ICSC Questions and Answers

Transcription

1 Rev 9 Dec 2015 ICSC Questions and Answers about the Comprehensive Review of the Common System Compensation Package The International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) has prepared the following responses to frequent questions received from staff about the Comprehensive Review of the Common System Compensation Package, which is currently being discussed by the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly: The ICSC is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly and was established to regulate and coordinate the conditions of service of staff of the United Nations common system. The Commission has worked, over the past three years, on a revised compensation package for staff in the Professional and higher categories and has submitted its proposals to the General Assembly. While the new compensation package is described at length in the Annual Report for 2015of the Commission (A/70/30), the frequently asked questions deal with the most salient features of the proposed package. 1. What are the proposed changes to the salary scale? The revised salary structure pays staff members at the same grade and step, the same salary for work performed, irrespective of family circumstances. It takes dependency recognition out of the salary scale by establishing a separate spouse allowance and child allowance. It provides for better performance recognition by harmonizing the number of steps per grade and freeing up resources for performance rewards. It brings salary rates more in line with comparator (U.S. civil service) pay and harmonizes the number of steps per grade. The pay levels of staff currently on board are protected: all staff will be transitioned to the new scale without losses upon implementation. Some staff will actually experience some gains. 2. It has been said that the review robs the poor to pay the rich. Is there any truth to that? None whatsoever: this comes from inadvertent or deliberate misinterpretation of facts. As far as the serving staff are concerned: o Staff with a dependent spouse would receive the same pay if the newly established spouse allowance of 6% of net remuneration is taken into account. All staff at the P-1 level, irrespective of their present dependency status, would be transitioned to the new scale with some gains in pay;

2 2 o All staff currently with single status would experience some gains in pay; o Some differences are inevitable, resulting in gains or losses for individual staff, but no preferential treatment would be afforded to higher grades at the expense of the lower ones. 3. What about ASG/USG pay? ASG/USG salaries are not part of any pay comparisons including the net remuneration margin. The Commission s review addressed issues at the P-1 to D-2 grades, which consequently affects ASG/USG salaries which are extrapolated from the D-2 grade. Their relationship to the salary scale for Professional and higher categories is established by the General Assembly. 4. Aren t you concerned that the proposed package might undermine the UN initiative for a more diverse staff, with more women in diverse roles? Under the new package, single staff, most of whom are women, will see some gains in pay and allowances. We therefore believe that the package would improve the ability of the organizations to employ more women. The proposed system will most likely appeal to staff members who believe that performance should be rewarded. In the staff survey conducted by the Commission at the end of 2012, a large percentage of staff expressed that performance recognition was of great importance. In addition, the Commission continues to urge the organizations to put in place measures of a non-monetary nature, such as telecommuting or flexible working arrangements which would promote the concept of work/life balance and help staff including single parents to accommodate their individual family circumstances. 5. What will happen if my current salary upon conversion to the proposed system falls outside the unified salary scale? These salaries outside the salary scale would be maintained as a pay protection measure. They would be subject to the same adjustment as those within the scale structure. 6. Will there be changes to my pensionable remuneration? Not at all! No staff member would see any reductions in current pensionable remuneration levels under the proposals. In fact, staff at the P-1 grade would see some increases. 7. Who will lose/gain the most as a result of this review? Evaluating the proposed changes only by reference to the current circumstances of staff members or through its individual elements paints an incomplete picture. While some changes may be perceived as being negative, other changes would no doubt benefit staff members as can be seen in the table below.

3 3 Current 1. Staff members losing eligibility to the dependency rate of salary under the current system can see reductions in base salary and post adjustment of up to 8.8 %. 2. After a relevant change in dependency status, the hardship allowance is reduced by 25%. Proposed 1. Staff members losing eligibility to the spouse allowance would see a reduction in base salary and post adjustment of 5.7 % regardless of grade and step. 2. The hardship allowance does not decrease based on changes in dependency status. 3. No recognition of exceptional performance 3. Performance awards for exceptional performance of up to 10 per cent for organizations that implemented the performance framework. The proposed compensation package is different, and change may be difficult to accept. The package is, however, competitive, simplified, cost-effective, more modern and fair. The only way to avoid gains and losses would be to implement no change at all. A number of transitional measures are being proposed to mitigate the impact of the changes. 8. Why is step periodicity changing? During the course of the comprehensive review both the organization heads and the staff had indicated that they wanted a system that linked pay progression with recognition of performance. Many outside organizations have moved to performance based systems whereby the increases granted to individuals are solely based on performance and no separate increases for cost of living are provided. In the common system, in addition to post adjustment, which protects staff from inflation, step increments are granted to recognize increasing experience subject to acceptable performance (most steps are currently annual). The step increment does not allow for recognition between different levels of performance. In order to encourage recognition of performance without increasing costs, the Commission is recommending a hybrid system which maintains step increments but also encourages the organizations to implement performance awards. Under the proposals, steps beyond step 7 at grades P-1 to P-5 would be granted biennially; all steps at the D-2 grade, and steps beyond step 4 at the D-1 grade, would continue to be granted biennially.

