The Foreign Service Journal, January-February 2023

24 JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2023 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL scorer. But the Participation Slate won a clear mandate to lead AFSA into the world of unionism. Then it remained to be seen whether AFSA could defeat mighty AFGE to lead the Foreign Service into this new world. The Showdown: AFSA versus AFGE E.O. 11636 and AFSA’s internal election were both completed at the end of 1971. The Labor Department then established the “Employee Management Relations Committee” (EMRC) to over- see elections in the foreign affairs agencies (State, USAID, and USIA) under the aegis of E.O. 11636. An administrative law judge was assigned the task of managing that election. On its face, the election was a David- versus-Goliath situation. AFGE already represented many in the Civil Service; it had millions of dollars to spend on cam- paigning; it could field scores of lawyers; and it was an affiliate of the all-powerful AFL-CIO. AFSA, on the other hand, did not formally represent anybody; we were financially insolvent (in fact, seri- ously in debt given the recent purchase of the headquarters building); we had no lawyers on staff (oh blissful time); and we were without institutional allies. But we had one huge advantage: We knew and loved the Foreign Service and its people, and that showed. At its early March 1972 organiza- tional meeting, the new AFSA board elected Bill Harrop as chairman and myself as vice chair, along with other officers and committee chairs. I was named “participation coordinator” with responsibility for obtaining a “showing of interest” to start the election process. The “showing” consisted of signed cards from at least 25 percent of the bargaining unit (2,000 cards from State, fewer fromUSIA and USAID) calling for elections. I immediately recruited fellow Young Turks Rick Melton, Jack Binns, David Ransom, and other stalwarts to go door-to-door in State’s halls and by diplomatic pouch to our friends overseas collecting signed cards. By the end of April, we had 1,000 signed “showings” from State alone. By May, cards were flowing in from overseas, and we exceeded the minimum necessary 2,000 cards, a number that was doubled by early June. Our Participation Committee became the Election Com- mittee. We petitioned the EMRC judge to hold representation elections in State, USAID, and USIA. At this juncture, AFGE, seeing our strength in gathering the showing of interest cards, realized they could not defeat AFSA in open elections. Calling on their platoons of lawyers, AFGE sought every delay pos- sible. They alleged the showing of interest was void because Bill Harrop was a member of the Policy Planning Council and that Hank Cohen and I were similarly tainted because we had served on promotion boards. Eventually, the EMRC dismissed these and other stalling ploys and summoned AFSA and AFGE (who had filed 400 showing cards that allowed them to get on the ballot) to a pre-election confer- ence in August. On Sept. 26, 1972, the EMRC judge directed that a worldwide union elec- tion for Foreign Service employees at State, USIA, and USAID be held during a 52-day period beginning Oct. 10, 1972. AFSA proposed programs strengthen- ing an independent Foreign Service and negotiations with management on personnel policies and procedures. But our main point was that we were, above all, members of the Foreign Service. To quote our final appeal: “Remember, AFSA belongs to us. AFSA has more active committee members working for you than AFGE has Foreign Service members. AFSA can take positions without checking with the AFL-CIO … or with AFGE headquarters (to clear the impact on the Civil Service). LET’S. DO. OUR OWN. THING.” State ballots were counted on Dec. 4, 1972. AFSA was the overwhelming vic- tor with a 75 percent majority. At USIA, certification of our strong victory was delayed by AFGE’s final, futile, protests. At USAID, management in extreme denial refused to hold elections. That silliness was overcome, elections were held, and AFSA won 80 percent of the vote. By the end of March 1973, AFSA Chairman Bill Harrop had received certification letters from the Secretary and the heads of the other foreign affairs agencies. AFSA now had the power and responsibility to negotiate personnel policies in the foreign affairs agencies and to defend and speak for their employees. Announcement of leadership turnover at AFSA in the July 1973 Foreign Service Journal A FSA News section. FSJDIGITALARCHIVE