Job Postings and Nominations: More Opacity, But It’s for Your Own Good!

AFP’s management issued a statement on September 7 confirming its intention to end the publication of candidate lists for HQ journalist positions, lists currently published on Inside after the application deadline. The stated reasons: to protect the personal data of employee applicants and to put an end to the feeling of "humiliation" experienced by some who are rejected. But what is presented as a measure to comply with data protection rules is in reality an infringement on our collective and individual interests.

Today it’s the job postings, tomorrow what?

In a system of imposed mobility, transparency is not a luxury: it is the very condition of its legitimacy. When journalists are forced to regularly apply for new positions, they must be able to see that the rules are clear and applied equally to everyone. The publication of the lists does not only serve the collective interest. It also addresses the individual interests of each candidate: knowing who the other applicants are, preparing for their interview accordingly, and ensuring that no applications are added after the posting period closes.

The September 7th statement conveniently omitted to mention another major change to our practices at AFP. Management also intends to eliminate the guarantee that all internal candidates will be interviewed. This essential step in the appointment process gives those who don’t have the ideal profile or who are not well-known to management the opportunity to present their case. It acts as a safeguard against favoritism and unequal treatment.

Abandoning this guarantee, with shortlists limiting interviews to only "pre-selected" candidates, even when there are a large number of applications, will therefore undermine the legitimacy of the system. How can we have confidence in the process if we no longer know who has applied and if some candidates can be eliminated before even an interview? The current system is already generating distrust. These changes will only exacerbate it.

Management’s argument that the numerous interviews exhaust managers and HR staff is untenable. It was the current management that decided to implement this system after the reorganization of the editorial HR system in 2022, and it was they who consistently praised this new process, claiming it was the fairest. They must therefore bear the consequences.

Guarantees Disappearing One by One

After the brutal reform of expatriation policies, which drastically reduced mobility opportunities for HQ-status employees, management is now attacking long-standing practices that many thought to be secure. This is further proof that the 2017 workplace agreement, which SUD did not sign, does not offer staff sufficiently robust guarantees on many workplace practices. Management has too much leeway to change essential practices without or with only a minimum of consultation.

Often wrongly accused of rejecting any reform, SUD nevertheless tried to improve the company agreement to address some of its shortcomings. In 2024, we called for a revision of the agreement, and some of our demands specifically aimed to strengthen employee guarantees within the job posting and appointment process. Unsurprisingly, management rejected most of our proposals to maintain its free hand.

Turning a threat into an opportunity

The current situation should serve as a lesson. By attempting to change the job posting and selection procedure today through a simple statement, management itself demonstrates why essential safeguards need to be fixed in the workplace agreement.

The unions, as well as employees, must work together to maintain a sufficiently transparent appointment process. It is not impossible to find compromises between individual and collective interests. However, this requires management to refrain from acting unilaterally.

AFP’s atypical system of forced mobility offers significant advantages for both the Agency and its journalists, but these advantages come at a cost for both. Management’s obsession with these costs, whether related to respecting privacy or the resources necessary for the system’s operation, risks ultimately destroying the benefits it claims to be preserving and, ultimately, the legitimacy of the mobility system itself.

While we share the anger of other unions regarding management’s actions, we considered their decision to boycott the extraordinary Works Council meeting on artificial intelligence, scheduled for September 18th and which management has now decided to cancel, to be counterproductive. The introduction of AI carries numerous risks for all employees and for our mission. We believe it is dangerous to allow management to act without informing or consulting us.

If you share our commitment to informing employees, defending their collective and individual interests, and strengthening their rights, vote SUD in the upcoming professional elections.

Paris, September 13, 2026

SUD-AFP (Solidarity-Unity-Democracy)