
UN labour policy needs to be fixed
Cash loans online easy approval. GENEVA The United Nations both here in Geneva and worldwide is relying increasingly on consultants with short-term contracts to do its work, seriously hampering the organization’s overall professionalism. Consultants, many who have come to Switzerland with their families from other countries, or may be on mission elsewhere in the world, are sometimes only told on a Friday that their contract will be renewed Monday. Not only do such personnel often lack basic social or employment rights enjoyed by Switzerland and other European countries, but such fickleness is leading to a situation whereby many aid workers wonder whether it is worth continuing to commit to the UN and its members agencies.
According to an internal document procured by the Swiss newspaper, Le Temps, nearly 40 percent of those working with the UN and its agencies are hired on short-term or “non-staff” contracts, creating a two-tier system with full-time or tenured employees with complete social benefits on the one hand, and independent consultants with few if any trimmings on the other.
Cited by Le Temps, the report maintains that this is largely because of the growing phenomenon among UN agencies to seek greater “flexibility” but also to save on budgets. “This situation is not only out of line with international principals regarding labour rights, but does not represent the values promoted by the UN,” the report says.
With the document destined for the General Assembly in New York, the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), the only independent and outside oversight body mandated to inspect and evaluate the UN, considers the consequences of the current system both “problematic and counter-productive.” The UN agencies, the JIU notes, risk engendering an increasingly poor image, but also threaten employee stability and motivation. Furthermore, such practices could lead to an enormous number of law suits.

Poor labour policies are detrimental to the quality of staff sent on missions
Based on investigations carried out in 2013 using collected information from UN operations in six different countries, notably the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, India, Thailand and Vietnam, the JIU maintains that such practices have little to do with the UN’s humanitarian missions. As reported by Le Temps, “the current situation is that the United Nations is working with a dual labour force: the first is granted all the rights and privileges attached to the job; the other enjoys few if any rights.” The document accentuates the unease that exists in mixed teams, whereby consultants provide the same work, but with fewer advantages. This undermines overall cohesion and produces a high rate of turnover among personnel.
A major portion of the report’s analysis concerns the UN system worldwide. Both the Rome-based UN Food and Agricultural Organization and UN Operations headquartered in Copenhagen have workforces with over 50 percent consultants. While some observers maintain that the situation is less pronounced here in Geneva, others say that it depends on the organization. The World Health Organization also has a high-level of non-staffers, and it has a reputation for contract delays or problems with continuity. According to some sources, this leads to enormous frustration and low morale with consultants uncertain whether to renew flat leases or whether they can afford to continue sending their children to international schools. The International Labour Organization, too, is criticized for failing to provide some of the very rights it is promoting among governments, companies and trade unions worldwide.
Another often highlighted concern is that the UN’s unequal treatment of consultants means that it is losing highly qualified personnel to the private sector or to other organizations. Nevertheless, as pointed out in Le Temps by Jacques Vigne of the UN’s staff organization, New Wood, in Geneva, the JIU represents one of the few organizations that has the ability to make the General Assembly listen.

Temporary contracts instead of full employment are a false economy for the UN
During its investigation, however, the JIU found a severe lack of information regarding the situation of consultants. It found no fewer than 30 different statutes regarding non-staffers, with different contractual procedures, including pay scales, among the various UN agencies. The lack of a communal approach within the UN system, it maintains, tends to produce inequalities of personnel treatment regardless whether skilled or not. It also encourages fraud as well as nepotism. “All this is in violation of international labour principals and the values on which the United Nations is founded,” the report points out.
Salaries between full-time staffers and professional consultants can vary enormously, not only within a specific UN agency, but also within the UN system as a whole. Some agencies pay consultants well, taking into consideration possible time lapses between contracts, or that they do not necessarily have support mechanisms at their disposal, such as mobile phones, even when travelling on mission. Nor do many consultants receive social security, pension contributions or tax support despite working for years for the UN.
The JIU, which has produced 13 recommendations, maintains that the UN should not use short-term consultants on a long-term basis simply to save money. There should also be a global conformity within the UN system to resolve this situation. As noted by one senior UN source, “it is very much in the UN’s interest to maintain high professional standards. We need to have the best people possible and it makes sense to be consistent – and transparent – on all fronts. This sort of situation does not help.”
