UNITED
NATIONS, June
19 -- In the
aftermath of
UN Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
labor
negotiating
team rebuffing
the Staff
Union requests
at a meeting
that collapsed
last week in
Mexico City,
there are
called to go
beyond the
already
in-place "no
confidence" in
Ban Ki-moon
resolution
adopted
earlier this
year.
Outraged
staff
have
exclusively
told Inner
City Press
about a
meeting of
Ban's
Senior
Management
Group held in
the UN before
the Mexico
City fiasco,
at which they
say management
decided they
don't need
anything from
the staff,
even to
listen.
The
more manicured
version of
this position
is in a
posting they
tell
Inner City
Press went out
on June 17 --
when Inner
City Press
formally
asked about
the Mexico
City melt down,
after first
publishing
the story the
day previous
-- and then
was, they say,
quickly
replaced by a
post by Ban's
head of
management
Yukio Takasu:
Letter
from
the
Secretary-General
to all staff
on
Staff-Management
Committee
Posted:
Monday
17 June 2013,
New York |
Author:
Secretary-General
BAN Ki-moon
I am concerned
to learn that
discussions at
the
Staff-Management
Committee
meeting in
Mexico City
(SMC-II) ended
prematurely on
Friday
with many
important
matters of
concern to
staff
remaining to
be
discussed.
These include
downsizing,
mobility,
implementation
of
travel policy,
administration
of justice,
the competency
framework,
roster
management,
local salary
surveys and
performance
management. I
place great
importance on
consultations
with staff on
all issues
related to
staff welfare,
and remain
committed to
the harmonious
and
consensual
resolution of
all
staff-management
issues.
Regrettably
an
impasse arose
related to the
role of the
Committee
itself. In
2011 I
promulgated a
new
Secretary-General’s
bulletin on
the
Staff-Management
Committee
(ST/SGB/2011/6)
to strengthen
mechanisms
for
staff-management
consultations
by
establishing a
forum for
staff
and management
to identify,
examine and
resolve issues
by consensus.
However, the
General
Assembly
requested that
it be revised
in line
with existing
staff
regulations. A
revised
bulletin was
shared with
members of the
SMC to
facilitate
consultations
at this year’s
Staff-Management
Committee. It
better aligned
the role of
the
Committee with
staff
regulation
8.2,
stipulating
that the
Committee
would advise
the
Secretary-General
on human
resources
polices and
general
conditions of
staff welfare
but removed
the
requirement
for
consensus.
Understandably,
Staff
Union
representatives
at SMC-II felt
the 2011
bulletin
better
supported the
SMC and should
be retained.
They called
for management
“to withdraw
the proposed
changes and
send a clear
message to the
General
Assembly that
it supports
the current
SMC process as
key to
ensuring
constructive
staff-management
dialogue, in
line with the
Staff Rules
and
Regulations
and General
Assembly
resolutions.
The
unions believe
that
withdrawal of
the proposed
changes and
reaffirmation
of the current
SMC process
are required
for an agreed
outcome of SMC
II.”
While
recognizing
the importance
placed by
staff
representatives
on
retaining the
current
Secretary-General’s
bulletin, the
position of
Member States,
taken after
months of
discussion, is
clear. I
therefore do
not consider
it fruitful to
revisit the
issue with the
General
Assembly.
Regrettably
staff
representatives
at SMC-II were
not prepared
to discuss the
many other
important
agenda items -
in-spite of
the meeting's
agenda having
been
rearranged
specifically
to allow for a
full extra day
of discussion
on this matter
- until
the issue of
the revised
SGB was
concluded, the
draft was
withdrawn
or its
consideration
was postponed
until the next
SMC in 2014.
Under
these
circumstances,
and with no
possibility to
complete the
other
agenda items,
it was not
possible to
continue the
meeting.
While
I am very
disappointed
at these
developments,
I continue to
value the
contribution
of staff and
their
representatives.
With so many
significant
reform
initiatives
under way,
this is
particularly
crucial. I
remain
committed to
constructive
dialogue and
maintaining
continuous
contact and
communication
with staff. I
sincerely hope
the present
impasse can
soon be
resolved
through
flexible and
constructive
discussions.
This is in our
shared best
interest.
Ban's
UN does not
like dissent,
even if
productive and
constructive,
it
seems. Another
symptom of
this is the
fixation by
Ban's Media
Accreditation
and Liaison
Unit in demanding
the take-down
of even a
sign of
the new Free
UN Coalition
for Access,
which is
advocating to
maintain
pre-Ban
precedents to
cover the
Security
Council
and General
Assembly,
while trying
to leave up
two signs of UNCA,
the UN's
Censorship
Alliance with
which Ban
partners.
The
joke is that
Ban
wishes he
could find a faux
union like
UNCA. Watch
this site.
, 
