Heritage Foundation: U.S. Should Hold the Line on U.N. Salaries

Click here to read this in full at Heritage.org: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/united-nations-us-should-hold-the-line-on-un-salaries

By Brett D. Schaefer

Personnel costs, including salaries, comprise nearly three-quarters of the U.N. regular budget, and increases in U.N. salaries have significant budgetary implications for the member states. Over the past few years, the U.N.’s International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) has recommended salary increases despite the fact that some member states, including the U.S., have been forced to freeze their government salaries in response to significant fiscal crises. As a result, U.N. compensation—already more generous than that paid by the member states to their own civil servants—has grown even more lavish.

Surprisingly, the ICSC recommended a temporary freeze in U.N. salaries in July. However, unless the General Assembly (GA) decides otherwise, a salary increase will go into effect in January 2013 and will apply retroactively to August 2012. The U.S. should oppose the proposed increase in U.N. salaries and urge the GA to update its 1985 instructions to the ICSC and demand a salary freeze until U.N. net remuneration falls to match that of the U.S. federal civil service.
 
Lavish Salaries and Benefits
In order to attract and retain qualified staff, the U.N. has long operated under the Noblemaire principle, which states that professional staff salaries should be determined by comparison to those of the civil service of the member state with the highest civil service pay levels. Ever since the U.N. was founded, this has been the U.S.
U.N. professional categories, however, do not line up neatly with U.S. civil service grades. To address this, the ICSC calculates equivalencies between the two as a basis for determining compensation. According to the ICSC, U.N. compensation significantly exceeds that of the U.S. equivalent.[1] Specifically:

• The seven U.N. professional or higher categories in New York receive net remuneration between 26.6 percent and 44.2 percent higher than the net remuneration of U.S. federal employees based in Washington, D.C.
• On average, weighting for the number of U.N. employees in each category, U.N. net remuneration is 31.3 percent higher than that of their U.S. equivalents in Washington, which is up from 29.5 percent in 2011.[2]
• Even after applying its own cost-of-living adjustment for New York, which is significantly higher than that used by the U.S. government, the ICSC reports that the average net remuneration of U.N. employees was 17.7 percent higher than the U.S. equivalent.
• Based on the 2012 ICSC report, the most numerous U.N. professional grade (P-4) earned an average net remuneration in 2012 of $136,351, versus $104,704 for the U.S. equivalent.

In addition to these lavish salaries, U.N. employees enjoy generous benefits and allowances, including a rental subsidy of up to 80 percent above a specified threshold; education grants for staff serving outside their home country amounting to 75 percent of tuition (up to $32,255 per annum), payable through the fourth year of college up to the age of 25; and annual vacation of 30 days, 10 official holidays, 16 weeks of paid maternity leave, and four to eight weeks of paid paternity leave.[3]
 
Time for Revision and Restraint
The ICSC operates under an instruction from resolution 40/244 adopted by the GA in 1985 to maintain U.N. net remuneration between 110 percent and 120 percent higher than the U.S. equivalent. The ICSC asserts that the pay discrepancy is “necessary to compensate for specific elements relating to expatriate service.”[4] Considering that many of the U.N.’s generous benefits are specifically intended to address these challenges, the salary premium above U.S. civil service salaries—the highest of any member state—is not justified.
Moreover, the U.S. instituted a pay freeze for federal workers in 2011 and 2012, but the GA approved a salary increase of nearly 3 percent in 2011. Ambassador Joseph Torsella, U.S. Representative to the United Nations on Management and Reform, sharply criticized the 2011 decision, announcing that the U.S. “calls for a freeze on pay for United Nations staff while the comparator salaries, those of the United States federal civil service, are frozen. We also repeat our call for repealing the nearly 3 percent raise given to New York based employees through the cost of living adjustment in August, and we urge the General Assembly to act on this matter.”[5]
The GA did not rescind the pay increase, but it did instruct the ICSC in resolution 66/235 to “explore the feasibility and suitability” of reflecting the pay freeze for the U.S. civil service in U.N. salaries, to determine whether the ICSC has the authority to implement such measures, and to “exercise such authority, as appropriate.”
In its July report to the GA, the ICSC determined that various factors should lead the GA to approve an average cost-of-living post adjustment increase of over 2.2 percent for U.N. professional and higher categories in New York. The ICSC decided to temporarily “defer” implementation of the adjustment “in view of the financial situation of the United Nations as described by the Secretary-General.” Unless the GA acts otherwise, however, the salary increase will “be promulgated on 1 January 2013 with a retroactive effect as of 1 August 2012.”[6]
 
The Need to Rein in U.N. Compensation
As stated by Torsella, the U.S. should urge the GA to prevent this retroactive salary increase:
The ICSC’s recognition of the need to control staffing costs in a time of global financial crisis is a first step in the right direction. And it is hardly a radical step, especially compared with the actual job losses and salary cuts—not just freezes, but cuts—borne by the citizens and civil servants of many member states. It is now up to all of us to rise to the occasion, to match the ICSC in responsible governance, and to adopt this sensible—and modest—recommendation.[7]
But additional steps are necessary to bring U.N. salaries into line with U.S. civil servants. The U.S. should urge the GA to:

