29 June 2001
FICSA Update No. 31 2001
ICSC Expresses Caution on Review of Pay and Benefits System
The International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) devoted considerable time to the consideration of a ‘report’ on the review of the pay end benefits system (ICSC/53/R.4).
It will be recalled that three ‘focus groups’ met in December 2000 and January/February 2001 to consider "the nature of work", "rewarding contribution" and "management". Neither FICSA nor CCISUA participated in these meetings, their demands for better planning, execution and follow-up not having been met. (See FICSA Update No. 42/2000 of 23 November 2000.)
The ‘report’ of the ICSC Steering Committee leaned heavily towards fundamental changes. It invited the Commission to "identify those proposals related to a new remuneration structure, i.e. broadbanding*, performance-related pay, the establishment of a senior executive service, to be pursued" and to "suggest to organizations that they might wish to pilot certain options presently under consideration".
The driving force behind this was no doubt the Administrative Committee on Co-ordination (ACC), or at least some members of the Human Resources Network (the former Consultative Committee on Administrative Questions - CCAQ). Here are some statements made on behalf of ACC:
- "Piecemeal approaches are no longer valid."
- "It is now time for us to update the concepts and structures that underpin our system in an integrated, holistic way. The status quo is not an option. Now that we have this window of opportunity, we should not let ourselves fall into the trap of ‘tinkering’ with the current system. The current system is almost bankrupt since it does not enable us to keep up with our HR reforms despite our best efforts. We must be realistically radical. We must not employ the excuse that some systems such as performance appraisal are not yet fully developed. They may never be fully developed as these are on-going processes. Their development will only be slowed down or halted if we fail to modernize other vital parts of the HR framework."
- "We should move away from such terms as ‘linked grades’ and ‘broadbanding’ which have become somewhat emotive and focus instead on what we wish to achieve."
The FICSA delegation was pleased to hear the Chairman of the Commission say that the ‘report’ did not reflect all views presented in the ‘focus groups’, and thus confirm FICSA’s opinion that this was a foregone conclusion. FICSA stressed that it had nothing against further studies. It was indeed good to periodically assess the situation, even if only to conclude that the system put in place by our predecessors is adequate and does not require fundamental changes; and it is even better to make improvements.
Regarding the objectives of the further studies, FICSA believes in the fundamental values which presided over the creation of the organizations of the United Nations system; it is well aware of the objectives of the organizations and the constraints they have to face. In short, we are "dot.org", not "dot.com". Our benchmarks, therefore, are the entities comparable to the organizations, in particular, the national civil services and, first and foremost, the foreign services. They are not to be sought from HRM pundits, and certainly not from those whose ambition or profession is to sell "revolutionary" solutions.
After an initial presentation on Wednesday, 13 June 2001, and the opening statements, the Commission transformed itself into an open-ended working group on Thursday. Theoretically, this formula allows for a more open debate and also has the advantage that there is no record of the discussions. Most Commissioners had been very critical of the ‘report’ and, in fact, supportive of the FICSA position. Several of them, for instance, criticized the ‘report’ for its bold, unsubstantiated statements such as "a younger more mobile workforce with different career expectations"; it was also noted that the common system is already broadbanded and that a Senior Executive Service, that would come and go with the executive head, was not a valid goal.
The FICSA delegation received support for its contention that organizations needed to be good employers providing a good working environment, good work/family arrangements, good benefits and also security of employment; that there was a need to examine what is left to be desired in the current system and how to correct its deficiencies; and that only thereafter should the question be examined of whether more fundamental changes would still be required.
Discussions were soon directed to tinkering with document R.4 in an attempt to make it into the interim report that is to be presented to the United Nations General Assembly at its next session. This met with quite some resistance. The entire Friday was then devoted to presentations on reform in IAEA, WHO and the United Nations, and a presentation of the research undertaken by Commissioner Ku Tashiro (Japan). A number of participants felt that this was a diversion.
Discussions continued on Monday and Tuesday morning, with more and more participants suffering from fatigue. Towards the end, the debate turned to the question of whether the report to the General Assembly should simply describe the approaches that could be studied further (the word "options" had been dropped earlier) or whether the pros and cons of each approach should be listed! This was cut short, and the Secretariat of the Commission was entrusted with the preparation of that report. However, several Commissioners requested - and the Chairman had to concede - that a record of the working group’s discussions be drawn up.
The representative of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF) expressed unequivocal support for a system that would provide social security protection to all staff, and strong reservations about the suggestions made in document R.4 with regard to the pension system. To cite but one example, the authors of the document had ventured special, more favorable provisions for "managers brought on board for a limited period of time"!