All news

STU/66th Council/14/004
8 April 2014

The STU says Yes to reform! But not at any price…

Protection by the STU of staff rights does not intend to block the reform process, but rather to ensure that the target set by Member States and the Director-General is reached:

A more efficient and professional Organization

The STU reiterates its full support to the reform process, however, it questions its terms and costs.

The STU recalls that the Audit Report of April 2013 recommended "that a study of the short-, medium- and long-term operational and economic impact be conducted specifically for each and every staff-management scheme and individual measure (individual separation and the freezing, abolition or transformation of posts).”

After over two years, in addition to a continuing toxic atmosphere in the Secretariat, the loss of the Organization’s visibility and the casualization of its workforce,

What is the cost of the reform carried out?

If the aim of the current exercise of post abolitions and redeployment is to align staff costs with the approved $ 507 million budget, how does the Administration justify:

Ø  The cost of short-term contracts:

245 Project Appointment contracts, 718 service contracts, 45 temporary contracts and 1021 consultant contracts have been established since 1 January 2014. This represents 2029 contractors which is more than the total headcount of permanent staff (currently 1827).

These contracts do not appear as staff costs thus faking the savings made from post abolitions, in addition to hampering significantly the budget dedicated to programme implementation.

Moreover, the ongoing institutional work is being carried out more and more by these precarious contractors in complete violation of UNESCO’s rules and regulations, at the expense of staff in post and of an equitable geographical distribution

Ø  The cost of the 15 contract extensions beyond the age of retirement, including 5 ADGs (representing a monthly cost of US$ 268,792).

In some cases, as for example the SHS Sector, a senior manager was entrusted as Acting ADG, thus ensuring the continuation of missions while achieving significant savings. Why was this not also done in other sectors CLT, AFR, BSP, ED, SC?

Ø  The cost of the three voluntary separation packages

What is the total these three incentive measures? Does this cost represent savings or rather is it an additional expense if it implies recruitment or if the permanent staff member has to be replaced by a precarious contractor to implement priority programmes?

Ø  What is the cost of the 3-month delay for the redeployment exercise?

Which tasks are being carried out by staff members whose posts are proposed for abolition?

At this moment, taking into account the delays and the provisions involved, the cost of the current devices is greater than the cost of maintaining staff with a planned retirement management.

Ø  160 posts should be abolished and 256 would be available for redeployment, meaning a surplus of 96 vacant posts.

If, therefore, there are more vacant posts than posts to be abolished, then what is the reasoning behind the incentives measures, contract extensions and service contracts?

The Administration is consequently undertaking a reform whose cost is greater than the announced savings.

Does the Administration intend to continue the redeployment exercise on these bases?