STU/66th Council/15/012
26 March 2015
A tale of two UNESCOs
(that Staff were told by the Administration)
The impact of the financial crisis on staff in the 2014-2015 biennium…
Tale 2014 : The Organization is going through one of its most severe financial crises since its creation, hundreds of posts (including occupied ones) need to be cut, the budget is insufficient to pay salaries until the end of the biennium, austerity measures need to be implemented etc.!
As a result of the restructuring/redeployment exercise, 7 colleagues were made redundant and 16 downgraded. This brought about very insignificant savings for the Organization, while wielding a devastating impact on our colleagues’ personal lives and careers.
Tale 2015 : In the same biennial exercise, money becomes suddenly available for promotions following post reclassification (9 have already been materialized and many more are in the pipeline, mainly in HRM), for 35 contract extensions beyond statutory retirement age and even for over 40 external recruitments on fixed-term contracts. Last but not least, the post of ADG/BSP has been maintained at ADG level, even though it initially figured at Director level in the approved 37 C/5, and seems to be kept at ADG level in the next 38 C/5. It is needless to mention that the 62.000 USD difference between an ADG and a D-2 post would have been enough to save 2-3 G posts in the Field for the biennium and would be enough to compensate the financial loss that our downgraded colleagues sustain from the decrease of their pension.
Please do not misunderstand our message: STU fully supports duly deserved and justified promotions. The issue is the inappropriate timing and selective manner in which these measures are taking place. How come colleagues have been dismissed and downgraded due to financial constraints on the one hand, and on the other, money was found for promotions? Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to first try to identify solutions for the downgraded colleagues before compensating others?
Moreover, why do we need to extend staff beyond retirement instead of proper succession planning and career development? And why do we constantly need derogations for external recruitment?
We all know by heart that the Administration would justify this on the lack of adequate skills internally.
However, given the absence of an appropriate tool for skills assessment, it is indeed difficult to ascertain that skills do not exist internally and the absence of career development and succession planning make it hard to upgrade the skills of existing staff…
Despite the fact that STU has repeatedly sent comments on the proposals of performance assessment to HRM, why does the Administration not launch a global exercise to foster career development?
One can only be confused and demotivated by these two different stories in the same biennium.
One can only feel that UNESCO has a à la carte Human Resources management.
And finally, one can only feel that everything is not just a question of finances!
We firmly believe that it is still not too late to rectify the above situation!
The STU Council