For more stories like this on Switzerland follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
On a 3 months contract break says
FINALLY ! Great article …….exactly what happens in the UN …..couldn’t agree more !
Shuvo D says
Finally JIU – FINALLY~ one of the many triumphs to start a sort of revolution in getting “a students living pay as an intern” was started at the Vienna VIC HQ in 2009, where I was a post-grad intern then. Since then I have worked in two different European HQs and other INGOs around the world and realized the ugly human-labour rights violation UN at every level manufactures! I mean, well it’s not new how the international development salary structure is so out of the way in terms of both human rights and Int. labour rights policies and laws BUT UN?!!! And after all that waiting and facing arrogance of the UN administration (with little understanding of how inefficient and incompetent they really are just to sign a freaking dumb and exploitative monologue known as a “short-term contract”, one eventually finds out that the Consultants and Interns do, time and again, work at least as good as the staff members (in terms of quantity, quality and most importantly dedication).
A Cherry-on-top story 😉 >
Background: The to-be supervisor of the consultant (with 9 years at the UN) kept the question in the written exam for a Consultant position – “coordination support work for the COP” (in English reads – email exchanges on logistics issues and drafting invitation letters) at one of the recent COPs (so 4 month contract):
Q: Green Economy skeptics argue that it is just another way to establish the pro-profit financial houses globally. How would you reply or defend Green Economy’s strategic objectives on this issue? (rephrased)
A. For EXPLETIVE DELETED’s sake! What has a mindless logistics work gotta do with a rather complex matter that requires a politically brilliant student’s mind?!! That is the sort of misplaced intellect, insensitive, arrogant and borderline deranged professional staff of some of the “best” UN agencies are or have become! Isn’t that one of those pretty many questions the world leaders are pretending to answer?! Bummer!
Nina says
Very happy to see the hypocrisy being exposed. Be aware that no one in the Administration wants to hear a word of it, or you are to be ended.
Barbara Hall says
There are more things to add. consultants (I have done this work for 15 years) have to pay taxes where they reside whereas in-house employees do not, at least in my field. In addition, we have no sick pay, health insurance, vacation pay or pension. Third, not knowing if we are to be rehired, we have to accept working around the clock and weekends. Next, we can never ask for higher pay despite decades of experience (whereas in-house staff get pay increases) because we have to tender for projects with newcomers wanting to get their feet in the door. some organization limit our contracts in terms of money or days per year. Next, in translation and editing (my field), machines are taking over, doing a horrible job, and no one seems to notice.
Jeremy McTeague says
Barbara you are right about having to compete on price with young inexperienced new entrants. But take heart, despite the rise of Globish and jargon-saturated reporting, most people that count do notice poor translation and bad editing as they seek clarity in order to function effectively.
KNT says
I have been working as a consultant in UNESCO HQ for more than 7 years. I am very happy to read that investigation on this topic has been made by the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), in which I trust that the figures provided are reliable and deep investigation has been made before publishing such report.
I strongly agree with the comments provided above in favour to all our colleagues on short-term assignments in the UN. Throughout my experience I have seen numerous injustice and abuse with consultants and interns and the list of examples may be very long. Most recent facts that shocked me was the decision to reduce consultants’ rates with 20% and that consultants should receive 75% of UNESCO standard daily substance allowance when going on mission without right for reimbursement of terminal fares. This is totally unacceptable, taking into account that same consultant will travel with staff member or alone, will do the same job but is entitled to receive less. I am not a jurist but I would like to ask is this legal?
I read with deep sadness some comments such as “if you don’t like it, go search a job elsewhere. At the end it is the consultant that signed and agreed with the terms of the contract”. If this is the logic and the basis for recruitment in the UN, we shall all be volunteers? Where is the ethics in all that? It is a pity that colleagues working in the UN think like this. I believe the motor of the UN system and any other organization and firm that wants to be competitive and valuable, is HUMAN RESOURCES!
