Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
The UN's World Health Organization ponies up some $200 million a year for luxury travel, including first-class tickets and posh hotels – much more than it spends on combatting[sic] AIDS, tuberculosis, or malaria, the AP has revealed.
According to internal files obtained by the news agency, since 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) has allocated $803 million for travel – approximately $200 million per year. The WHO's two-billion-dollar annual budget is made up of contributions made by 194 member countries, of which the US is the largest sponsor.
Last year, the WHO allocated just over $60 million to tackling malaria and $59 million to containing the spread of tuberculosis, while $71 million was spent on fighting AIDS and hepatitis. Programs aimed at containing certain diseases, such as polio, do get considerably larger funding, however, with $450 million allocated annually.
Though the organization has been struggling to achieve its goals, while at the same time appealing for more financing, its employees and top brass apparently do not shy away from booking first-class airline tickets and rooms in luxurious five-star hotels.
In particular, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan and Executive Director Bruce Aylward are first and second on the list of the agency's top spenders, according to a confidential 25-page analysis of the WHO's expenses seen by AP.
Source: https://www.rt.com/news/389198-who-travel-costs-report/
Additional Coverage: U.S. News & World Report
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:30AM (1 child)
or apply the same standards for those administrative/executive folks as the regular joe sixpack. That means cattle class everything and a limit on how much they travel per year.
Afterall if the ones paying for them, i.e. regular joe sixpack with their tax dollars, don't get business/first class and 5 stars and multiple junkets a year why should they?
Only very specific top brass in the certain government branches should have special privileges.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by zocalo on Wednesday May 24 2017, @09:24AM
The hotel suites is a different matter but, again, not unrealistic in the right circumstances - it's all down to the trip, who you are meeting, and why. Senior officials are often going to be meeting with other senior officials and national leaders that both expect and require a certain level of comfort and security; a low-end chain simply isn't going to cut it. You're also limited to facilities with suitable conference facilities, which again typical rules out most lower-end chains, especially if you are planning on meetings that are to go on into the evening, so it's highly convenient to have everyone in one place rather than scattered across several hotels in a city - all of which can push the bar quite a way upwards.
The specific use of suites is trickier, but again, for private meetings or prep work away from the main conference (which is where the real work often gets done) they can be absolutely essential, so it's really a matter of discretion due to the nature and purpose of the booking. If you need the extra workspace for whatever reason, or might need ad-hoc breakout meetings, then a suite - with the option of both formal table based and informal sofa based discussions - is a good way to go, and can actually work out cheaper overall than a couple of separate bedrooms and an extra meeting room or two.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!