The Foreign Service Journal, June 2003

ombudsman. However, he did not have any enforce- ment power, and could not make decisions: All he could do was make inquiries and recommend correc- tive action. But he did have official status within the bureaucracy, and was an effective gadfly. The existence of an ombudsman greatly facilitated my work on the Members’ Interests Committee. After I had researched a problem, I could take it to him with an analysis and recommendation. He would then carry the ball to the administrative bureaucracy. We were effectively joined at the hip, with AFSA sup- plying the complaints that he needed to justify his work. I was lucky that Gordon considered his work to be “problem-solving,” so he was always helpful. Working with Management After AFSA became the official collective bargain- ing representative for State and USIA Foreign Service employees in 1973, the Governing Board moved quickly to flex its muscles. One of the provisions in the collective bargaining agreement gave AFSA the right to submit proposals regarding employee bread- and-butter issues, and required management to nego- tiate with AFSA about such proposals. Those negoti- ations could eventually be taken to arbitration, so such exercises were not just for show. For this reason, and to demonstrate that its union activities were meaning- ful, the AFSA board wanted to engage management early on with proposals generated from its own ranks. Drawing on my several years of experience fielding employee complaints, I had developed a whole list of ideas about reforms in regulations, as well as expan- sions of certain benefits that were inadequate. Against this background, Tom Boyatt asked me to develop a set of formal AFSA proposals that could be presented to management with a request for formal negotiations. Because of the richness of my file of complaints, I was able to write a set of about 20 indi- vidual proposals for improvements, expansion, cre- ation or revision of employee benefits. When Tom and I presented this set of proposals to senior management in the Bureau of Administration, they were flabbergasted. They never expected such an immediate manifestation of AFSA’s newly-won bar- gaining rights. In addition, the proposals were pre- pared on the basis of very solid evidence that had come out of the complaint file. F O C U S 38 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 AFSA’ S D UAL R OLE One of our concerns from the outset was the prediction that AFSA, in becoming a union, would over time lose the professional dimension which was so important to us. The National Education Association was held up as an example of a respected professional body which added exclusive representation status and then gradually morphed into a union pretty exclusively. There seemed to be a kind of Gresham’s Law under which union responsibilities swept away the professional mission. Nobody could name an association which had successfully fused — and retained — the two functions. Well, AFSA has done it. Why did we succeed? Getting the negoti- ating unit defined so broadly as to include most senior FSOs was important, and possi- bly unprecedented. But I submit that the real reason for this success is the nature of the Foreign Service of the United States: its pervasive spirit of public service, its pride in quality and professional standards and its unshakeable attachment to the national interest. — Bill Harrop A former AFSA president, Bill Harrop currently serves as a retiree representative on the AFSA Governing Board and is on the boards of five other diplomacy-related organizations. An FSO from 1954 to 1993, he was ambassador to Guinea, Kenya, the Seychelles, Zaire and Israel, as well as Inspector General of the State Department and Foreign Service.