The Foreign Service Journal, June 2003

Third Battle: AFSA vs. AFGE In its first post-victory state- ment, the new AFSA Govern- ing Board editorialized in the February 1972 Foreign Service Journal : “The historical era of administration by benevolent — and sometimes arbitrary — paternalism is over.” We were overly optimistic. It would take a yearlong slugging match with AFGE before representation elections were held and won, and the paternalistic system came to an end. After the Employee Management Relations Committee rejected our initial attempt to call for elections based on a “showing of interest” obtained under E.O. 11491, both we and AFGE began collecting cards again to trigger elections in State, USIA and USAID. At its March 13, 1972, organizational meeting the new AFSA board elected Bill Harrop as chairman and myself as vice chairman along with the other officers and com- mittee chairs. I was named “Participation Coordinator” with responsibility for obtaining a “showing of interest” — i.e., signed cards from 25 percent of the bargaining unit (over 2,000 persons) calling for elections under the new, E.O. 11636-mandated guidelines. I immediately recruited Rick Melton, Jack Binns and other stalwarts to begin organizing State’s bureaus, building on the work already done during our election campaign. We went to work to gather signatures and by April 1972 had over 1,000 signed “showing of interest” cards from the State Department alone. Cards began to flow in from posts abroad and by May 15, we had gathered over 2,000 — a number that doubled by early June. We then petitioned for representation elections in State, USIA and USAID. At this juncture AFGE’s “election” policy reared its ugly head. Their leadership knew they could not beat AFSA in open elections. Accordingly, they called in pla- toons of union lawyers to exploit every legal delay possi- ble. AFGE began by challenging our showing of interest and asserting unfair labor practices, alleging that Bill Harrop was a management official because he was on the Policy Planning Council, and that Hank Cohen and I were likewise tainted because we had previously served on selection boards. For- tunately, the EMRC dis- missed all those challenges in August 1972, and called for electoral conferences be- tween AFSA and AFGE, which had obtained 400 show- ing of interest cards — enough to get on the ballot. At the electoral confer- ences AFGE continued its stalling tactics. At one point an AFGE official offered to bet me that there would be no election in 1972. I took the wager and reminded him what Joe Lewis had said about the second Billy Conn fight: “He can run but he can’t hide.” On Sept. 26, 1972, the EMRC directed that a world- wide State Department election be held during a 52-day period beginning Oct. 10, 1972. AFSA proposed a 14- point program calling for, among many other provisions, an independent Foreign Service and negotiations with management on employment conditions and personnel systems. Our final point is worth quoting: “Our Own Thing. 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 (to clear the impact on the Civil Service). LET’S DO OUR OWN THING.” State ballots were counted on Dec. 4, 1972, and USIA’s on Dec. 15. at State AFSA won over 75 percent of votes cast for an exclusive representative (3,093 votes for AFSA and 1,050 for AFGE). We also won a clear victory in USIA, but AFGE held up the results by contesting sever- al ballots before the challenge was eventually thrown out. At USAID it was management, not AFGE, which stalled the proceedings, primarily because they simply would not accept the EMRC’s decisions about who should be in the bargaining unit. Eventually, USAID management relent- ed, representation elections were held and AFSAwon over 80 percent of the votes. By the end of March 1973, AFSA Chairman Harrop had received certification letters from the heads of all three foreign affairs agencies. AFSA now had the power and responsibility to negotiate personnel policies and procedures and employment conditions in State, USAID and USIA. F O C U S 32 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J U N E 2 0 0 3 The Participation Slate argued that AFSA could become an effective union while maintaining its status as a first-rate professional association. And so we did.