As
UN Under Ban Ki-moon Attacks Unions, G Staff & IBEW Engineers, Will
Labor
Fight Capital Master Plan?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 6 -- With the US polarized by fights between labor and
state governments, and with the UN attributing turmoil in North
Africa and the Middle East to employment and cost of living issues,
the UN under Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has moved on several
fronts to undercut labor rights.
For
some
time,
Ban's administration has been trying to break the UN Staff Union,
most recently by moving to no longer collect dues for it. Meanwhile,
it has moved to pay its General Service staff less frequently, and to
downgrade Tradespeople to general service staff.
Ban's
office has
been served a petition with hundreds of signatures attached,
protesting his move to pay General Service staff less frequently.
The
text of the petition, attached,
notes the UN's “United States Headquarters
Agreement, Section 7(b) which states, 'Except as otherwise provided
in this Agreement or in ,the General Convention, the Federal, State
and local law of the United States shall apply within the
Headquarters district.'”
That
then is a
question: does US and local labor law apply to what Ban's UN does to
workers in the Headquarters district?
If it
does, not only would or
should the UN have problems with the Democratic Party constituency it
works most closely with -- most recently in defense, along with Peter
King (R-NY), of the UN keeping $100 million in US Tax Equalization
Funds -- but also with the organized labor groups from the AFL-CIO
and Teamsters who are on the UN campus as part of the Capital Master
Plan.
One
labor side
observer mused that Ban Ki-moon is creating a little Wisconsin on the
banks of the East River.
UN's Ban & Kane over left
shoulder Alderstein at right, labor moves and impact on CMP not shown
After
weeks of
telling Inner City Press to hold off the story because negotiations
continued, on March 6 the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers union, Local 1212, sent Inner City Press and a handful of
other UN correspondents a press release about workers of UN TV, as
well they say of IBEW engineers in UN Radio and Conference Services:
NEW
YORK,
NY, TBD 2011: Local union representatives are preparing for
what they describe as United Nations actions' that could result in
bankrupting their pension fund and significantly reducing the size of
their bargaining unit. The United Nations has notified IBEW Local
1212 through its contractor, Priority Productions Services, Inc.,
(PPS), that it intends to remove seventeen union positions and place
them under the direct auspices of the United Nations. The individuals
hired in these positions will receive less pay than the individuals
they will be responsible for supervising. In addition to decreased
benefits, these individuals will lose not only their collective
bargaining rights, but also the protections provided by Federal and
New York State Labor Laws.
The
Union
is concerned that this is just the first step, eventually
leading to the UN's absorption of the remaining bargaining unit
positions by the end of June 2012. The Union currently has 67 members
employed as broadcast engineers by PPS at the UN. After this initial
"reorganization", the unit size will be decreased to fifty.
Although, the Union engineers have provided uninterrupted television
and radio broadcast, and conferencing services at the United Nations
headquarters in NYC for the past sixty-seven years, the UN seems
focused on decreasing, if not eliminating, the Union's presence.
The
UN's
actions will require seventeen current supervisors and
maintenance engineers to reapply for their jobs as UN staff employees
at a lower pay rate and with a considerable reduction in benefits. They
will have to compete for their positions with UN staff members,
as well as with applicants from the general public. The supervisors
and maintenance engineers may opt to decline to apply for the UN
positions, in which case they will automatically be demoted to
non-supervisory positions at a significant reduction in compensation.
The scheme will result in a ripple effect as one IBEW engineer will
be laid-off for each supervisor or maintenance engineer who declines
to apply for the new UN position. Additionally, the elimination of
seventeen positions would seriously impact the Union Pension Fund's
financial stability as there would be a reduction in contributions to
the fund. The resultant decrease in participants in the medical
coverage offered by contractor PPS may also lead to an increase cost
for the remaining engineers.
The
UN
intends to implement these changes on June 30, 2011 when the
current union contract expires. The United Nations has stated that
its plan is a cost cutting measure that will provide the UN with
continuity. Union representatives have offered cooperation in
negotiating an alternative resolution with the UN in exchange for
protecting the collective bargaining rights of its members. The
union maintains that it is prepared to offer workable, alternative
scenarios. The UN has not commented.
Inner
City Press
previously
covered when the UN, under officials Angela Kane,
Andrew Nye and Joan
McDonald, gave the contract for this work to sports broadcasting
company Venue Services Group on the verge of bankruptcy which as it
shrank moved its
furniture inside the UN for storage. Now Ms. McDonald is back, as one
of many Ban administration returning
retirees, making new decisions, with no accountability, some say.
But this time, with the CMP underway
and being questioned, there could be consequences for these
anti-labor moves. Watch this site.
* * *
Despite
Scathing
Audit of PWC Wrongly Selected, UN Claims All Fine With Umoja
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 5 -- Even in those instances when the UN is
forced to catch itself in irregularities, in overpaying for services,
hiring friends and cronies, rather than answer questions or take
action, it makes accusations of error and clings to the status quo.
