World Bank/IMF Employees Private School Tuition Benefit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. The situation is COMPLETELY different for Americans. Add to the list no home leave (which amounts to a free trip for a family every 2 years).

There are many serious drawbacks for non Americans, however, that offset this alleged privilege of the homeleave. For instance, if the employee dies or loses his/her job, the entire family has to leave the US in about a month, no excuses (no matter whether you have to sell your house, remove your children from school, etc). How about this?

This home leave and many of the other benefits were instituted with the understanding that working in Washington DC was in some way a "hardship" for foreign staff...so the Bank needed to accomodate people and their families for having to live in the United States (through home leave, educational benefits, granting visas for foreign staff to bring people in from other countries to take care of their kids [so that foreign staff don't pay nanny taxes], etc). I'm not convinced in any way that working in Washington has been a hardship for a majority of foreign staff, so I am not convinced that all these extra efforts needed to be made for them. The fact that most of these entitlements have been eliminated and we still have people lining up to get jobs at the Bank tells you it was unnecessary from the start.

[Anonymous]

ITTTTTA with PP.
I have always thought that an institution that claims to want to help alleviate and eliminate poverty should be based in Tumbuktu, for example, not in swanky Washington DC !

[Anonymous]

This home leave and many of the other benefits were instituted with the understanding that working in Washington DC was in some way a "hardship" for foreign staff...so the Bank needed to accomodate people and their families for having to live in the United States (through home leave, educational benefits, granting visas for foreign staff to bring people in from other countries to take care of their kids [so that foreign staff don't pay nanny taxes], etc). I'm not convinced in any way that working in Washington has been a hardship for a majority of foreign staff, so I am not convinced that all these extra efforts needed to be made for them. The fact that most of these entitlements have been eliminated and we still have people lining up to get jobs at the Bank tells you it was unnecessary from the start.




Your mail is full of misinformation. As an expat in one of the institutions you are talking about let me clarify

1. Foreign staff in these institutions – me included - most definitely pay nanny taxes.
2. The IMF still pays all the benefits and the World Bank still has a mobility premium for internationally hired staff though admittedly it is not as generous as the home leave and education allowances were and ends after 10 years.
3. The concept of expatriate benefits is not to do with hardship per se. The test is not a hardship test – the payment is to compensate employees required to live outside of their home countries by their employer. Indeed in some cases it is a financial incentive to encourage staff to move their families. Companies/institutions have and still do provide expatriate benefits for staff that they require to live outside of their home country. It is a means of helping families transition effectively and as seamlessly as possible into a new country and culture – which can be more difficult for foreigners than you might think . It is not a concept limited to the world bank and IMF. My BIL and his wife (who work for a private company) are expats from the UK to a “swanky” country and their company gives them both expatriate benefits including paying for their kids’ private education, their rent etc. If an American who works for a international company that provides this benefit is posted to the UK, that American will be provided the benefit even though it is not a “hardship” to live in the UK. The main difference between other companies and places like the bank and the IMF is that individuals are usually posted abroad for a limited period - say 5 years whereas at the bank and IMF they tend to be employed for longer indeed sometimes for life.

[Anonymous]

If you work at one of those institutions, by the way, these are officially business hours.

[Anonymous]

If you work for, say, GE and are transferred abroad, you are indeed being required by your employer to live outside your home country. In contrast, most DC-based Fund/Bank employees have chosen a job that they knew in advance would be outside their home country. If I, as an American citizen, accepted a job based in London, working for a UK company, I would not expect expat benefits.

Moreover, many expat benefits are no longer necessary or no longer serve their original purpose. Previously Fund/Bank families were not eligible for green cards. Therefore, the education benefit could be defended on the grounds that it allowed children to be educated in their home culture/language in preparation for their eventual return home. Today, they can become eligible for green cards, and many families settle here more or less permanently. Based on the (not inconsiderable) sample of Fund/Bank families we know, I would say that only a small minority educate their children in their home language. Many simply use the benefit to send their children to schools like Sidwell, Beauvoir, GDS, etc. Some choose WIS, but even there, the children may be educated in a language that is not the first language of either parent.

[Anonymous]

Actually, though, and I do apologize for going so far OT, the benefit I would most like to see abolished is the right to import cheap household employees. There is no reasonable justification for this perk, and the potential for abuse is far too great. And don't tell me the World Bank has a grievance procedure until you've tried telling a 40-year-old woman with less than a high school education and two children at home to support that she should file a grievance against the family in whose home she lives and works.

[Anonymous]

Maybe you should print this thread out and mail to the ceo of the bank. Maybe they will get rid of the benefits.

That oughta free up some spots for the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

The Bank already got rid of the education benefit for new hires. The Fund has been going through a big restructuring, and the topic never even came up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Bank already got rid of the education benefit for new hires. The Fund has been going through a big restructuring, and the topic never even came up.

The Bank did not get rid the education benefit completely. They now offer a mobility premium to replace education and home leave although it is not as generous and it is stopped after 10 years.