In his remarks to the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC), which held its 25th anniversary session (the 52nd) at the UN Headquarters in New York, from 17 July to 4 August 2000, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that the "quiet revolution" he had launched three years ago to make the United Nations a leaner and more effective organization was bearing fruit. But the UN chief warned that restoring competitiveness in conditions of service at the UN must be viewed as an integral part of any reform process.
Annan said that "yet, in an era when corporations conduct global searches for talented professionals, and international and regional organizations compete with the UN for qualified staff, we cannot afford to be complacent."
The Secretary-General noted that since the reform process had been launched in 1997, the UN had streamlined management procedures, shifted resources from administration to development work, introduced cabinet-style management and greatly improved coordination among all members of the UN family.
At the same time, Annan stressed that the ability to provide appropriate remuneration packages for all staff was critical for the UN efforts to restore competitiveness in conditions of service. He also expressed the hope that ICSC would provide recommendations for human resources policy that was flexible and innovative enough to turn the various UN organizations and specialized agencies into "competitive employers and allow them to attract and retain the most capable personnel."
FICSA welcomes the statements of the Secretary-General, while noting that ICSC - and the Member States - first acknowledged in 1989 that conditions of service in the UN system had lost their competitive edge. FICSA published "The UN, an Uncompetitive Employer" in 1992. Unfortunately, the Commission took no action over the ensuing 11 years to restore competitivity. Nor has ICSC recommended a real salary increase this year!
The Commission itself has escaped reform. In fact, it is one of the only bodies that has not been reviewed during the overall process of UN reform.
The UN General Assembly asked ICSC to review the pay and benefits system with a view to reforming the current salary system.
A revised salary system should enable organizations to attract and retain high-quality staff, including senior management staff and particular categories of professional/technical staff in short supply. It should also be able to provide high-performing staff with well-defined career growth opportunities and reward high performance and managerial excellence. Other objectives of pay system reform are encouraging staff mobility, strengthening the international civil service, and achieving greater flexibility in the composition and application of the overall rewards package.
In discussions on these issues at the Commission's 52nd session, ICSC observed that a competitive system of remuneration, able to reflect changes in the missions and mandates of the organizations and new requirements in terms of skills and competencies was of crucial importance to ensuring the competitiveness of international organizations in today's fast-changing world.
The Commission recalled that concerns with the current pay and benefits system were first expressed well over a decade ago in the context of recruitment and retention difficulties faced by the organizations. It noted that those concerns remained, centering today on the system's rigidity and its inability to reflect and address the fast-changing nature of work in the UN system, including the evolution in organizations' mandates and missions, and to take into account external labour market forces. No less important was the lack of any strong link between pay and performance.
Why has nothing been done over the past ten years to improve the pay and benefits system?
The urgent calls by both management and staff for pay increases were consistently unheeded. Had action been taken in 1989, when Member States in the General Assembly finally acknowledged that salaries were no longer competitive, the UN system would most likely not be in the present state of being unable to recruit and retain the best people. And in the interim, how many very good staff members have left the organizations for better paying - and more motivating - workplaces that provide more opportunities for career growth and satisfaction? The Commission's lack of responsiveness to the system's needs, as identified most appropriately by the administrations and the staff, has itself created today's rigidity and lack of competitiveness. It is therefore ironic that the General Assembly has asked that very same body to address the negative impact of its past political decisions.
How does ICSC plan to proceed?
The Commission decided that the examination of alternatives to the existing pay and benefits system would be based on an "integrated, holistic approach, underpinned by the Noblemaire and other relevant principles set out in the Framework for Human Resources Management".
Four aims of an improved pay system were identified:
| To FICSA, this effectively eliminates any likelihood of a real salary increase for at
least the next three or four years, with the result that FOURTEEN OR FIFTEEN
YEARS will have elapsed since the time Member States acknowledged that salaries
were no longer competitive! This, of course, presupposes that ICSC will be able to
complete its work by 2002, which is based on an "integrated, holistic approach".