• Reject the salary increase proposed by the ICSC in its post adjustment for 2012 and maintain salaries at the 2011 level;
• Rescind the instruction to the ICSC in resolution 40/244 to target U.N. net remuneration at 110 percent to 120 percent of the U.S. equivalent and replace it with an instruction that U.N. net remuneration should match that of the U.S. civil service;
• Instruct the ICSC to use the U.S. Office of Personnel Management locality pay adjustment for New York rather than its own cost-of-living calculations, which are significantly higher; and
• Instruct the ICSC to freeze salaries and the post adjustment until U.N. net remuneration falls to match that of the U.S. civil service.

Hold the Line on U.N. Budgetary Constraint
Governments around the world have to implement austerity measures to meet budgetary necessity, including salary freezes. As a composite of the world’s nations, the U.N. should not be insulated from this reality.
—Brett D. Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation and editor of ConUNdrum: The Limits of the United Nations and the Search for Alternatives (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009).

Click here to read this in full at Heritage.org: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/united-nations-us-should-hold-the-line-on-un-salaries

U.S. Should Rein in Lavish U.N. Salaries

Click here to read this on Heritage.org 

By Brett Schaefer

The International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) is currently meeting to recommend changes to the salaries and benefits for more than 80,000 United Nations employees and 14 other organizations participating in the United Nations common system.[1] The ICSC calculates that U.N. employees in the professional and higher grades in New York earn a net remuneration (take-home salary) that averages 29.5 percent higher than that of equivalent U.S. civil servant grades in Washington, D.C. Moreover, U.N. employees enjoy benefits that in many cases exceed those of U.S. civil servants.

The financial implications of these lavish salaries and benefits are significant for the member states that pay for the budgets of these organizations, since the large majority of these budgets are dedicated to salaries and benefits. As the largest contributor to the U.N. system, the U.S. should work with the other member states to immediately freeze U.N. salaries until they are equivalent to that of the U.S. civil service.

U.N. Compensation


The U.N. is comprised of 193 member states and is specifically charged by the U.N. charter to give “paramount consideration” in hiring staff to “the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity” while giving due regard to “the importance of recruiting the staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible.” This presented a challenge to the U.N. when it was founded, because compensation varies greatly between member states.

When the U.N.’s predecessor, the League of Nations, grappled with the issue, it established the Noblemaire Committee,[2] named after its chair, which recommended the adoption of a compensation system equal to that of the British Empire—the highest paid civil service in the world at the time—because “if lower salaries had been offered, it would be impossible to obtain the services of Britishers of the required standing.… On the other hand, it would be difficult…to pay lower salaries for the same work to members of other nationalities.”[3]

This practice, known as the Noblemaire principle, was inherited by the U.N. and requires professional staff salaries to be determined by comparison to those of the civil service of the member state with the highest civil service pay levels. Since the U.N. was founded, this has been the U.S.

Complicating matters is that U.N. professional categories do not line up with U.S. civil service grades. The ICSC calculates equivalencies between the two as a basis for determining compensation—a process that inevitably involves subjective judgment. The ICSC itself reports that U.N. compensation significantly exceeds that of the U.S. equivalent. Specifically, the seven U.N. professional categories in New York receive net remuneration[4] between 27.7 percent and 40.4 percent higher than the net remuneration of U.S. federal employees based in Washington, D.C.[5]

On average, weighting for the number of U.N. employees in each category, U.N. net remuneration is 29.5 percent higher than that of their U.S. equivalent. The most numerous U.N. professional grade (called “P-4”) earned an average take-home salary in 2011 of $133,225, versus $104,353 for the U.S. equivalent.[6]
The ICSC calculates the cost-of-living differential between Washington and New York to be 12.7 percent. After applying this adjustment and weighting for the number of U.N. employees in each category, the ICSC calculates that U.N. net remuneration is 14.9 percent higher than the U.S.
equivalent. However, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management calculates the locality pay differential in New York as only 3.6 percent. Using this 3.6 percent differential reveals that net remuneration for U.N. staff in New York is actually 25 percent higher than the U.S. equivalent even after adjusting for location.

Additionally, the U.N. applies the Noblemaire principle selectively to benefit U.N. staff. While the U.S. instituted a pay freeze for federal workers in 2011 and 2012, the U.N. approved a salary increase of nearly 3 percent last year.[7]

U.N. Benefits


The U.N. asserts that the pay discrepancy is necessary in order to compensate for “specific elements relating to expatriate service.”[8] But it is unclear why a premium above U.S. civil service salaries, the highest of any member state, is required. Indeed, U.N. net remuneration does not include the additional, incredibly generous benefits and allowances enjoyed by U.N. staff—many of which are specifically targeted to alleviate the challenges of expatriate service including:[9]