A
year ago, Inner
City Press wrote
and asked
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin
Nesirky about a pattern of hiring fraud, including the doctoring of
resumes to omit previous supervisory relationships, documented in
resumes leaked to Inner City Press by a whistleblower.
While
there was
not definitive answer at the time, an audit by the UN's Office of
Internal Oversight Services verified all of these irregularities,
resume doctoring and more, including overpaying
PriceWaterhouseCoopers for a contract for the UN's Enterprise
Resource Management, called UMOJA.
Inner
City Press
asked Nesirky for a response, but received more. Finally last week
Inner City Press exclusively published
the complete
OIOS audit -- click here to view
-- and
on the morning of March 1 asked Nesirky in writing:
Paragraph
73
of the OIOS
audit states that Angela Kane accepted responsibility
for identifying who should be held accountable for procurement
irregularities relating to her department's award of a contract to
PriceWaterhouseCoopers. The same paragraph states that her office
agreed to issue a report within 30 days, the deadline of which would
have been September 24th, 2010. So the question is, did Angela Kane
identify who was responsible for these irregularities by September
24, 2010, and who, if anyone, was held accountable? Does Angela Kane
still believe that Paul van Essche is the right man for the job, and
did she know Mr van Essche prior to his appointment as Umoja chief?
Nesirky
didn't
respond to the question, or even acknowledge receipt of the e-mail.
So at the noon briefing, Inner City Press in person asked
him:
Inner
City
Press: on OIOS, I had wanted to ask this; it has been a long
time brewing. Almost a year ago there was this, issues arose about
the hiring within the Umoja project, about Paul van Essche hiring
friends and colleagues in violation of rules. And now the OIOS
report itself has become public, and in it, it says, it’s pretty
damning, it talks about PricewaterhouseCoopers not being a low
bidder; talks about all the hiring, and it says, Angela Kane said
that she would respond to this report and take action in some way on
accountability by 24 September last year, 2010. So, I am wondering, I
know you didn’t; I am not sure if you have issued some kind of a
statement about this yet, what action has been taken on this OIOS
report about systematic problems within the $300 million Umoja
project?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Two things: One is that we’ve answered at length and on
more than one occasion on this topic, and I don’t really have
anything to add except, for a second point, which is that some
aspects of the audit report are being still closely studied, to look
at what action may be needed. And that is all I have to say on it.
Inner
City
Press: But I mean, if it paints a picture of hiring
irregularities, and is PricewaterhouseCoopers, given this report, do
they still have the contract? What, I just want, I know that you
have issued something, but I am not sure as to the two main
components, the head of Umoja and PWC; what’s happening?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
We’ve issued quite a lot of detailed responses to
questions on this from you and from others, and I don’t have
anything further to add.
Inner
City
Press: But I haven’t really seen the response.
Spokesperson
Nesikry:
I don’t have anything further to add at this point,
Matthew.
Later
on March 1,
Inner City Press e-mailed Nesirky asking to see these supposed
previous answers:
“What
answers have you previously provided to the media inquiring about the
OIOS audit of Umoja, and what's the basis of your statement today at
noon that you have provided extensive answers to such questions.
Please provide the answers you referred to.”
The next day,
Nesirky sent this:
From:
UN
Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Wed, Mar 2, 2011
at 10:56 AM
Subject: Your questions on Umoja
To: Matthew.Lee
[at] innercitypress.com
Cc: Martin Nesirky [at] un.org
Hi
--
you had received the following answers on Umoja on 14 February; we
have nothing to add at this time.
[Q]
Last week you said you were still developing a response to the WSJ
story about OIOS having found serious irregularities concerning Paul
van Essche's management of the Umoja project. In March of last year,
you confirmed in response to my question that OIOS was undertaking a
separate investigation of van Escche's role in concealing his prior
relationship with a subordinate he hired for the project.
Now
it
is reported that “Van Essche... hired one official, who had been
turned down for a lower post, to a more senior position when he took
over the project, the report said. This official was hired after he
changed his CV to remove Van Essche’s name as his supervisor in
three previous jobs, the report says.”
Question
1
Please
this morning provide an update about these two investigations -- what
were the results of them, and what action is the SG taking, if any?
And does the SG still believe that Mr Van Escche is the right man for
implementing the Umoja project?
The
questions
raised relate to issues that were reported in August 2010
in an internal audit conducted by OIOS. As part of that audit
process, management responded to the findings and recommendations. In
some cases the recommendations were accepted and implemented and
in other management undertook to conduct further examinations in
order to close the recommendation. This examination by management
is still in progress and we have no further comment to make at this
stage.
Question
2
Also,
please confirm that Ludovic van Essche, who worked for the UN, was
Paul Van Escche's father, and that Paul Van Escche's mother knows and
visited Angela Kane recently. Also, please state the status of Ms.
