A visitor to Kuwait challenged me the other evening. She questionned why we (INGO workers) were paid thousands of dollars, yet the beneficiaries we were working for only received two or three hundred dollar income generation grants. Didn't I think we were paid too much? Wasn't it obscene?
In any given circumstance, this would have put a lump in my throat and guilt in my conscience. But she had clearly timed this challenge to have maximum impact. We were sat in The Chocolate Cafe in a leafy coastal suburb of Kuwait, and I was in the process of demolishing an extortionately priced chocolate desert. Ruthless, calculating woman. I would like to report that I immediately lost my appetite and couldn't finish my desert. Unfortunately I didn't - it was too good and too expensive.
Now, being accused of earning too much wasn't something I expected when I entered this sector. Not least because I'd come from a legal and private sector management background where salaries were far higher. My friends who are lawyers and managers still look at me like I'm nuts for working for what I do.
But it was a fair and unsettling challenge so I gave it some thought and we talked more. We discussed various possible justifications: the inability to staff the entire sector with volunteers; professionalising the sector not being feasible without professionals paid a reasonable salary; that it is linked to the budget and responsibility levels; and the need to compensate people for living in difficult conditions detached from friends, family and the familiar. And finally the assertion that actually they're not high at all.
I'm still struggling though to convince myself of the justifications. Pay levels are high relative to the beneficiary population because we're international staff. Which raises the question, why international staff. I'm still wrestling with that question. In the mean time, here's the pay structure for international staff in the relief and development sector. Roughly speaking, and from a positive of some ignorance, it seems to have 7 pay bands as far as I can see.
Level 1: Volunteers. Cheap free labour secured on the promise of a possible job and perhaps enough money to buy a travel card and Meal Deal at Boots for lunch.
Level 2: The army. Seems a strange inclusion but increasingly the military are implementing relief and development projects, to broaden their mandate and income and / or to 'win the hearts and minds' of the country they've invaded, destroyed and occupied. Becoming relief and development workers was probably the least likely expectation of these guys when they signed up and it shows.
Level 3: Continental Europe based INGO workers. For some reason a lot of the Italian and French INGOs seem to pay their workers relatively low salaries.
Level 4: UK based INGO workers. The volunteers who stayed long enough. Their pay is not far off the public sector and civil service. It's reasonable and it's possible to save quite a bit whilst overseas, and whilst single. Otherwise, it isn't a lot.
Level 5: Large US based, USAID funded, INGOs workers. These guys and gals are laughing all the way to the bank and heaven with a burgeoning bank balance and a light conscience.
Level 6: Private contractors. For a long time, relief and development was the domain of non-governmental organisations. The principles of 'not for profit', 'neutrality' and 'benevolence' was fundamental. Nowadays though we're increasingly seeing private contractors joining the fray, particularly in countries like Iraq. These guys charge as much as my lawyer friends.
Level 7: The UN workers. The UN gets a lot of criticism but it always seems to be focused on its inaction and inability to do anything without US endorsement. Someone though really needs to scrutinise the salary and benefit packages as well. The package is so 'good', particularly after you've been in the system for 5-7 years, that it buys the loyalty, subservience and compliance of the best of people. The result? The inefficient and ineffective bureaucracy is reinforced because no one wants to rock the boat and put their prosperous early retirement at risk.
In any given circumstance, this would have put a lump in my throat and guilt in my conscience. But she had clearly timed this challenge to have maximum impact. We were sat in The Chocolate Cafe in a leafy coastal suburb of Kuwait, and I was in the process of demolishing an extortionately priced chocolate desert. Ruthless, calculating woman. I would like to report that I immediately lost my appetite and couldn't finish my desert. Unfortunately I didn't - it was too good and too expensive.
Now, being accused of earning too much wasn't something I expected when I entered this sector. Not least because I'd come from a legal and private sector management background where salaries were far higher. My friends who are lawyers and managers still look at me like I'm nuts for working for what I do.
But it was a fair and unsettling challenge so I gave it some thought and we talked more. We discussed various possible justifications: the inability to staff the entire sector with volunteers; professionalising the sector not being feasible without professionals paid a reasonable salary; that it is linked to the budget and responsibility levels; and the need to compensate people for living in difficult conditions detached from friends, family and the familiar. And finally the assertion that actually they're not high at all.
I'm still struggling though to convince myself of the justifications. Pay levels are high relative to the beneficiary population because we're international staff. Which raises the question, why international staff. I'm still wrestling with that question. In the mean time, here's the pay structure for international staff in the relief and development sector. Roughly speaking, and from a positive of some ignorance, it seems to have 7 pay bands as far as I can see.
Level 1: Volunteers. Cheap free labour secured on the promise of a possible job and perhaps enough money to buy a travel card and Meal Deal at Boots for lunch.
Level 2: The army. Seems a strange inclusion but increasingly the military are implementing relief and development projects, to broaden their mandate and income and / or to 'win the hearts and minds' of the country they've invaded, destroyed and occupied. Becoming relief and development workers was probably the least likely expectation of these guys when they signed up and it shows.
Level 3: Continental Europe based INGO workers. For some reason a lot of the Italian and French INGOs seem to pay their workers relatively low salaries.
Level 4: UK based INGO workers. The volunteers who stayed long enough. Their pay is not far off the public sector and civil service. It's reasonable and it's possible to save quite a bit whilst overseas, and whilst single. Otherwise, it isn't a lot.
Level 5: Large US based, USAID funded, INGOs workers. These guys and gals are laughing all the way to the bank and heaven with a burgeoning bank balance and a light conscience.
Level 6: Private contractors. For a long time, relief and development was the domain of non-governmental organisations. The principles of 'not for profit', 'neutrality' and 'benevolence' was fundamental. Nowadays though we're increasingly seeing private contractors joining the fray, particularly in countries like Iraq. These guys charge as much as my lawyer friends.
Level 7: The UN workers. The UN gets a lot of criticism but it always seems to be focused on its inaction and inability to do anything without US endorsement. Someone though really needs to scrutinise the salary and benefit packages as well. The package is so 'good', particularly after you've been in the system for 5-7 years, that it buys the loyalty, subservience and compliance of the best of people. The result? The inefficient and ineffective bureaucracy is reinforced because no one wants to rock the boat and put their prosperous early retirement at risk.
No comments:
Post a Comment