The Foreign Service Journal, January-February 2023

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2023 23 Labor Department was directed to conduct a negotiation among the parties (AFSA, JFSOC, AFGE, and State management) to pro- duce an agreed executive order distinct and different from E.O. 11491. An administrative judge from the Labor Department was put in charge of the negotiations. The Macomber-Bray discus- sions were now moot. The E.O. 11636 talks lasted for several months. AFGE and JFSOC argued to bring the Foreign Service under E.O. 11491. AFSA and State management argued for a separate E.O. 11636 recognizing the unique personnel system and working condi- tions of the Service. Management’s overwhelming goal was a separate system, as made clear by Secretary Rogers. To achieve this, management needed AFSA. This leverage encouraged management to follow our lead on the more “technical” issues, as long as we supported a separate system. In the end, the provi- sions of E.O. 11636 were much more union-friendly than E.O. 11491, which applied to the Civil Service. Specifically: ☑ AFSA was a single bargaining unit for all FS personnel worldwide; AFGE bargaining units, by contrast, were mini sec- tions of small units throughout the country. ☑ AFSA negotiated “personnel policies and procedures” on an agencywide basis; AFGE negotiated working conditions in each of thousands of bargaining units. ☑ AFSA only excluded personnel in specific manage- ment jobs, while all others were in the unit; AFGE, by contrast, excluded every manager broadly defined from the unit. ☑ AFSA’s negotiations were “rolling.” Either party could raise any issue at any time. By contrast, AFGE negotiated all issues during a fixed period every three years into a single contract. ☑ AFSA had input into the selection of members of the adju- dicatory bodies; AFGE had no such inputs. The provisions of E.O. 11636 made AFSA a major player in determining the personnel system and, therefore, the quality of U.S. diplomacy, while AFGE dealt with small problems in hun- dreds of small units. AFSA’s mutually reinforcing dimensions of professional association and union provided a unique basis for AFSA to become a major force in the Foreign Service world. Our duality continues to reinforce AFSA’s strength. E.O. 11636 was clearly much more favorable to AFSA than the Civil Service system. The AFSA Elec- tion of 1971 . The intensity of the E.O. 11636 negotiations did not reduce AFSA’s internal political dif- ferences. The contenders continued to, well, contend. Bill Harrop brought together holdovers from the previous Governing Board including F. Allen “Tex” Harris, himself, and others. He also recruited a more aggressive cadre of candidates including myself, Hank Cohen, and Barbara Good, who favored E.O. 11636, recognizing the importance of an employee-man- agement system separate from the Civil Service and the favor- able terms and conditions emerging from the E.O. 11636 nego- tiations. We called ourselves the “Participation Slate.” We were a coalition of political and economic officers from the regional bureaus, as well as secretaries, communicators, and representa- tives from the U.S. Information Agency and USAID. In strong opposition was the “Members’ Interest Slate,” whose core group was the leadership of JFSOC. Although supporting a union in principle, they attacked from the left, strongly criticizing E.O. 11636 and the Participation Slate for its alleged sellout by accepting that E.O. They opposed the con- cept of AFSA as both a professional organization and a union, and generally projected a junior officer image although their slate was diversified. For our part, the Participation Slate argued that AFSA could become an effective union while maintaining its status as a first- rate professional association. We supported E.O. 11636 because it emphasized the uniqueness and independence of the Foreign Service while providing a much stronger union role than E.O. 11491. Our goal was to reach out from the center of the AFSA polity to both right and left. The open meeting debates were sharp, with both ideological and generational overtones. Each side worked the halls of State and sought to contact friends and sympathizers at posts abroad. When the votes were counted, the Participation Slate had swept all 11 Governing Board seats. The Members’ Interest Slate fought well, their best vote-getter coming within 60 votes of our lowest In the winter of 1966, the future Young Turks began to meet in Charlie Bray’s basement to discuss how to improve the Foreign Service. COURTESYOFTOMBOYATT Tom Boyatt celebrates a union election victory in Washington, D.C., in the mid- 1970s.