4 ms·

I think you've missed the point here. It's not against traveling, but traveling in first/business class. Most other similar charities have explicit decree that

• zimzam 9y ago
  Having always flown economy I recently took advantage of a cheap, domestic upgrade to business class. I had to work while on the plane and I was noticeably more productive on the flight and less fatigued than I normally would be in economy. So I think there is an argument to be made for the following categories of trips to be a step above economy: * when the traveller is expected to get work done on the flight * when the time at the destination is short (1-3 days) and is densely packed * when the traveller is moving immediately from flying to being productive on the ground Otherwise after flying economy it would only take a good, relaxed meal and/or a 20 minute catnap to bring me to post-business class levels of productivity.
• John23832 9y ago
  And I agree there. If people are flouting the rules, that's an issue. However, the article seems to both say that some specific people spend to much on travel (which I can agree with), and overall shouldn't be spending as much on travel (which I disagree). WHO is a still a political organization, which works on medical issues.
• mcguire 9y ago
  Who are the traveling expenses going to, though? WHO staff is one thing, outside experts and representatives are another. And the latter is 60% off their costs, according to the WHO.
• dismantlethesun 9y ago
  But the WHO is not a charity. It is more something akin to the World Bank, UN, or IMF. Members typically fly businesses class.