And at the end here the question is not about money and how much consultants earn. This is why individual consultant rates within the UN system have been established. The question here is to just treat people equally, fairly, legally and with respect, according to the UN mandates. I really hope that this problematic will not end here and actions will be taken by decision-makers.
Thank you.
D Naruka says
I have been on both sides of the fence, having worked as full-time permanent staff and subsequently as an independent consultant on short assignments. The discrepancy in remuneration is massive. The HR system in the UN needs absolute revamp as the paperwork takes a very large amount of time, and when things move, unrealistic expectations are put in place – as pointed out in the article (e.g. people asked to join within a few days after waiting through months of non- communication). However, it really is true that the organization cannot afford to pay all the perks which come as being a part of full-time staff. What is perhaps absolutely needed in such a case is to keep the selection processes transparent and to have an internal review on the efficacy of full-time permanent staff in the organization – not as a bottom up process as is often done, but top down, to make sure that those on the top rungs are not simply hanging on for the pay package with minimum work, while their teams do more than what is required.
Editor says
Looking at the numerous and varied comments, I think that it is worth reminding readers that the Le News piece is based on a document highlighted by the Swiss newspaper Le Temps, but produced by the Joint Inspection Unit, an independent group mandated to investigative issues such as these. and to provide the UN General Assembly with recommendations.
Clearly, there is a problem; clearly, a lot of people are concerned by a situation that has persisted for years; and clearly, the UN urgently needs to do something about it.
Consultant. says
Wahh wahh wahh. And the tiniest violins in the world played the saddest songs known to man.
almost 100% of the comments here highlight exactly why Consultants are needed. The UN can’t physically afford to give people all the benefits the you are all complaining about. Not even possible. If you don’t want to work as a consultant, Quit. There are a thousand more qualified people than you willing to do you job for less money. Fact. Let’s also remind ourselves that we all make more money than the average Joe working in your home countries, even on the lowest consultancy contract. Fact. Whoever leaves comments talking about their ‘love of the UN mandate’ : Give me a break. The financial benefits are what pulls people in. Not the mandate. You can’t love the UN mandate because it changes in reality in every country where a Mission exists.
People complaining here are self serving and just want what other people have. If you were really excellent at your jobs then you would either be regularized, or you would have sorted your situation out a long time ago so you would not be manipulated by a corporate system.
Mark T Hartford, New York says
The reality is that the UN needs to become far more professional than it is. And competative. There are excellent staffers, but also far too many who are dead wood, people who should have been fired ages ago, but the system does not allow that, This includes top echelon people who are incompetent or political appointees who have shunted to the UN by their governments because no one knows what to do with them The UN needs the best people it can get. Otherwise, it will be sidelined as a useless and costly organization, In fact, it is already being sidelined in many sectors. Probably the days of a serious career within the UN are gone, but good staffers should be paid properly, just like in the private sector or any government civil service for the country they represent. Otherwise, we’ll just get more losers The UN is an organization that needs to exist, but, come on, let’s make it possible that the best professionals be brought into the fold. And why not pay them properly? You’re competing with companies from all over the world, who want the best and are getting the best. The world has changed. It’s time to stop thinking like some go-gooder NGO with people willing to work for little. It’s time to be efficient, and professional so that the UN can really make a difference. There is no shortage of good people. So let’s make sure we continue to attract them and keep them.
Anne T. says
As a consultant who previously worked extensively in the private sector, I am in full agreement with Mark. The UN, from my experience, lacks in large part the notion of “competitiveness” within its operations, along with related concepts of strategy, efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability. These also happen to be characteristics associated with meritocracy, which the UN is not. Yes, there are many people lining up to fill consultancy positions. However, as any private sector company knows, getting and keeping the “right” people is largely the key to success.
The low pay in relation to staff is not my biggest source of discontent. The factors that tell me that this is only a stepping stone are the second-class citizenship given with the expectation that I be grateful, the lack of concern that I might have a life to arrange that requires some reasonable outlook on the future, under-performing people in highly-paid power positions, and highly-skilled and motivated people who have little chance at upward mobility due to HR practice and the maintenance of dead weight. And, finally, the hypocrisy. I personally know consultants who perform research, prepare documents and organize events for the ILO promoting workers rights that they themselves don’t enjoy.