4 4 The performance awards would have to be earned each year and would therefore not become part of base pay based on performance in a given period. Staff members who are at the top steps of their grades and who would otherwise see no increases, would also have the opportunity to earn the performance awards. The post adjustment system would continue to ensure adjustments to pay linked to inflation. The Commission does not believe that biennial steps would be incompatible with annual performance cycles and notes that some steps at most grades are already biennial under the current system. Under the comparator civil service's General Schedule pay system, step increments are annual only for the first three steps, they are biennial for the next three steps, and triennial for the following three steps. Field-related questions 9. Is it true that my field package will be reduced by 10% because of the recommendations made by the ICSC? I am a P-3/VI single mother with one child, working in Kabul, on my third assignment. You would not have any reductions in your field package; in fact there would be an increase. In your case, the following would apply: Hardship allowance: As there would be no change, you would continue to receive US$ 1, per month (US$17,440 per year) for the "E" category hardship level. Danger Pay: No change, you would continue to receive danger pay of US$ 1,600 per month (US$19,200 per year). Non-family service allowance: Since Kabul is a non-family duty station you would receive non-family service allowance instead of the current additional hardship allowance. As a single parent, you would receive the higher amount applicable for staff with dependents of US$1,650 (US$ 19,800 per year). This means an increase of US$ 2,360 per year from the current amount of US$ 17,440 to US$ 19,800. Mobility incentive: You would not see any change to the current amount of US$ per month (US$ 7,130 per year) under the mobility allowance up to five years at the same duty station, or until you move to another field duty station. If you moved to a new field duty station at your current grade level, the mobility incentive (which would replace the current mobility allowance) would be US$ per month ($6,500 per year) under the new system. Therefore, your total field allowances under the new package would be US$ 5,298 per month (US$63,570 per year) compared to the current amount of US$ 5,101 per month (US$ 61,210 per year). Therefore, there would be no reduction in your field package; but you would experience an increase of US$ 2,360 per year for this allowance. Net remuneration (salary): You are currently receiving the dependency rate on the basis of your dependent first child. There would initially be no change to your net remuneration (i.e. base salary plus post adjustment applicable in Kabul) due to the proposed transitional measure. The transitional allowance would be set initially at 6% of net remuneration (base plus post adjustment). Therefore, in the first year, your net

5 5 remuneration including the proposed transitional allowance would be US$ 8,783 per month, the same as the current amount. The transitional allowance would be reduced by one percentage point every 12 months thereafter until it reaches the level of the child allowance, at which time the child allowance would be payable. The gradual reduction of 1% per year in the transitional allowance would amount to US$ 994 every year up to 5 years. Therefore, after discontinuation of the transitional allowance, you would instead receive US$ 2,929 per year for each eligible child. As a P-3/VI single mother in Kabul, your total monthly pay would be US$ 14,081 (US$ 168,970 per year) in the first year and US$ 13,828 (US$ 165,933 per year) when the aforementioned transitional allowance has been replaced by the child allowance in the fifth year. In field allowances alone, excluding base salary plus post adjustment, you would receive over a 3-year period in excess of US$ 190,000. Over a 5-year period, you would receive over US$ 300,000 in field allowances. It is also noted that accommodation is provided by the organization and that the rental deduction in Kabul is rather modest. 10. Is it true that cuts are proposed for staff at lower grades to finance the proposed increases for D-1 and above staff? No pay cuts are proposed for staff at lower grades. There would be some reduction at the higher levels. For example, a staff member (D-1/II) with dependent spouse on third assignment in Kabul would have an overall reduction of US$ 2,970 per year in the total package (i.e. net remuneration plus spouse allowance plus field allowances). The details of the proposed changes applicable for this staff member under the new package are as follows: Base salary plus post adjustment: Under the proposed package, the dependency benefit is separated from the salary scale and a unified salary scale without regard to dependency status would be applied to all staff. The dependent spouse would continue to be recognized through a separate allowance called spouse allowance which would be equal to 6% of net remuneration. Therefore, this staff member would receive a net remuneration (i.e. base salary plus post adjustment applicable in Kabul) of US$ 12,927 plus spouse allowance of US$ 776 per month (total of US$ 13,703) compared to the current net remuneration at dependency rate at US$ 13,703 per month. As such, there would be no change in net remuneration. Hardship allowance: There would be no change. The staff member would continue to receive US$ per month (US$ 23,250 per year) for the "E" category hardship level. Danger pay: No change, the staff member would continue to receive danger pay at US$ 1,600 per month ($19,200 per year). Non-family service allowance: Kabul is a non-family duty station and therefore, staff would receive a non-family service allowance (currently called additional hardship allowance or AHA). The staff member would receive the highest amount applicable for staff with dependents which is US$ 1,650 per month ($ 19,800 per year). In this case, there would be a decrease of US$ 3,450 per year from the current amount of $23,250 year to $ 19,800.

