The Foreign Service Journal, April 2013

16 April 2013 | the foreign Service journal speaking out oday is not “the best of times” for unions. The portion of the U.S. work force that is unionized has fallen to 11.3 percent—just one in nine employees. That’s the lowest level since the 1930s. Outside the Beltway, diplomats rank far below warriors—and the Foreign Service remains subject to confusion in American minds with the Foreign Legion and the Forestry Service. So what do these ominous trends portend for the American Foreign Service Association? AFSA advertises its anoma- lous hybridization as both a union and a professional association as a strong suit, but critics see it as possessing the weak- nesses of both and the strengths of neither. First, I would argue that AFSA fails the essential test of a professional association: the ability to determine the credentials and qualifications for entry into the career, or to ensure that members are periodi- cally recertified for membership. There is no professionally designed preparatory regime of study, or AFSA-devised exami- nation structure for FS entry. Nor are there are any “technical requirements” for joining the Foreign Service, such as entry-level proficiency in a foreign language. There is no post- admission “diplomacy academy,” other than A-100’s vague familiarization course, Unionization, AFSA and the Foreign Service By Dav i d T. Jones David T. Jones, a retired Senior FSO, is a frequent contributor to The Foreign Service Journal . He is the editor of The Reagan-Gorbachev Arms Control Breakthrough: The Treaty Eliminat- ing Intermediate-Range (INF) Missiles (New Academia Publishing, 2012), and co-author of Uneasy Neighbo(u)rs: Canada, the USA and the Dynamics of State, Industry and Culture (Wiley, 2007). and no systemic schedule of continu- ing education, such as characterizes law or medicine. Has AFSA ever made a systematic, sustained effort to push for the introduction of such requirements? Diplomats of other nations are appalled at our willy-nilly selection pro- cess, identifying individuals (often with no experience in government, international relations, U.S. diplomatic or institutional State Department history), and dispatch- ing them abroad labeled “diplomats.” If they are successful, it reflects individual expertise, not systemic preparation. Asleep at the Switch Although AFSA is legally barred from employing the strongest weapon a union can wield—the ability to take direct action/strike to defend its members’ interests—there are many other steps it could take. Instead, we whine, importune and send the equivalent of a flaccid note of protest when management tromps on our toes. AFSA also has little provenance over assignments, the essence of a Foreign Service career. The powers that be can arbitrarily assign (or remove) individuals from assignments, and we cannot grieve such actions. An ambassador doesn’t like you? Out you go. Someone more power- ful has a “favorite” in mind for a position? Even a director general’s decision can be reversed, without recourse. Oversight is a joke, as well. State hasn’t had a permanent inspector general in more than four years, yet AFSA has taken no action to pressure the department or the administration to rectify the situa- tion. Has it even issued a blistering press release deploring the signal this glaring dereliction of duty sends? As a “directed service,” we have many of the liabilities of armed forces personnel without commensurate compensation, benefits or recognition. For instance, how forcefully has AFSA lobbied Congress to eliminate the caps on payments to Foreign Service retirees in When Actually Employed positions? For that matter, AFSA still hasn’t suc- ceeded in obtaining full Overseas Compa- rability Pay for non-Senior Foreign Service members serving overseas. Given AFSA’s failure to fulfill its respon- sibilities on behalf of the Foreign Service bargaining unit, its members should be exploring the possibility of asking the American Federation of Government Employees or some other organization to represent them. That ‘70s Show Having been present at the creation— the vote determining that AFSA, rather than AFGE, would become the exclusive bargaining agent for members of the U.S. Foreign Service in the Department of State and the other foreign affairs agencies— I still vividly recall the combination of arrogance and ignorance that prevailed T