The success of an institution lies primarily within the quality, management and full utilization of its human resources. As consultants perform a large portion of the substantive work of the UN, high turnover rates result in the discontinuity and loss of institutional knowledge, reinvention of the wheel with new projects, and inconsistency of approach – hardly the ingredients for competitiveness. Without change that promotes a highly competent and effective human resource base, I can only see the UN further sliding along the path towards irrelevancy.
Consultant in Rome says
well overdue article. I have been a ‘short term’ consultant for over 6 years basically undertaking work of regular staff. over the years I have seen a few very incompetent staff recruited into vacant positions which probably explains the reliance on ‘non staff’. I have also seen many western origen consultants recruited often solely on the basis of them knowing someone within the organization. Decision is often made by one individual.
It’s very frustrating to work with staff who constantly remind you that you are not equally important even though you are actually contributing more in terms of work.
I live in hope that the UN can reforms! Sadly this may never happen.
a says
Well said. Bravo.
Concerned Staff says
It is a surprise to see an article from this perspective. I wonder if you were to query regular staff at duty stations you may find many more complex issue within the castes system. There may be more then two tiers to consider with the issue of consultants. The Professional staff that went through a highly competitive recruitment process have to move to different positions. The NCRE program attempts to bring the best qualified into the system. There is a second tier of General Service staff that also went through a local test to get hired at duty stations. General Service staff have limited opportunities to advance. There is what is described as an iron curtain between the two categories. GS staff many with Masters Degrees can not apply to Professional positions without taking a G to P test. Consultants were to be hired for special skills that are outside of the scope of the staff work plans. A consultant should have 10 year experience and a Masters Degree or higher. They provide a valuable service that staff do not have skills for. Interns are brought in for 3-6 month unpaid jobs to gain experience. They can not apply for jobs until 6 months after finishing their internship. It seems now interns can become consultants after they finish their internship. So this creates a new tier of junior consultants. Maybe the question is what special skills do they have and experience or is this just a way to bypass the National recruitment process. So young professionals now compete with external candidates for Professional Jobs after the lengthy process they went through to be hired. Interns turned consultants have their foot in the door and vie for the same positions. General Service staff who have finished their degrees remain relegated to assistant titles with no chance for advancement as intern consultants now take on new roles. General Service are not allowed to apply to jobs outside their silo. Although there are a lot of rules for working at the UN everyone knows their status and yet try to find ways to keep working the system. It is human nature. There seems to not be a clear path for a UN Career and for many it will be a series of short contracts in different positions in different departments which is very similar to careers outside the organization in the public sector. It is a shame for those that thought they had a long term career unfortunately with budget cuts can lead to less jobs and more workers the laws of supply and demand will kick in. I wonder if there is a lack of consultants applying for these positions?
Ex-Consultant says
I worked for a number of years as a consultant for a UN organisation. I was a consultant hired for what should have been a staff position and was carrying out core functions, including, in my last year, being the OIC. I was expected to adhere to all UN principles and ethics and be fully responsible for the running of the organisation. All this while my contract was being renewed every 2 months. My situation is not unique. To save money, consultancy contracts are being abused for staff positions. I was constantly being told that the position I had would be considered for ‘staff status’ when the time was right. That time never came. The discrimination is there between staff and personnel (non-staff), including not being considered as an internal candidate when positions come up. One factor that I don’t think has been highlighted is that it takes on average, 4 months to be hired for any position in the UN – if one is lucky. Considering the lead time, people on non-staff contracts start looking for other jobs 4 months before there current contracts are coming to an end. The job search is very intensive and time consuming which means that while people are looking for other jobs, they are not giving 100% to the one they currently have. Loyalty goes both ways. If the organisation is not committed to its employees, they cannot expect the employees to be loyal to them. The discussion on contracts, benefits, pay scale, etc should only ever take place at the time of hiring. After that you just get on with doing the job. But in the UN it is a constant pre-occupation. Contract type governs how others perceive you, your ability to be taken seriously in meetings and forums, your ability to supervise (staff cannot report to non-staff despite job function or seniority), and of course the benefits. The UN needs to determine what type of employees it wants, what type of organisation it wants to be, but most of all to practice at home what it preaches to the world.
