The Foreign Service Journal, December 2012

50 DECEMBER 2012 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL AFSA NEWS AFSA Has Your Back When You Need It Most STATE VP VOICE | BY DANIEL HIRSCH AFSA NEWS Views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the AFSA State VP. Close to 85 percent of the active-duty Foreign Service are members of the Ameri- can Foreign Service Associa- tion, which serves both as the professional association and the union for the Foreign Service. Of the 15 percent or so who don’t join AFSA, many object to its role as a union. While some are against the entire concept of unions, oth- ers feel that membership in one is somehow out of sync with their role as profession- als. To quote one AFSA critic, “AFSA fosters a trade-union mentality among the Foreign Service, and promotes a ‘management-labor’ relation- ship between the Depart- ment of State’s leadership and the Foreign Service, instead of the professional- to-professional relationship that I think would be more appropriate.” Everyone is entitled to his or her own point of view on the subject, of course. Here is mine. The Foreign Service is indeed a profession, and a noble one, at that. Like doc- tors and lawyers, our tools are knowledge, experience and analytical ability, and our work product is based on a unique combination of those resources. Like military officers, we serve the most important interests of our nation, and have an ethical obligation to put our nation’s interests ahead of our own. It is a way of life, a higher calling, and a great deal more than a job. Unlike doctors and lawyers, however, we work for a monopoly employer. If a doctor disagrees with the personnel practices of a given hospital, he can change hospitals or put out a shingle and go into private practice. A lawyer or architect could do the same. We cannot. Unlike the military, we do not enjoy the due process protections afforded soldiers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, nor those soldiers and veterans enjoy under other laws. Key issues affecting our careers—such as retention of a security clearance, selection for assignments and promo- tion—are decided with little or no transparency, and in some cases, less opportunity for appeal than our col- leagues in uniform have. Moreover, the military has millions of voters defending its interests with Congress. Lacking the size and constit- uency of the military and Civil Service, we are a much more frequent target for political attacks than either. The Foreign Service Act gives our employer broad lee- way to establish and change the terms of our employ- ment, and broader leeway than the military or Civil Ser- vice employers to investigate us, discipline us or terminate our employment. That is one reason why the legislation specifically empowers AFSA to negotiate with manage- ment on these issues. Congress, representing the American people whom we serve, felt that fairness required giving us a voice in decisions affecting the terms of our service. Consequently, AFSA’s authority does not derive from its membership, but from law; and every FS member, whether they join AFSA or not, is represented when AFSA carries out its legally mandated role as the voice of the Foreign Service to management. That role is usually carried out collaboratively. Because most of our senior inter- locutors are Foreign Service members, and many are AFSA members themselves, the interaction is clearly between members of the same profession, occupying different roles in a process intended to make manage- ment aware of the opinions of the practitioners of our profession. The vast majority of our meetings are collegial, usually aimed at seeking fair, practical ways to achieve mutually agreed-upon objec- tives. We discuss terms of employment and service— not salary—and we seek to ensure fairness and due process in systems that are often far from perfect. A key component of that process is AFSA’s ability to represent clients in deal- ings with their employer, ranging from disputes over reimbursement for travel or medical expenses, assistance with assignments issues, grievances over evaluations, to responding to allegations in security clearance or disci- plinary matters. To be clear: employees who choose not to join AFSA do not diminish AFSA’s role as the voice of the For- eign Service. They merely eliminate their own ability to seek AFSA assistance in the event that they themselves, as individuals, require help in dealing with their employer. A number of such issues involve executive branch authorities not challengeable in court, and most involve regulations specific to the Foreign Service. Without AFSA membership, any career issue that may arise must be dealt with on one’s own, or with the costly assis- tance of one of a handful of attorneys knowledgeable about the Foreign Affairs Manual. The decision to join AFSA, or any bargaining unit, is a personal one. However, it is clear that those who wrote the laws creating the Foreign Service foresaw the need for collective bargaining to inform the broad authorities granted agency officials. The vast majority of our col- leagues understand that their own interests as profession- als are protected by having recourse to knowledgeable assistance when it is most needed. n