It is high time for action - at the very least an interim increase would be highly welcome. |
The work will be carried out over the next two years. Three open-ended focus groups will be established in Vienna, Geneva and New York, respectively, to analyse: the nature of work; rewarding contribution; and management capacity. They will be composed (we must say: in principle) of Commission members, a convenor for each group, representatives of organizations - including programme managers and a representative cross-section of staff from the organizations-, staff representatives and members of the ICSC and CCAQ secretariats. They will report to a Steering Committee chaired by the ICSC Chairman and comprised of the Vice-Chairman and the Executive Secretary of ICSC, and the Chairman and Secretary of CCAQ. The Steering Committee will make recommendations to ICSC. The whole process is thus tightly controlled by the ICSC (and CCAQ) leadership.
Work was planned to commence in October or November 2000. The process has already been delayed by some two months, perhaps a sign that it is not taken seriously.
Bernard P. Grandjean,
FICSA President
Graffiti have a subliminal effect. Years ago, one of them, probably scribbled by a student suffering the anguish of exams, had a deep and lasting impact on me. It read: "Doubt devours you."
The word "devour" immediately brings to mind the Ogre. The Ogre devours. The Ogre is a powerful giant. His big ears hear all. His teeth are as big as his appetite.
But "doubt" is not as strident. It is insidious. It burrows stealthily into a troubled mind and then begins its dangerous and systematic sabotage.
That's really how I see it: doubt eats you up. Like flesh-eating bacteria, doubt slinks into a body and attacks its voraciously like a thousand piranhas. But, before being able to determine how the invader might be repelled, a diagnosis is needed.
The analytic process is a methodical one: first, recognize the presence of a pathological condition, second, identify the causes and finally, find a cure.
These three steps are extremely arduous. I would even say that the difficulties increase from the first step to the last. The challenge posed by the first step is particularly agonizing when a person is called on to recognize his own condition. Indulgence often prevails in such cases.
Well, enough beating around the bush. Back to basics. Things are not going well. That's not really a scoop. But it's a symptom. When everyone complains, there must be a problem. However, with all the complaining, it's too easy to lose one's way. On to the specifics.
Exactly what are we complaining about? For example, when labour rights are trampled by our employers; or when they impose standards of conduct worthy of an earlier age. What is our reaction once our irreverent language is exhausted? The words used most often are: frustration, impotence, animosity. I have my own small theory about this: such reactions are necessary because they avert distraction. I will start from the most fundamental or, shall I say, the most scandalous: a lack of respect for others. I have already written on this subject so I won't go into it again. We will try to go beyond that, beyond the usual whining.
More concretely, this lack of respect is obvious in our conditions of work. I won't go into the most tragic cases, such as the protection of staff in the field or the palliative care that should be given to our colleagues suffering from HIV/AIDS. I cannot discuss these situations in a cool and detached fashion. Instead, let's talk about something down to earth which touches all of us: our wallets. I think it's safe to say that the fattest are often the most sensitive. This is a useful thing, as they are also the most visible and the most influential. Those which are well cared for.
And sure enough, either they succeed in making themselves heard, or the limits had been reached, even for those whose bad faith has made them callous, ICSC has decided to respond to their plea and to undertake the reform, or rather the review of the pay system (still failing to see any need to reform itself).
As I've already said, recognizing the existence of a disease is not easy. It has taken a lot of time for decision-makers at various levels to recognize, as staff representatives have already done, that there is a problem with the salary system. I would add that in this case "to recognize" means more than "to note". It also implies the will to act.
However, the motives for action need to be explored. This brings us to the search for causes in an indirect way, but also permits a more in-depth analysis of the problem that goes beyond its symptoms. In effect, the motives for a reform of the current pay system vary depending on one's point of view. To each his own: some believe the Flemming and Noblemaire principles have been trampled under foot; others see that some categories of staff suffer more than other staff from an unfair situation; still others simply want to gain latitude (increase their margin).
