FICSA Update No. 05 2001

31 January 2001

ICSC Conducts Sham Poll on Pay and Benefits

  1. In its report to the United Nations General Assembly for 1999, the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) proudly announced that it would review the pay and benefits system and deliver its product in 2000. Of course, it did not deliver.

  2. Last year, at its 52nd session (in July/August 2000), it decided to examine alternatives to the existing pay and benefits system on the basis of an "integrated, holistic approach, underpinned by the Noblemaire and other relevant principles set out in the Framework for Human Resources Management". It identified four aims for an improved pay system - thus suggesting that the present one does not meet them and admitting its own failure in servicing the United Nations common system:

  3. With equal pride and self-complacency, it subsequently reported to the General Assembly that it had set up three "focus groups" to examine: the nature of work (in Vienna); rewarding contribution (in Geneva); and management capacity (in New York). Of course, the first thing the secretariat did by way of implementation of the decision was to ignore the timetable set at the 52nd session; but that caused no problem with regard to the United Nations General Assembly: the Commission had been cautious enough to report to the General Assembly that "focus groups start meeting, insofar as possible, in October/November 2000".

  4. The first focus group met from 4 to 8 December 2000; FICSA and CCISUA were not represented, having decided that they would not participate in the exercise for the reasons given in FICSA Update No. 42/2000. No official report has been issued so far, but we understand that the meeting was conducted in a loose manner, without any background papers. In short, the focus group was unfocussed.

  5. The second focus group is meeting from 29 January to 1 February, and the third will meet from 5 to 9 February. FICSA has not received any invitation. Although we had announced earlier on that we would not participate, proper procedure would have required that we receive an invitation; but realism may well have commanded that we should not be lured into the meetings and be witness to the disaster.

  6. The disaster of the first focus group, without preparatory documents, led the ICSC secretariat to launch a poll among staff in the Professional and higher categories, through the personnel departments of the various organizations, to provide food for thought to the second and third groups.

  7. But the questionnaires were sent very late, so that staff had little time to reply. The time constraints were acknowledged by the ICSC secretariat. In the covering note to the 'attitude questionnaire' it thus wrote:
    "I know that this is a short deadline but the questions are designed to be relatively easy to answer. I promise this is the last questionnaire"!
  8. Well, the first - "relatively easy to answer" - proposition is: "We see performance planning, measurement and management as a top priority." Who is "we"? Has the respondent to give his/her own opinion on the substance or his/her opinion on what might be the general opinion in his Agency?

  9. The ICSC secretariat also wrote in the covering note to the 'management capacities questionnaire' that Email was the preferred form of communication of the reply... and stated that "you need not identify yourself or your Agency if you wish to maintain confidentiality"! Indeed, you need not: the Email does it for you!10. Well, the first question is: "My agency does not set aside adequate resources for management development" (our emphasis).

  10. The time frame is also tight for the collection and analysis of the data by the ICSC secretariat. But there is no need to worry. For one, the work will be done by a consultant; for another, there will not be an avalanche of replies.

  11. One proposition to be ranked in the 'attitude questionnaire' on performance management and pay-for-performance is "Each Agency needs to do a better job of performance planning and goal setting". Clearly, the ICSC secretariat needs to do a better job. Its poor performance with respect to the focus groups in general and the questionnaires in particular illustrates the reasons why the ICSC Chairman is so adamantly opposed to the review of the mandate, composition and functioning of ICSC.