At the forefront of the opposition to UN80 is the staff union at the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG). Its Executive Secretary, Laura Johnson, has been outspoken in criticizing the initiative as ill-conceived and dangerously rushed. “It’s rushed, it’s the opposite of strategic reform and it risks leaving us with fewer resources while not creating any efficiencies.”

Union leaders argue that UN80 has less to do with the organization’s 80th birthday than with a prolonged liquidity crisis caused by the United States withholding its contributions. In response, Secretary-General António Guterres and his adviser, Under-Secretary-General Guy Ryder have instructed departments to make across-the-board budget reductions of 20% in their 2026 proposals.

Managers have been directed to assert that these cuts will not affect the UN’s work, a claim Laura Johnson finds implausible. “There has been no strategic approach,” she said. “We could have cut more in areas where others do better than us, in order to invest in areas where we have an advantage. Instead, these cuts will maintain the UN’s current pattern of operations at a lower rate, but they will be so painful that there will be no appetite for useful, more strategic reforms later on.”

She warns of the risk that the organization becomes weaker without becoming more effective. “With the US not paying, instead of asking other countries to keep paying or to pay more, as UNESCO did, the Under-Secretary-General is asking them all to pay 20% less. But then what if the US still doesn’t pay? Then not only will we have the US not paying, but the UN will have to do another round of cuts to meet this new reality.”

Discontent over leadership

The Geneva union’s criticisms resonate beyond staff concerns about job losses. At the heart of the opposition is a lack of confidence in the current leadership. In June, the union passed a motion of no confidence in the management of UN80.

“Our members simply do not believe that the UN has the leadership it needs, especially right now,” Johnson said. “At some point someone needs to say it, which is what our members did when they took part in our extraordinary assembly.”

Those views appear to be shared more widely. A global staff survey cited by the union found that a majority of staff had no confidence in Under-Secretary-General Guy Ryder, while only 18% said the Secretary-General was doing a good job.

Frustration over consultation

Another source of anger is the way the reform process has been handled. Laura Johnson rejected the idea that staff unions had been meaningfully consulted. “There has not been anything I would call a consultation process,” she said. “Instead, staff unions were invited to discuss mitigation measures and Member States were repeatedly told that this was a consultation. The unions asked to be included in the various working groups and task forces from the beginning and it’s a shame we weren’t.”

For the union, this exclusion undermines both the credibility of the process and the potential for reforms to succeed. “Countries will invest in what is useful to them. This should be the starting point for UN80,” Laura Johnson said. Instead, she argued, the Secretary-General has focused on criticizing Member States for how they draft resolutions and for requesting reports, measures that are key to accountability. “How will this make Member States feel more confident in us?” Laura Johnson asks. 

Streamlining or hollowing out?

One of UN80’s stated goals is to streamline mandates and eliminate duplication. But Johnson dismissed the approach as misguided. “Under-Secretary-General Guy Ryder has defined a mandate as a citation in a UN resolution. So he is asking the General Assembly to streamline its past resolutions. It’s a bit like asking a parliament to streamline all the laws it has ever passed,” she said.

She argued instead for rethinking the UN’s goals, with mandates serving as delivery tools. “Why not propose this? But this requires a vision.”

Relocations raise new concerns

Plans to relocate staff are also raising alarms. Laura Johnson said the rationale was misleading. “It’s been dressed up as moving staff closer to the ‘field,’ a somewhat contentious term when you look at its colonial underpinnings. But really this is about cost,” she said.

According to her, most proposed relocations are to other European cities: “We are not getting any closer to developing countries. We are simply fragmenting our teams and headquarters across multiple locations while distancing ourselves from those we serve most directly, the representatives of our Member States who are based principally in New York and Geneva.” 

This, Laura Johnson added, risks disproportionately affecting countries with smaller diplomatic footprints, those unable to staff multiple locations.

Filling the gaps

As uncertainty grows, the union says it is stepping in where leadership has failed to communicate. “We welcome ideas!” Laura Johnson said. “As well as advocating for staff interests with all levels of management and with Member States, we have been concentrating on filling the communication gap left by senior management by sharing all the information we receive.”

For Laura Johnson, the issue is not simply the protection of jobs but the survival of an effective, credible United Nations. “We believe in the UN and its power to change the world for the better. That’s why we all joined the organization,” she said. “Yes, the job cuts will be painful, but it is even more painful to see the current hubris and mismanagement of this organization.”