The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2016

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JULY-AUGUST 2016 29 this euphoria lasts only until the couple realize that they need to start hedging their bets for the next round of roulette. To increase their chances of serving together, tandem couples utilize a variety of strategies during the bidding process passed down in the form of advice, guidance and mentor- ship from the tandems that went before them. These strategies include: learning common languages; being interested in com- mon regions; getting and staying on the same bidding cycle; and considering commuter posts, up- and down-stretches, out-of-cone assignments, Domestic Employee Teleworking Overseas assignments, excursion opportunities at other age n- cies, hard-to-fill posts, unaccompanied tours and leave without pay (LWOP). The last two strategies don't even meet the litmus test of serving together. Accepting an unaccompanied tour asks a tandem couple to split up temporarily in order to increase its chances of getting back together in the subsequent bidding cycle. Similarly, having one member of a tandem accept LWOP achieves the goal of staying together but fails with respect to serving together; one member of the family is left unemployed and without benefits, and the family’s income sources are effectively halved. Likewise, recent policies prohibiting tandem members on LWOP from joining the Foreign Service Family Reserve Corps or from applying for certain Expanded Profes- sional Associates Program positions have effectively eliminated most employment opportunities at posts. The reality is that utilizing any or all of these strategies may not even result in a tandem couple serving together. They are options available to all employees that just happen to also pos- sibly increase the chances of a tandem couple serving together. What they are not is an explicit and coherent assignments policy or process for tandem couples. Tandem couples are not trying to circumvent the world- wide availability requirement. They acknowledge that directed assignments are not limited to entry-level employees but are also possible for mid-level and senior-level employees, as wit- nessed during the wars of the past decade. They understand and accept that they, like all their peers, may have to shoulder one of these directed assignments that may necessitate serving in an unaccompanied capacity. In fact, one could argue that the unofficial motto of most tandems is, “It’s not a matter of where we serve … so long as we can serve together.” Just like everyone else, we signed up for worldwide availability, not worldwide separation—especially separation that is not directed and is based solely on the luck of the bidding draw. How About Some Assurance? What responsibility, if any, should the Foreign Service have in keeping members of a tandem couple assigned together, assum- ing that there are no extenuating circumstances precluding them from serving together (e.g., anti-nepotism and nondiscrimina- tion provisions, medical clearance restrictions, security consid- erations or post unaccompanied status)? For the last five years, Foreign Service senior management has been renewing its commitment to tandem couples and family placement, reiterating the importance and advantages of couples working together at post. But does this rhetoric translate into an effective policy? Many tandem couples would argue that it does not. Under its current standard operating procedure for the assignment of tandem couples, the Department of State com- mits to making “every reasonable effort to help both members of a tandem couple find positions at the same post” so long as these efforts do not violate other existing policies. While this sounds nice, helping does nothing to spare the tandem couple from the ever-looming threat of long-term geographic separa- tion. It is the phrasing of the next sentence that is striking: “While helping tandem couples pursue a joint assignment, the [State] Department will also ensure that other members of the Foreign Service receive equal consideration for the positions in ques- tion.” Why is it not possible for the department to ensure—rather than merely “help” with—tandem joint assignments while also ensuring equal consideration of all positions? We believe that it is. We believe that with some shared effort, creative thinking and structural policy changes, the Foreign Service could usher in a healthier and more stable era for tan- dem couples in the form of an explicit assignments policy and process for them. We believe that with some shared effort, creative thinking and structural policy changes, the Foreign Service could usher in a healthier and more stable era for tandem couples.