The Foreign Service Journal, April 2007

A P R I L 2 0 0 7 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 5 I was shocked. Stung, really. Last November, when we con- ducted our comprehensive electronic survey of the views and priorities of the 8,500 active-duty AFSA members employed by the State Depart- ment, fully 65 percent of the 3,400 who responded (a whopping 41 percent of the total Foreign Service work force) said they believed AFSA should be “even more vocal and assertive” in future dealings with State management and the administration to advance their interests. Only 33 percent said they thought we’ve had our tone and aggressiveness level about right, while a miniscule 2 percent thought we should be less vocal and assertive. It was some solace that over 80 percent of the survey’s respondents were satisfied with our overall efforts on their behalf, though the results made it clear that they wanted a much stronger voice and firmer action in what they clearly view as a very difficult period for the Foreign Service. If you didn’t notice it, check out the article on the survey results in the “AFSA News” section of the Journal ’s January edition, begin- ning on page 57. The reason our membership’s strong desire for an even more aggres- sive AFSA posture shocked me was that it is my impression, and clearly the perception of State management in HR and elsewhere, that AFSA has recently become a considerably more formidable (and sometimes more irritating) “bump in the road,” to quote one senior official, than it has been since the Vietnam War era. We’ve been told on a number of occasions that ill-advised ini- tiatives have been deterred inside the department because “AFSA will never agree to that.” It is also my impression that, if one looks at how AFSA engages the media on professional issues — whether it is interviews with the national press or NPR, letters to the editor of major newspapers, columns written for the Journal , or the scope of AFSA’s engagement on the significant issues affecting foreign affairs and the Foreign Service — we have spoken up forthrightly, defending the FS as necessary (and frequently when State Department leaders have chosen not to). We have not shirked from point- ing out when, on issues with person- nel or resource implications that make them relevant to AFSA, the gap between State’s rhetoric and the reali- ty of the situation grows too large. It is important to keep in mind, of course, that as a government employ- ees’ union, our array of tools is limited and we must be judicious in using those we have. Strikes are outlawed and some issues, such as individual assignments, are not negotiable. We do have the right to negotiate rules relating to the overall process, as well as “appropriate arrangements” when our members are adversely affected. And we take this entree very seriously indeed, as the larger system itself often determines the individual assignments that follow. But it does happen that we have interests on both sides of an issue; e.g., filling positions at unaccompanied posts. So we both have to protect our members and see that the system generates enough vol- unteers to preclude the department from fulfilling its promise to use directed assignments if it doesn’t. The limitations on federal unions mean that speaking out — in essence bringing the weight of “public opin- ion” in the FS to bear on manage- ment’s perception of an issue — is one of the strongest tools we have. This is especially true given AFSA’s long his- tory and the expertise and credibility that stem from the fact that our offi- cers and board come from, and return to, the active Service. We often know the issues as well as management, have equally credible and often broad- er sources of information, and are bet- ter able to see the whole picture and foresee “unanticipated consequences” of specific proposals. One current example of our ap- proach is our response to the idea of creating a mid-level entry program. While such a mechanism offers the possibility to quickly add needed skills, address affirmative-action needs and fill other gaps, it would also bring a host of significant negative factors, based on a number of similar pro- grams that were major failures in the past. AFSA is adamantly opposed to mid-level hiring into the generalist corps, and we have ensured, publicly and privately, that the key officials in the department understand that. P RESIDENT ’ S V IEWS On Speaking Truth to Power B Y J. A NTHONY H OLMES J. Anthony Holmes is the president of the American Foreign Service Association.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=