variables. Hereiterated hisCommittee's viewpoint thatamargin comparison based ontotalcompensation wastheonlyvalidstarting pointforconsidering an appropriate margin. Withregardtothemargin basedonnetremuneration, he expressed theviewthataverage remuneration foreachgradeshould beusedfor comparis0n, sinceitresulted inthemostrepresentative corrparison. Discussion bytheCommission 56.TheCommission, whiletakingnoteofthemargin basedonnetremuneration at stepIofeachgrade, examined theinformation provided onthemargincalculated at otherpointsineachgrade.Itnotedthatthecomparison atthetraditional matching point,i.e.stepIofeachgrade,covered onlyasmallproportion ofstaff -15-,. Ii I61. con corn 62. corr gra com att the60. Sta not pur of and Uni Uni em inc ad 1.959. on in fed Gen of offthe bet re I I-16-inbothservices andtookthemintoaccount invarying percentagesJ inaddition certain paysystems, suchastheMeritPaySystem, didnothavestaffplaced on stepIofthescaleandwerethusnotrepresented. Theuseofthetopstepofeach gradealsoonlycovered asmallproportion ofstaffonbothsidesandafterfive yearsingradeassumed, perhaps erroneously, normalprogression through thegradeJ therefore amargin comparison basedontheirusewouldnotprovide results that wouldbetrulyindicative ofthedifferences inremuneration between thetwo services. TheCommission observed that,incontrast totheotherapproaches, the useofactualaverage remuneration notonlyovercame thedifficulties ofcomparison thatresulted fromtnemeritpaysystem, differences inthenumbers ofstepsfor eachgradecovering bothservices, andsoon,butinaddition wastheonlyapproach thatcovered theentirepopulations oftheUnitedNations system inNewYorkand theUnitedStatesfederal civilservice inWashington, D.C.Themajority of members supported thesuggestion thataverage remuneration applicable onbothsides should beusedasthebasisforcomparison. Itwas,however, feltthatfurther statistics anddataconcerning themeritpaysystem anditsapplication, including information onmeanandmedian payratesofallprofessional levelemployees, should beexamined before adefinitive decision wasreached. TheCommission reauested itssecretariat toprovide allrelevant information atitsnextsession soastoenahleittostudythematterfurther. OnememberoftheCommission expressed preference forthecomparison basedonremuneration afterfiveyearsin grade. Decisions oftheCommission57.Itwasrecalled thattheuseofthecost-of-living differential between New YorkandWashington, D.C.,emanated fromtheCommission's decision tocompare the Headauarters oftheUnitedNations system, whichwasNewYork,withthe headauarters oftheUnitedStatesfederal civilservice, whichwasWashington, D.C.Furthermore, notonlywasNewYorknottheheadauarters fortheUnitedStates federal civilservice! butinaddition itmightnothaveallthejohsreauired for thecomparison. Itwaspointed outthat,ifforanyreason achangeinthe comparator country occurred, thentheplacesofcomparison wouldbeNewYorkand thecapital ofthenewcomparator country. Oneoftheunderlying principles ofthe UnitedNations systemofremuneration wasthatofeaualization ofpurchasing power between NewYorkandallotherdutystations through thepostadjustment system. Conseauently itwasappropriate toreflect cost-of-living differences between New YorkandWashington, D.C.,inthemargincalculations. Somemembers ofthe Commission expressed doubtovertheuseofthecost-of-living differential factor inthemargincalculations toaccount'for differences incost-of-living between New YorkandWashington, D.C.,andwereofthe'clewthatthataspectofthemethodology reauired examination. Theypointed outthattherealcomparison waswiththe national civilservice andnotwithWashington, D.C.,andthat,therefore, the cost~of-living differential wasnotrelevant. Theyfurther observed thatthere weresome12,000professional employees ofthefederal civilservice intheNew Yorkarea. 58.TheCommission decided tocontinue reporting themargin basedonnet remuneration ascalculated onthebasisofthecurrent methodology. However, in viewofthe~andate inGeneral Assembly resolution 31/141 Bof17December 1976, section 1,paragraph 1,reauiring theCommission tokeepthemargincontinually
**Analysis**
The text appears to be related to the remuneration and compensation of employees in the United Nations system and the United States federal civil service. It discusses the methodology used to calculate the margin of remuneration and the difficulties in comparing the two systems. The text also mentions the cost-of-living differential between New York and Washington, D.C., and the need to reflect this difference in the margin calculations. The discussion seems to be focused on the administrative and bureaucratic aspects of remuneration, rather than any specific economic or environmental issue.

**Category**
Employment, International relations