In seeking causes, it becomes clear that various stakeholders have different motivations. We have deluded ourselves by thinking that there is a Common System, with its own priorities, a system that should be preserved above and beyond more individual interests. And as for those individual interests, you will never find them clearly expressed altogether in the same document. As a result, each becomes suspicious of the true motivations of the other. The often-heard comment "they have a hidden agenda" is a good indication of this climate of suspicion. People are basically concerned about their own situation and not too much about the legitimate interests of others.
That, I believe, is the major cause of the current impasse. And the stopgap measures being proposed are meaningless placebos. This reminds me of the story of the three blind men who were asked to describe an elephant. The first felt the trunk and declared that it was a big snake of some kind. The second that it resembled a curved wall as he had been lead to the side of the animal, and so on... You see what I mean?
In our story, the elephant is the pay system. Our first blind man comes forward and declares: "No problem. I'll fix this in no time." Which means that three so-called "focus" groups are to be instituted in quick time. The groups are intended to address: the nature of work, rewarding contribution and management capacity. Participants will include ICSC members, ICSC secretariat staff, Administration representatives, staff of the Organizations, and representatives from the Federations.
Putting aside this obvious attempt at further dividing staff by not recognizing the Federation as the official voice of the staff unions and associations of the various organizations, the project seems commendable. Until you take a look at how things are to be done: pure madness. Between now and December, each group is to meet (this while the UN General Assembly is also sitting) in Vienna, Geneva and New York respectively ("Discover the world and be wiser."). Each group is to prepare a report for submission to a Steering Group. A Restricted Steering Group of course; the staff representatives are not included. It is to make a ruling full of wisdom, report to the ICSC in the summer, and the Commission shall then dictate the follow-up.
It's a far cry from the make-believe world of collegiality from which we started. However, there is nothing new in terms of procedure; it was put to the test when we met in the working group on the revision of the standards of conduct. After considerable effort from the Administrations and the staff to improve the basic text in good faith, the Commission swept aside the draft developed by the working group and concocted its very own iniquitous little draft. And you saw what happened: the Administrations (with ILO in the lead) blocked the whole thing. The text must be revised. "If at once you don't succeed, try, try again." Some members of the Commission would have loved to impose their decision and submit this iniquitous draft to the United Nations General Assembly despite the objections of the Administrations.
I would however point out that these goings-on have a cost. If one adds the useless travel, the unsuccessful efforts and other wasteful expenses to the thirteen million dollars or so that Administrations spend each year on the madcap adventures of the ICSC, the question must be asked: what is holding up the urgent reform of an entity that has lost all sense of direction? Member States, so interested in rationalizing and streamlining, should finally take a look into this classic case of muddle-headedness.
The problem with all this rigmarole is that no serious work can be done. Of course, it's always possible to delude ourselves into believing that broadbanding will open new professional horizons for everyone. For many, the first priority is to try and introduce a "Senior Executive Service" to better meet the aspirations of the Happy Few. You should see how vigorously, in the heat of discussion, such pretty and woolly panaceas are justified.
Even if there were real solutions to be found in all of this, the process will have an impact on the results. When the staff are excluded from major decisions on working conditions, you can be certain that you will soon have to review those so-called reforms. It's a proven technique to ensure that one is eternally essential. But in the end, even the most gullible will see through this trickery.
I must be getting older: I am getting tired of this atmosphere of suspicion and Machiavellianism worthy of carpet traders. I would really like to contribute to lifting this atmosphere of doubt which enshrouds and condemns every initiative, and restore the confidence and mutual respect which is now so sorrowfully needed. It's true that some external factors make it difficult to achieve any progress. For the members of FICSA, this would mean essentially allaying their fears and making a leap of faith. But before this can be done, the Commission and our Administrations will have to show that they are acting in good faith and good will.