I am Consultant too! says
I had worked in the system for long and had gone through all the contract modalities but I tend to have a confusion in understanding the referencing here of whom are you talking about? specifically there are three types – a regular staff who enjoys all the flavours and perks of the system from maternity/paternity/this&that leave to pension to few more. Then comes the short term contract holders (service contracts who are sometimes said not staffs of that organization but other times have to act and be like one but with a job description that is worse than an regular programme staff), who are there for an year or less than year (which mentions a possible extension) and they only get 2.5 days leave per month excluding weekends and then a take home pay (which is a nightmare to understand on how they deduct and what they included) but these types enjoy a certain type of insurance which is very limited but better than nothing.
This two categories are normally managed by the HR departments and then comes the local consultant and international consultant who goes through the procurement system. They are hired for a specific task and to compile a shit load of paper work which are only used in verbal arguments or in a political debate but never in the reality. I don’t understand the reason why a consultant (local or international) should enjoy any benefits like a normal staff because they are just like any other vendor hired for doing a specific task and they have the opportunity to take many other works, where as the regular staffs can’t enjoy this perks or earn more extra money unless and until they engage themselves in corruption. Moreover, when a consultant sends in a CV that says I went to moon twice or I was dead for a day with certification from everywhere – the ground team can only be impressed and ask the reference, who could even be their close aides but we never go on checking whether these certification are legitimate or this work is real and once they come down – its all about replicating what was done in haiti to somalia or to nepal.
if a local consultant or international consultant has to be given pension or insurance and annual leave, I do believe that any other vendor should enjoy that same benefit like a firm hired to do something, an event team or a logistic procurement.
But are we talking about them or are we talking about these service contract holders? and right now I have too jumped out of the system and working as a consultant, but I don’t believe that my insurance or pension should be their concern, when i just take specific work I like and I don’t work with them by attending their meetings or in their struggle to address or report back to HQ.
So whom are we talking about again?
UN Consultant says
This is so true, thank you for writing this. I have been a consultant for about 3 years, doing the same job as UN staff members, yet making about 2/3 of a staff salary with no benefits or vacation time. I have worked several contracts in which I have worked for about one month prior to my contract actually being finalized and processed, and am actually currently writing my own contract for next year (which is highly inappropriate).
In my opinion the biggest problem is that the policies of HR do not meet the needs of the organization. Many Divisions are pushed by upper management to take on extra budgetary projects (which in addition to existing staff members work load). This results in understaffing and large work loads, which is often times why a consultant is engaged. The purpose of taking on a consultant is supposed to be to offer specific expertise which is outside the capacity of the agency. However, it is often the case that consultants are brought in to cover the work of staff members. Because of the temporary nature of consulting positions, this can create a large amount of turnover in a project and loss of expertise acquired during the project’s implementation, negatively effecting the outputs of the organization. Also, if a project does take on a consultant and gains enough funds to create a temporary P position, the HR rules prevent consultants from moving into temporary P positions for a period of at least 6 months. Meaning that most consultants have no opportunity to move up the ladder, despite their level of expertise or how hard he/she may work.
UN consultant says
Thanks for bringing this up.
I am a “short-term” consultant working for a UN agency for nine years now in several different duty stations. No paid annual leave, no pension contribution, no unemployment insurance, very poor health insurance coverage = 19th century working conditions.
The agency forces me to have a one-month contract break every 11 months, so I cannot claim any rights because there is no formal continuity. However, my corporate e-mail account is kept active during my unpaid “holidays” in order to be able to continue working from home, because I carry out core tasks for the organization.
The UN is a caste system: In order to keep all imaginable benefits for staff, a large percentage of human resources are deprived of any.
Why do I still work for the UN? Because I do still believe in its mandate, a mandate that the HR officers have forgotten long ago…
Juan says
Gosh you really should quit. I’m sure that despite the unbearable suffering associated with your loss the UN can find someone else who believes in it’s mandate to replace you and everyone would be better off.