Kane as head of the Department of Management, and when she will give
the next of her promised briefings.
The
UN
Secretariat is not aware of any person by the name of Ludovic van
Essche being a UN employee. Ms. Kane does not know Paul van Essche's
mother and has never met her.
But
back on
February 15, Inner City Press had asked a follow up question, which
Nesirky never answered or acknowledged:
In
light
of yesterday's van Essche family answers, please see
http://news.rootsweb.com/th/read/BELGIUM-ROOTS/1998-10/0909790152
and
http://bit.ly/gXn2BG
Is
this
Paul van Essche's father? Does Ms. Kane not know him? Again,
what is Ms. Kane's status as head of the Department of Management?
When will she belatedly give a briefing?
Not
only has
Angela Kane not given a briefing, Nesirky has not even acknowledged
the repeated request that she give one. In the interim, after Inner
City Press' exclusive publication of the OIOS audit, in connection
with a meeting of Kane's Department of Management, the following
e-mail was widely sent out in the Department of Management by a
whisteblower or reformer, including the OIOS audit as
exclusively published by Inner City Press
From:
[ ] @gmail.com
Today,
Ms.
Kane is conducting a Town Hall on Accountability in the UN. What
a hypocrisy? Attached is an audit report of a division reporting
directly to her. What has she done about it? Nothing!!! Any other
person doing half of this would have been immediately suspended or
fired. According to OIOS, there before has there been a single
person who violates as many serious rules and in such a short time.
Ms.
Kane,
accountability is not lip service. It is through actions –
direct and indirect. And also appearing to be accountable. Leaders
set examples for everyone to follow; not set up different rules for
themselves and their friends.
Many
attendees
forwarded this e-mail to Inner City Press, and reported on growing
questions about Ms. Kane and more senior UN leadership. Finally,
after refusing to answer or acknowledge questions or requests for a
briefing by Ms. Kane, on Friday March 4 Nesirky's office sent the
following, which despite substantial contradiction by the OIOS report
itself, we publish in full:
From:
UN
Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [a] un.org
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011
at 10:56 AM
Subject: Response to your reporting on the Umoja
project
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Cc: Martin
Nesirky [at] un.org>
In
response
to your queries related to the Umoja project I would like to
share some clarifications:
The
article
of the Inner City Press entitled "UN
Corruption Scandal
in ERP Extends from Hiring & PWC to Capital Master Plan",
dated 28 February 2010, contains a number of errors.
There
is
no "corruption scandal" related to the Umoja project as
the title of the article erroneously suggests.
No
vendor
was favoured over other bidders during the selection process.
Bids were compared on a like-for-like basis rather than at face value
to ensure a common factor for evaluation. The evaluation was
conducted on an overall best value for money basis, and PwC received
the highest combined score.
Prior
to
the awarding of the contract, the case was referred to the
Headquarters Committee on Contracts for review to ensure adherence to
the UN Financial Regulations governing procurement. The Committee
examined the summarized technical and financial evaluations of the
proposals received from vendors and concluded that no breach of UN
financial rules occurred in the procurement process.
The
allocated
budget for project design services has not been and indeed
cannot be exceeded, as the contract and the UN financial rules
prevent any expenditure from going above the budgetary limit. So
under any circumstances, the vendor cannot bill the Organization
above the specified budgetary limit. Payment under the contract is
contingent on the actual delivery of services.
The
OIOS
report that you refer to is an audit report that was prepared as
part of regular programme of work of the Office of Internal Oversight
Services. As per standard practice, accepted audit recommendations
have been referred to the substantive areas and are at various stages
of implementation.
Umoja
maintains
a "zero tolerance" policy, insisting on 100 per
cent compliance with the UN's rules, regulations and ethical
directives. It is an initiative that is fundamental to the
Secretary-General's ability to provide an efficient, transparent and
service-oriented Secretariat. Umoja will enhance accountability,
transparency and internal controls for all types of resources.
While
we publish
this in full, it should be compared to the OIOS audit
itself, and to
the timeline above. Among many others, this question remains
unanswered:
Paragraph
73
of the OIOS audit states that Angela Kane accepted responsibility
for identifying who should be held accountable for procurement
irregularities relating to her department's award of a contract to
PriceWaterhouseCoopers. The same paragraph states that her office
agreed to issue a report within 30 days, the deadline of which would
have been September 24th, 2010. So the question is, did Angela Kane
identify who was responsible for these irregularities by September
24, 2010, and who, if anyone, was held accountable? Does Angela Kane
still believe that Paul van Essche is the right man for the job, and
did she know Mr van Essche prior to his appointment as Umoja chief?
This
UN
does not appear to be accountable or well run, including to many
of those who work within it and of the wider public. Watch this site.
Click
for
Mar 1, '11
BloggingHeads.tv re Libya, Sri Lanka, UN Corruption
, 
