71.Therepresentative oftheWorldHealthOrganization (WHO)recalled thatthe existence ofparticularly highUnitedStatesspecial ratesformedical officers, veterinarians, nurses andparamedical staffhadresulted inabreachofthe NOb1emaire principle inrespect ofsignificant numbers ofhighlyaualified -19-i 'j ,j 1 "I l:Professional staffinthoseoccupational groups employed byWHOandsomeother organizations oftheUnitedNations system, andrequested theCommission totake thosespecial payratesintoaccount inUnitedNations/United Statesremuneration comparisons. 72.FICSAnotedthatsome30to40percentofUnitedStatescivilservants in positions comparable tothoseintheUnitedNations received higher remunera~ion thanthatprovided forintheGener&l Schedule. Thatwasnodoubtduetothefact thatthegapbetween thesalaries payable according totheUnitedStates Pay Comparability ActandtheGeneral Schedule nowstoodatabout18percent. The General Schedule wasthusclearly outdated asasolepointofreference for comparison withtheUnitedNations salarysystem. TheICSCstudies should encompass alllargedepartments withintheUnitedStatesfederal civilservice and arepresentative sampleofthesmaller ones. 73.TheConvenor ofCCISUAexpressed theviewthatfurther studies should be pursued, asrecommended bytheICSCsecretariat, especially aneweauivalency study. withregardtoSEG,heconcurred withtheviewofCCAQthatpositive correlations withjobcontent andpaylevelwerenecessary although hethought otheralternatives couldbeinvestigated. Henotedthat,although theForeign Service salaryscalehadbeenexamined bythe secre~ariat, noanalysis of expatriate benefits hadbeenmadeandthescaleatonepointwas27percenthigher thantheGeneral Schedule. Discussion oftheCommission 74.TheCommission notedthatitwasnotpossible todetermine thecomparability ofthesixpaysystems recommended forinclusion inthecomparison untila comprehensive eauivalency studyhadbeencompleted anduntilthepaysystems had beenfullyinvestigated. Withregardtothetreatment oftheSeniorExecutive Service (SES),theCommission considered threealternatives andfeltthattheone basedonarelationship between jobcontent andpaywouldbethemostsuitable. 75.Onememberconsidered thattheCommission muststateitsintention toinclude inthecomparison thosepaysystems oftheUnitedStatesfederal civilservice that wouldbefoundsuitable uponcompletion ofthestudy. Hemaintained thatthe present problems withthemargin hadarisen fromthenon-inclusion ofall appropriate Unit~dStatessalarysystems inthecomparison.r 76.Somemembers pointed outthatastudyofthespecial rateprogramme andother paysystems oftheUnitedStatescivilservice inWashington, D.C.,mightstillnot takeintoaccount thecomparative remuneration ofthemajority ofProfessional staffoftheUnitedNations systemserving atdutystations outside NewYorkand Washington, D.C.Inmostsuchdutystations, theremuneration package ofthe UnitedStatescivilservice staffpostedabroad, incomparison tothatofUnited Nations employees, wasbetter byamounts thatvariedaccording totheduty station. Threemaindifferences inthetwosystems werehighlighted. First,the wholerangeofallowances andbenefits received byUnitedStatesofficials serving abroad wassuperior tothatoftheUnitedNations system. Second, supplementary hardship differentials ofunitedStates ~fficials compensated staffmuchmorefor hardship thantheeauivalent UnitedNations scheme. Third,theUnitedStatescivil service hadnosystemofdeductions frombasepayand,infact,noofficial serving abroad waspaidlessthanatthebase,Washington, D.C.Theyweretherefore ofthe viewthattheCommission shouldstudytheaboveproblems further andrecommend appropriate actiontotheGeneral Assembly. -20-I I ~t d er L1 19 ler I I .~77.Somemembers observed thatseveral ofthepaysystems wererank-in-person systems (United StatesForeign Service andUnitedStates Commissioned Officer Corps oftheDepartment ofHealthandHuman Services~ and,therefore, primafacieitwas notappropriate toundertake ananalysis ofsuchsystems inordertocompare them withajob-content systemasintheUnitedNations. SEScomparisons should be considered onlybecause theyappeared theonlywaytomakecomparisons attheD-l andD-2levels. 78.TheCommission notedtheinformation contained inapaperSUbmitted byWHOas wellasthecomments fromtheWHOrepresentative onspecial ratesofpayfor
**Analysis**
This text appears to be discussing the remuneration and salary systems of the United States federal civil service and the United Nations system, with a focus on comparing the two and identifying potential issues with the current systems. The text mentions the World Health Organization and the International Civil Service Commission, indicating that it is related to international organizations and employment.

**Category**
Health, Employment