• A rental subsidy of up to 80 percent of rent above a specified threshold.
• Higher salaries and allowances for U.N. employees with dependents.
• A dependant child allowance (under 18 or under 21 if attending school full-time) of $2,929, a secondary dependant allowance (sibling or parent) of $1,025, and enhanced allowances for disabled dependants.
• Education grants for staff serving outside their home country amounting to 75 percent of tuition, up to $32,255 per annum, payable through the fourth year of college up to the age of 25, and up to 100 percent reimbursement for boarding school for primary and secondary students.
• Travel expenses relating to the initial appointment, change of duty stations, family visitation separation of service, and home leave travel. Staff posted outside their home country are provided with paid travel to their home countries for themselves and their families biennially.
• A daily subsistence allowance during business travel and a half-rate daily subsistence allowance for traveling family members.
• Hardship and danger allowances for duty stations with difficult living conditions that can reach thousands of dollars each month.
• A mobility allowance when moved between duty stations, and paid expenses for shipping household goods and, in some cases, partial payment for shipping automobiles.
• Annual vacation of 30 days, 10 official holidays, 16 weeks of paid maternity leave, and four to eight weeks of paid paternity leave.

Many of these benefits exceed those provided by the U.S. federal government—in some cases, significantly. The extent of U.N. compensation is further illustrated by studies indicating that U.S. federal employees on average earn significantly more in salary and benefits than equivalently skilled U.S. private-sector workers.[10]

The Need to Rein in U.N. Compensation


Under the Noblemaire principle, the U.N. is supposed to base its compensation on that of the U.S. civil service. In reality, the U.N. provides more lavish salaries and benefits than those of equivalent American civil servants. This discrepancy poses significant, unjustified costs on member states, especially the U.S., which is the largest contributor to the U.N. system, providing $7.7 billion in FY 2010.[11] Personnel costs comprise 74 percent of the U.N. regular budget according to the U.S. Mission[12] and the budgets of most other U.N. organizations are similarly structured. To address this critical budgetary issue, the U.S. should:

• Demand an immediate pay freeze until U.N. net remuneration matches that of the U.S. civil service;
• Urge the General Assembly to instruct the ICSC to use the U.S. Office of Personnel Management locality pay adjustment for New York rather than its own cost-of-living calculations; and
• Have the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the Congressional Budget Office, or the Government Accountability Office periodically conduct its own comparative analysis of U.N. compensation versus that for U.S. federal workers, including establishing its own equivalencies and comparing total compensation combining salaries and benefits, as independent verification of the ICSC calculations.

Austerity at the U.N.


Fiscal prudence is always sound policy, but it is especially urgent in this era of tight budgets and financial crisis. Governments around the world have to implement austerity measures to meet budgetary necessity. As a composite of the world’s nations, the U.N. should not be insulated from this reality.

Brett D. Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. 


Click here to read this on Heritage.org 

The Rosett Report: If You Think Federal Employees in Washington Are Overpaid…

Bio

By Claudia Rosett @ PajamasMedia.com

… Check out salaries at the United Nations. According to the U.S. envoy for UN Management and Reform, Joseph Torsella, UN salaries average out to $119,000 per year, and at UN headquarters in New York they are on average30% higher than U.S. federal salaries in Washington.

The UN hasn’t figured much in the Republican debates, but surely those are numbers that would resonate with average American voters — who pay the biggest share of the bill for these average UN salaries.

New York Salary for Assistant Secretary General level at UNDP

WALL STREET CAN SUCK UNDP's .......!

Grade: ASG

Step: 1

Marital Status: Married (most are married)

Dependent: Yes

Duty Station: New York

Medical Insurance: Blue Cross (you can opt for Aetna or HIP)

Post adjustment: 65.5%

Classification: H (Hardship)

---

Salary and Allowances at dependent rate

---

Net Base Salary: $133,950.00

Post adjustment: $ 87,737.25 (@ 65.5% of month net)

Dependency Allownc: $ 5,858.00

Hardship Allowance: $ 3,150.00

Total Earnings: $230,695.25

---

United Nations Social Security deductions

---

Pension fund: $ 21,593.23

Group Life Ins: $ 936.00

Medical Insurance: $ 14,147.62

Dental Insurance: $ 1,612.53

Total Deductions: $ 38,289.38

---

Annual salary after deductions: $192,405.87

Monthly salary after deductions: $ 16,033.82

THAT'S ONLY SALARY

IT DOES NOT INCLUDE:

1. Million air miles accumulated on official trips flying exclusively Business or First Class (all miles are for personal usage);

2. At minimum 100 days of Daily Subsistence Allowances when on official trip = to an additional $30,000 per annum;

3. A Corporate Credit Card for incidentals and meals - $15,000 per annum;

and definitely does not include what you can make thru corruption, like i.e.:

1. Hiring your wife, children or gay/lesbian or extra-marrital *** friend;

2. Allow for no-bid procurement of goods and services from "special clients" who then either give you CASH or hire you at the end of your tenure;

and please not to worry - you are immune from any prosecution during the time you serve for the UN.

You also are given the option NOT TO disclose your assets or family deals - should you feel like.