6 6 Mobility incentive: This staff member would not see any change to the current amount of $ per month (US$ 9,270 per year) up to five years at the same duty station. However, if the staff member moves to another field duty station, the mobility incentive (which would replace the current mobility allowance) would be US$ per month ($9,750 per year) under the new system. That would be an increase of US$ 40 per month or US$480 per year. The total of field allowances under the new system would amount to US$ 6,000 per month (US$ 72,000 per year) compared to the current amount of US$ 6,248 per month (US$ 74,976 per year). Therefore, there would be a reduction of US$ 2,970 per year in the field package for this staff member (D-1/II). 11. Is it true that the ICSC is proposing to reduce the support for family leave in hardship duty stations? No changes were proposed to leave benefits such as annual leave, sick leave and family emergency leave. There are a number of paid travel leave provisions that would apply under the new system. In most cases, no changes have been proposed to the current provisions as explained below: Rest and recuperation breaks: No change proposed to the current rest and recuperation framework that was introduced by the Commission in Staff in very dangerous locations, in non-family duty stations, including in C category nonfamily duty stations, and duty stations with a high level of hardship will continue to have rest and recuperation breaks of five days of authorized leave plus travel time with a frequency of every six, eight or twelve weeks respectively, and in some very exceptional cases four weeks. Under the rest and recuperation framework, rest and recuperation breaks are also provided to staff serving in family duty stations that are non-capital D and E category duty stations. Accelerated home leave paid travel: Notwithstanding the proposed ending of the accelerated home leave (every twelve months) in C to E duty stations due to its overlap with the rest and recuperation travel breaks, staff will continue to benefit from paid rest and recuperation travel, paid home leave travel, paid education grant travel and paid family visit. Home leave: There will be no change to the 24-month home leave cycle and it would continue to apply to all duty stations, including field duty stations. In this case, travel is paid for the staff and eligible family members. Education grant travel: Additional education grant travel for the designated duty stations in the field will be discontinued. For staff serving in the field, one round trip per year per child would be payable when boarding assistance is provided for children to travel between the place of study and the duty station, or reverse travel for the parent to travel if the child cannot travel to the duty station and the parent has not travelled on home leave that year.

7 7 Family visit travel: No change to the current provisions and applicable to all duty stations when the family is not installed at the staff member s duty station. 12. Is my mobility allowance going to be affected if I move to a Headquarters duty station? Yes, it would be affected because the purpose of the mobility incentive is to encourage the geographic mobility of staff to field duty stations. Additionally, past moves of staff members would no longer be taken into account. The Commission believes that mobility is linked to the career path of a staff member. It also recognized that staff in H category duty stations benefit from a variety of choices relating to conditions of work and life compared to staff serving in the field. 13. What are the major differences between the current and the proposed education grant schemes? The objective and many elements of the current and the proposed education grant schemes are the same. The overall cost-sharing principle would remain the same, but with higher reimbursement rates for lower claims, gradually reduced for expenses in the higher cost brackets. The present system has been criticised as complex and cumbersome. It differentiates reimbursement levels by 15 no longer easily explainable currency zones/geographical areas (14 individual countries, eight of which are in the euro zone, and one area covering about 150 countries in the rest of the world), calculates reimbursement based on a large number of admissible expenses (often requiring subjective interpretation and time-consuming certification) and applies several different ways to calculate boarding assistance. In comparison, the proposed system is based on a global scale of reimbursement regardless of the school locations or staff s duty station, catering to the level of expenses of the majority of the current claims. The proposed system provides assistance where it is needed most, primarily tuition, enrolment-related fees and tuition. While the list of admissible expenses would be reduced, the sum of tuition, enrolment-related expenses and mother tongue tuition fees will continue to be cost-shared by the staff member and the organization, with higher reimbursement levels for relatively low claim levels. The proposed scheme continues to leave the choice of schools to staff and their children. At the same time, it would recognize the difference in terms of the availability of viable educational alternatives in H-category and field duty stations. Therefore, assistance for boarding expenditures would be provided only for those who serve in the field (A to E duty stations). While it is impossible to exactly predict how much a staff member would gain or lose under the new system, the revised provisions could result in increases, significant at times, in particular for claims consisting primarily of tuition fees, as well as for those with children currently in school zones with lower grant ceilings. The proposed

8 8 system would clearly be much simpler and more efficient while maintaining its attractiveness as a feature of the common system compensation system.