Ex UN Consulatant says
Well, i worked on one of the most difficult project if UN in nepal, for almost two years as a consultant without any social security and insurance, lets not talk about annual leave. When, the contract ended after two years nothing much was left in hand only the UN tag ” consultant”. They must take this matter seriously. Thanks for flagging it up.
Leon says
I agree partially to the article. The numbers are not realistic as there is by no means 50% of consultants in Copenhagen HQ for example. I do agree with the JIU that the system needs to change, but this comes to back to the problem that every agency works as a separate entity, therefore the One UN initiative should go stronger in order to align all workforce in all agencies. After that the consultants should be reviewed.
I have worked closely with many JIU inspectors, but I don’t see any changes from their reports to the GA.
Ed says
The Le Temps story was published in French on Monday, 17 November, 2014. Title:. L’ONU exploite une armée de sans-droits. There were also some previous stories. To read, however, you will need to subscribe.
Emily Q says
It is also a way to skirt the geographical recruitment requirements and hire more western staff through the back door, thereby lessening the opportunities for capable people from non-western countries who don’t happen to be based in Geneva or Vienna or New York. Consultants work for the UN because they want to get their foot in the door and then demand the same benefits as other staff. They don’t want a system where all people have equal rights, they want a system where they get UN jobs and benefits. Yes they UN should stop hiring so many consultants, but not because the poor rich western consultants that have so many many advanced degrees don’t get good enough benefits to send their children to private school, but because there should be a fairer system all around.
Lideta says
You are so right! I work for a UN agency in Geneva and not a single consultant there
is non-Western. Many get their consultancy contracts thanks to nepotism and do not have the qualifications to apply for regular posts. Then, all entitled, they complain that they don’t have the same benefits as regular staff who had to compete with thousands of people
to get their job! There are plenty of available regular positions at the UN. Consultants who are qualified and want regular jobs should
compete for them
like the rest of us or move on.
Christian Delfortrie says
Westerners? Is this part of one of the many “non-westerner” lobbies’ strategy? Have you ever tried to find out how many Senegalese, for instance, are UN civil servants, compared to French or Spanish, also for instance? The same applies to most countries of West Africa.
GIANSETTO says
I worked for 8 months at the UNESCO press office in Paris in 2010 where my capacity to use French and English and Spanish was highly appreciated. When my (Australian) supervisor wanted me back (for just another temporary contract, not a permanent one, on the very same job I had done), she was told there were too many Frenchies at UNESCO and asked to hire a Nigerian-British woman instead, speaking a perfect English with a beatitful Oxford accent but with very limited ability in French (for a position in Paris, France where you need to answer queries from the French press!). Why that? Clearly because UNESCO and the United Nations in general needs to improve its statistics regarding non-Western (and specially African) staff. Who imposed that to my boss? The irony is that the decision was taken by the Assistant Director General for External Relations and Public Information, a French guy who had just arrived from NY headquarters at the time and who had apparently decided he would be the last Gallic specimen to enter UNESCO. My experience on the very same position and my skill for the job -which, again, was just a temporary contract- were not even considered, even though my boss wanted me. Of course, I can understand the frustration of non-Western professionals and the claim by non-Western member states the UN hire more people from the “South” and from under-represented countries. But the condition should be on consideration of equal competence and skills.
ruben says
Name and Shame them !!!!
Consultant says
Finally! This is certainly overdue, thank you for writing this. No health insurance, short term contracts, and ZERO transparency on how wages are determined. At an organization that pontificates human rights and development to the rest of the world.
