flexibility to transfer resources from the materials budget to the personnel budget, and vice versa (P ⇔ M), if need be, during the period covered by the MTP, provided that such transfers concern only projects, i.e., activities of limited duration and do not exceed 5 % of the allocated materials and personnel budgets, respectively.

This P ⇔ M flexibility allowed CERN Management to increase the number of FTEs to prepare the Long Shutdown 1 (LS1). However, at the Finance Committee meeting in June 2012, to address the concerns of some delegations regarding the increase in the personnel budget during the past years, the Management assured that the increase of FTEs was temporary, and corresponded mainly to the need for specialized technicians and engineers for LS1. Thus the number of IC contracts would remain around 1750. Only a decision by the Council at the end of May 2013, justified by the update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics, could change this commitment.

As shown in Table 1 and Fig. 4, during the last three years almost 600 staff members were recruited with an LD contract, including more than 100 thanks to the LS1 flexibility. As LD contracts do not make a distinction between “standard” and “flexibility” posts, all these staff members may apply for an IC. With an LD to IC capture ratio of 40 %, CERN will therefore have to let go almost 400 of these 600 staff members. Is that socially acceptable? Is it reasonable to loose the knowledge and experience gained thanks to a significant training effort by the Organization and its staff for these LD holders? Beside the time and effort lost, will we be ready for LS2 in 2018?

This capture ratio limited to 40 % is a constraint that puts all active players in the Organization in a difficult situation: LD holders concerned, who are submitted to a high level of precariousness and insecurity; supervisors who want more stability in their group and to capitalize on their training efforts; and, finally, IC holders, who see colleagues leave, whom they supervised and who had become an essential part of their team, where the cohesion and complementarity of its members is essential to ensure the quality of service requested by CERN's user community.

An IC is more expensive than an LD: a widespread prejudice hard to die

An argument often used to justify limiting the award of IC contracts is that they would cost significantly more than a succession of LD contracts. Is this reasoning correct? Let us consider the career of a staff member in two different cases.

Case 1: LD contract not converted into an IC contract after 5 years

Notation: s = annual salary of the last of the first 5 years; y = year

• 4.80 s salary for five years
• 0.50 s coaching by a senior (4 months at a higher salary)
• 0.20 s end of contract indemnities
• 0.50 s unemployment benefits paid on average (max. 14 months)
• 5.00 y LD contract period
• 0.40 y initial training period
• 0.10 y time for CCBR preparation
• 0.30 y time to search for a new job

Summary:

• Total cost: 6.00 s (5 years’ salary + 4 months senior’s salary + indemnities + unemployment)
• Effective working time: 4.20 y (5 years – initial training – CCBR – time looking for a new job)
• Actual cost of 1 year of work: 1.43 s

Even without unemployment benefits (total cost 5.5 s) this effective annual cost is 1.30 s.

Case 2: LD contract converted into an IC contract after 5 years (total career 35 years, from age 32 to age 67)

• 4.80 s total salary for the first five years

0.50 s coaching by a senior (4 months at a higher salary)

• 30 years full time work
  • 6.10 s 6 years: advancement almost neutralized by the decrease of the international indemnity (+0.5 %/y)
  • 31.20 s 24 years with advancement (60 % at the end of the period, i.e., 30 % on average)
• 35.0 y duration of LD+IC contracts
• 0.40 y initial training
• 0.10 y CCBR time preparation

Summary:

• Total cost: 42.60 s (5 years LD + 4 months senior’s salary + 30 years IC)
• Effective working time: 34.5 y (35 years – initial training – CCBR)
• Actual cost of 1 year of work: 1.24 s

This simple calculation shows that the effective cost of an IC contract (1.24 s) is considerably less than that of an LD contract (1.43 s). Even taking into account general expenses (e.g., cost of education fees) a more detailed calculation shows that there is no financial advantage to preferring a succession of seven LD contracts to the award of an IC contract. The only argument would be to limit the Organization’s long-term commitments, i.e., an undeclared will to substantially reduce the number of staff, or even close CERN in the medium to long term, an eventuality that we reject categorically.

“Just return to the Member States”: a false problem

CERN is very active in the training of young engineers and technicians (302 students in 2012), and more generally in the continuous training of paid Associates (372 in 2012). Not to forget the fellows, more than 500 these days. They all guarantee a transfer of technical and scientific knowledge and experience from CERN to the Member States. However, it is CERN’s staff complement of 2352 FTEs which actively participates in the training of these over one thousand temporary staff, and this requires a stable and experienced staff.

According to some Member State delegates the IC ratio (Fig. 6) should remain below a certain threshold (70 %?) to ensure a return on investment to the Member States (staff members who return to their home country at the end of their LD contract at CERN). For this argument to be relevant, the calculation of the IC ratio should then in its LD component not only take into account staff members, but also, at least in part, the number of the above-mentioned temporary people whom CERN manages and trains.

Fig. 6: Ratio (IC contracts) / (all staff)

A genuine contract policy

The entire world recognizes and appreciates the huge success and attractiveness of CERN as an international scientific Organization. This recognition is the result of the work and dedication of stable and experienced staff that allowed CERN to guarantee, in optimal conditions and in the long term, a high level of service to the High-Energy Physics community. However, today the workload of staff members has reached a critical point and with the allocated staff resources it becomes increasingly difficult to guarantee quality support to the constantly growing number of users, to organize the management and supervision of the work of temporary staff to take advantage of their integration in the CERN teams, and to ensure the safe running of the accelerators, computing facilities and their associated infrastructure.

Relying in the long term on the effectiveness and experience acquired by the IC staff member during the five years of their LD contract should be an essential element in the Organization’s contract policy. The Staff Association strongly dislikes self-imposed numerical constraints (no more than x % of IC contracts, y % capture ratio, a staff complement limited to z FTEs, etc.).

Let us give to CERN the means to achieve its ambitions: be a laboratory at the forefront of fundamental physics thanks to a staff policy based on social excellence. Let us therefore put into place an innovative and ambitious contract policy that maximizes the return on investment of the billions of Swiss francs or euros that the Member States have invested in CERN and will enable the Organization to meet the future challenges of the European Strategy for Particle Physics defined in the special meeting of CERN Council in Brussels on 30 May.

by Staff Association