SOLIDARITY... SOMETIMES? HELP FOR UN STAFF CAN TAKE SEVERAL FORMS
While the old trade-union song calls for solidarity forever, most staff in trouble would be satisfi ed with a bit of solidarity... sometimes.
Staff expect that a basic duty of their representatives is to help them in times of severe stress. These periods of distress can be related to their fragile contract status or even non-renewal, to harassment issues, problems with UN benefits, or dealing with the thicket of administrative rules. It is no surprise that UNOG staff may forget to vote, but know exactly where to find Coordinating Council members when they need solidarity and support.
While civil servants and, a fortiori, international civil servants are considered privileged and somehow immune to unforeseeable misfortunes, it is surprising how often solid citizens can suddenly find themselves alone and bereft.
Family problems
Staff members can find, for example, that
when their fixed-term contract is not renewed,
this leads to severe financial and family problems. Other life crises are related
to health issues, care of elderly or destitute
relatives, or problems with adolescents and
the law that draw them into complicated
legal problems.
The first duty of staff representatives is to talk with staff members, then direct them towards the most appropriate UN office or organ for problem-solving.
There are formal bodies such as the joint
Benevolent Fund/Fonds de solidarité, a
staff-administration body with a mandate to
consider very specific requests for financial
assistance in cases of hardship. But these
requests cannot be blanket, long-term solutions
or a social-welfare replacement.
Grants are limited and targeted.
For example, because of a sudden family
crisis, a school payment might force the
expulsion of a student; a brief and limited
bursary amount might cover that period.
Funds are limited, so loans or grants have
to cover very specific projects or periods.
Safety net
The UNOG Coordinating Council in 2008–09
decided to try to create an additional safety
net for those staff whose problems were
not covered by Human Resources or were
rejected as Benevolent/Solidarity Fund proposals.
Hence a block of Council funds was
approved for clearly defined hardship cases
when, in extremis, these other solutions fail.
Selection criteria had to be very clear. No favouritism could be allowed or even its perception. Specifically, the case had to have been first submitted to and rejected by the above Benevolent body.
The current, 2009–10 Council agreed at its July meeting to revisit the solidarity issue. Uppermost in Council members’ minds was ensuring that it had not become a ballooning expense that somehow substituted for other forms of support. The Council should not be seen as a “soft touch” for hard-luck cases that did not match clear criteria.
In practice, recent grants have been followed by reactions as varied as the cases themselves: some staff rush to repay immediately any temporary support. Others have great difficulty making even symbolic repayments.
In any case, some staff solidarity is worth debating in an Organization ostensibly founded on bettering humanity. It is the least we can expect.