Salary System, wastakenatatimewhenthepractice inthe cornpa~ator country was tousestep11initsowncomparative remuneration studies. Secondly, thedecision tousestepIwastakenbeforetheintroduction ofthemeritpaysystem inthe UnitedStatesfederal civilservice. Theintroduction ofthemeritpaysystem, whichhadnostepsbutonlyarangeofsalaries within whichmeritincrements were granted, meantthatthecomparable points intherespective UnitedNations ard UnitedStatescareers couldnolonger be'.measured intermsofsteps. Further~ore, theuseofstepIlimited thecomparison toasmallfraction ofstaffinboth services~ i.e.only8.1percentofstaffinNewYorkingradesP-lto0-2and 12.3percentofUnitedStatesfederal civilservice employees inWashington, D.C.nder :>ns of to ~in itto rfor ;sion le .ted Marginatthetopstepofeachgrade tive e rom esult wasIre ~50.Thelimitation ofthecomparison toasmallfraction oftherelevant Ipopulation wasalsotruewiththeuseofthetopstepofeachgrade. Latest information showedthat5.7percentand4.1percentofstaffwereatthetopstep oftheirgrades intheUnitedNations inNewYorkandintheUnitedStatesfederal civilservice inwashington, D.C.,respectively. Theimplementation ofthemerit paysystemalsomeantthattheaverage numberofyearsspentinprogressing through agradewouldbesUbstantially lowerthanbhemaximum numberofyearsreauired. Thespanofthesalaryscales wasalsodifferent between thetwoservices. rea~~e the 'sAfterfiveyearsingrade 51.Thiscomparison implicitly assumed thatstaffmembers started atthebeginning -14-intof ex:II. 1.3as Icivil so obtained suItof repeated :?x:esIll, Hginon rade. 1the ~Nations 1trywas decision the ;tem, ltswere al'd lerr!lOre, ,th and m,D.e. topstep federal !merit ,through lred. leginningofthegradeandprogressed through thegradesinaccordance withthenormal within-grade increment procedures inbothservices. Certain difficulties arosein connection withthisassumption because ofgradeoverlap andthereauired numberof yearsstaffmustremainingradebefore becoming eligible forpromotion. Thus,the stepsattained afterfiveyearsingradevaried. Themeritpaysystem, whichhad nosteps,further complicated thematter. Average remuneration ateachgrade 52.Thiscomparison was bas~donactualaverage remuneration forvarious gradesin bothservices. Thisapproach overcame thedifficulties presented bythemeritpay systemregarding theuseofremuneration atselected points inthegrades. In fact,onlythroughitsusecouldeffects ofthemeritpaysystem intheunited Statesfederal civilservice beproperly takenintoaccount. Furthermore, the present comparator civilservice itselfusedaverage salaries initspay comparability studies andthismethod wasalsoapplied bytheCommission inits General Service salarysurveys inheadauarters dutystations. Theuseofaverage remuneration wouldrationalize thecomparison andremovethearbitrariness involved intheselection ofparticular pointsinagradeformakingthecomparison. Viewsoftheorganizations andstaffrepresentatives 53.TheChairman ofCCAQstatedthatacareful examination ofthesecretariat's analysis ofth~fourdifferent waysofmakingthemargin comparison hadledtothe conclusion thatthecomparison basedonaverage netremuneration should beadopted foruseinthemargincomparison. Theuseofthefirststepateachgradeforthe comparison couldnolonger bejustified following theintroduction ofthemeritpay system intheunitedStatesfederal civilservice. Henoted t~atveryfewstaff members wereatstepIeitherintheUnitedNations inNewYO',korintheUnited Statesfederal civilservice inWashington, D.C. 54.ThePresident ofFICSArecalled theFederation's viewthatthemargin basedon thecomparison oftotalcompensation provided amoreaccurate comparison ofthe relative levelsofremuneration. Hestatedthat,withthedecision toauantify the margin, itwasimperative thatthec0mparison bemadewiththeutmostaccuracy and thatthemethodology include theuseofl2-month averages forcost-of-living comparison between NewYorkandWashington, D.e.,aswellascomparison ofaverage remuneration ofeachgraderather thanataparticular stepineachgrade. 55.TheConvenor ofCCISUA d~ewtheCommission's attention tothedifficulties inherent inmaking comparisons between anational andaninternational civil service, forexample, gradeeauivalencies anduseoflocalconsumer indices, and notedthattheUnitedStatesfederal civilservice wassUbject toanumberof
**Analysis**
This text appears to be related to the comparison of salaries and remuneration systems between the United Nations and the United States federal civil service. The discussion focuses on the methodology and challenges of making such a comparison, highlighting the differences between the two systems, particularly after the introduction of the merit pay system in the United States. The text also mentions the importance of accuracy and the need to consider various factors, such as cost of living and grade equivalencies.

**Category**
Employment, International trade