Current Consultant says
Thank you so much for bringing this up. This not only applies to UN agencies but to Multilateral agencies as well. The humiliation one has to go through listening to ‘you earn more than us’ and hence the attitude ‘you work and drudge more than us’ often leads us burnout, working extra hours forgetting our families and social life leading to number of health complications. It seems there is a parallel system going on – one visible and another invisible. In visible system you follow all rules and treaties of ILO convention on employment and equal opportunity and show outsiders about fairness in employment including fat/excessive benefits. Whereas in the invisible system where consultants (short and intermittent) are hired do not follow even a single rule. First the hiring itself is not transparent especially in developing country like mine the retired government employees are taking up the tasks for less money or their organisations are getting the work due to low bid. This is depressing for young, competent workforce in getting the job in the first place. There is no fair game here..nepotism, favouratism plays a considerable role. Second lot of effort has to be taken to negotiate the rate if one gets the job. The persons background, professionalism, age, gender is given least priority. Third, staff are awarded for internalising diversity at workforce and team building but it seems this applies only among the staff and not consultants even if consutlants are part of the team that are working very close with them. The attitude towards consultants in these agencies is like that of ‘servitude’ and not as equally qualified experts providing them support in their work. Fourth, there is no visibility and recognition towards consultants work not even an acknowledgement of simple ‘thank you’ or encouragement ‘great job’ out of humnity. it seems these terms are reserved for staff only and not for consultants as they are supposed to deliver the outputs.
Patrick says
Change will have to be imposed from the outside. There is no incentive for management to change. It is bad for staff and those it is supposed to serve also. See:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3HfL9ZMhyMETmUtLU82QjJvNUE/view?usp=sharing
UN Consultant says
Thank you so much for writing this! There is huge chasm between consultants and staff in terms of salary, benefits, and most importantly, professional growth. If relative deprivation wasn’t bad enough, there are horror stories of consultants getting short changed, having no recourse to HR. I have had staff members accuse me of making easy money when I have tried to negotiate the terms of my contract (using their own memos). To which, I was told – “there are written rules, and unwritten rules”. I am repeatedly told by my supervisors (who make 200 – 300 % more than me) that what I get paid is fair. I was once told that consultants have it better that staff – they can work two jobs (!) All this, ladies and gentlemen, not at Wal-Mart, but at the United Nations.
The #UNFAIR team says
We found similar results in our survey of over 1000 people working for the UN. See http://www.un-fair.org/
Former consultant says
Excellent article. Every word of this is true. Highly qualified outside contractors with no benefits. Race-to-the-bottom style RFPs that end up costing the UN in the long run. With all due respect to the ILO, what irony! Even for UN staff, there are no financial bonuses and little upward mobility. People with permanent contracts are stuck where they are with few opportunities for advancement unless they jump ship to another UN organisation. Churn happens. Burnout is not uncommon. Open positions remain vacant for years while internal staff madly apply for them, only to see the openings canceled later when budgets are reallocated by the new executive director. Performance appraisals and 360° reviews etc. are given lip service but don’t have much impact. Some people work with intense passion while their peers sip coffee in the canteen. The motivation level remains low. I could go on…
Former temporary staff says
Couldn’t agree more with the comment from “former consultant”. As a former temporary staff, I would also throw these positions into the mix. They are a bit better off than consultants, but don’t have all the nice benefits (70% of school tuition covered, e.g.) and of course no job security.
I worked in the private sector before for 20 years and have gone back into it since my experience at the UN. I would say that I have never seen more unhappy, dysfunctional and unmotivated teams then at that place.
Finally, it should also be mentioned that the UN is also heavily relying on interns to do the groundwork. They are often hired for up to 6 months and not paid a dime.
Former unpaid Intern says
Agreed. As a former UN Intern, I confirm the sacrifice in gaining “UN experience” during months without receiving a dime. Only “rich kids” can actually afford those opportunities and poor are kept outside. Nice diversity, nice empowerment, nice lies.
Ex-consultant says
This is not new! I remember working for a UN agency ten years ago where there were “short term” consultants who had been working without benefits for over two decades! Every few years there is talk about this but nothing ever changes.
Mary G says
Thank you very much for posting this overdue commentary. Would you be able to write the link you refer to in Le Temps?
Lauren says
Indeed, the link to Le Temps would be appreciated.
Daniel Ahlers says
Here’s the link:
http://www.letemps.ch/Page/Uuid/f7813d9e-6b22-11e4-869e-7e370c0bf9b8/LONU_exploite_une_armée_de_sans-droits