The Foreign Service Journal, December 2018

18 DECEMBER 2018 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL ated the International Foreign Service Association in 2009 in response to a series of sudden changes in their terms of employment and with the recommen- dation of an Office of Inspector General report. That May 2007 OIG report, No. ISO-I-07-16, had noted that Locally Employed staff is the only category of staff in the foreign affairs community that does not have any representation at the Washington level and recommended creating an organization representing this worldwide community of, then, 54,000. Local personnel associations in more than 80 countries chose to affili- ate with the association and elected a 13-member IFSA Board. Empowered by its constituency IFSA tried to engage senior management at the State Department in a social dia- logue. In a letter dated Nov. 25, 2009, to Director General of the Foreign Ser- vice and Director of Human Resources Nancy J. Powell, IFSA requested Powell’s “help to formalize a constructive work- ing relationship between IFSA and the Department.” Deputy Assistant Secre- tary J. Robert Manzanares responded to that letter thus: “While 3 FAM 7290 pro- vides guidance on establishing associa- tions at the post level, an international association, such as you are proposing, is new ground for us and will require coordination with our legal experts to ensure that proper guidance is offered.” IFSA sent three letters to the head of the Foreign Service, but each request for an opportunity to discuss the circum- stances that would allow both parties to work together to form a trust-building collaboration was rebuffed. State charged IFSA with trying to become a labor union, and asserted it was not in a position to recognize a union of FSN employees. In response to IFSA’s third letter, State argued: “IFSA’s stated core objective ‘to protect the interests and the rights of the locally employed staff’ reads as that of a union,” and “in compliance with 3 FAM we encourage you and other colleagues to raise such issues through post management to the bureaus and offices which remain com- mitted to addressing LE staff concerns back here in the department.” We were shocked by this response and felt let down by our employer. Unfortunately, no one at State saw the need to focus on IFSA’s other core objectives, such as its goal “to improve staff morale, better working conditions and strengthen the relationship of the locally engaged staff within the foreign affairs community.” IFSA could perhaps have changed some of the wording of its objectives, which in turn might have allowed the State Department to recog- nize an employee association. Regret- tably, the department never communi- cated to us the conditions under which it would be willing to meet us halfway. After several years of fruitless effort to engage State Department officials, IFSA saw only one option to break the dead- lock: team up with a U.S.-based labor union and address the State Depart- ment unionization issue directly. IFSA called on the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers to begin the negotiations, because it felt this organization had much more experience than IFSA with representing similar categories of employees within other organizations. Meeting a Brick Wall In August 2013 the State Department rejected a request from IFSA/IFPTE to discuss instituting a union or, failing that, an association to represent Locally Employed staff. The State Department’s chief labor-management negotiator rejected both, writing on Aug. 9 to IFSA: “Unionization at diplomatic and con- sular missions is fundamentally incom- patible with the basic functions and operations of such missions.” He added that unionization “could, frankly, put our foreign relations and national security at risk.” And he further stated: “The [State] Department has no interest in pursuing this discussion further.” That letter was only the final step in a long process during which IFSA had tried to engage the State Department in a dialog. But the reference to a national security threat was as painful as it was unnecessary. More than 12,000 FSNs work in security positions all over the world protecting U.S. diplomats, U.S. citizens and embassy facilities. And since 1998, many more FSNs have been killed in the line of duty than U.S. Foreign Ser- vice members. Unionization has never been IFSA’s pri- ority; emancipating the Locally Employed staff is. IFSA’s core objective is to protect the interests and the rights of the LE staff. IFSA is aware of the problemposed by 3 FAM 7295, which bars recognition of a union of FSN employees. But there are other core objectives of IFSA that need to be discussed and compromises reached. A worldwide FSN association could offer significant benefits to State’s mission by building a relationship of collaboration and strong, effective support for the promotion of U.S. policy goals around the world.