bout de papier, Vol. 25, No. 3 (2010) — Fall 2010 // Automne 2010, pp. 5–7
Editor’s Note: The new year marks 10 years that Ron Cochrane has been PAFSO’s Executive Director and 30 years that he has dealt with staff relations issues with the Federal Government; a good time for a little stock taking with a view to preparing for the year ahead.
bout: Congratulations on your first 10 years with PAFSO; what prompted you to champion the Foreign Service?
RC: Before joining PAFSO I served for 15 years as the Chief Negotiator for collective agreements with PSAC. I needed a change and I was intrigued by the challenges faced by Foreign Service officers and their families. I believed that I could make a difference. There were a lot of unresolved issues to address back then, and there still are — it seems that we no sooner get one set resolved than a new one emerges!
bout: What does our Executive Director actually do?
RC: Good question. My role is essentially that of Chief Executive Officer for PAFSO, reporting to the President. I direct and manage the office in all its aspects and I am the Chief Negotiator in our dealings with departmental management and with Treasury Board. In addition I am also involved in a number of different forums where issues that concern FS officers are discussed. These include the National Joint Council (NJC), the NJC Executive Committee, the Partners Committee, the Public Service Commission Advisory Council, and the Public Service Pension Advisory Council.
I am co-chair of the National Joint Council and my counterpart is Héléne Laurendeau, the ADM Human Resources, Treasury Board Secretariat. I also sit on its Executive Committee. The NJC is where provisions (notably the Foreign Service Directives) are negotiated that affect employees from the different Bargaining Agents and which have an impact on the public service as a whole. For its part, the Partners Committee was created to oversee the work of the recently established Public Service Health Corporation. There are six partners, three representing the employer and three from the unions. The two sides are responsible for the overall administration of the Public Service Health Care Plan. The third forum, the Public Service Commission Advisory Council, debates proposed changes to the Public Service Employment Act. The fourth, the Public Service Pension Advisory Council, covers issues concerning the Public Service Pension Plan and its members are appointed by order in council. This range of responsibilities gives me the opportunity to network broadly and to advance the interests of Foreign Service officers in a wide range of key forums.
bout: What kept you busy for the first 10 years?
RC: When I arrived, the biggest of the “unresolved” issues was pay; the Foreign Service had fallen far behind other groups in the public service. We needed not only to make wages competitive within the public service but also to bring them closer into line with salaries in the foreign services of comparable countries. At the time the employer (and employing departments) shared the view that the salaries of FS officers were out of date. The stakeholders, including PAFSO, Treasury Board, DFAIT and CIC, commissioned a study to assess the severity of the problem. It confirmed what we suspected. I am happy to say that we made a lot of progress on the wage issue in the 2002 round of negotiations.
However, the recent reclassification of the Foreign Service in 2005 (from two levels to four) has created new anomalies that have not been effectively addressed. Tackling them is complicated by the fact that classification is not something the union can negotiate under existing legislation governing bargaining rights of public service unions. Although PAFSO opposed the proposed four level structure in the reclassification exercise (we favoured a more realistic three levels), we were powerless to prevent it.
Spousal issues also greeted me on arrival. These included: EI eligibility for spouses; spousal employment at posts abroad; the problem of one income FS families and its impact on disposable income; and, the fact that FS couples typically have one pension on retirement with only halfa pension going to a surviving spouse. Those issues were joined by others. The untimely death of Glyn Berry in Afghanistan raised a number of concerns about the treatment of public service employees killed on duty. Many of those have been addressed, but they brought to light discrepancies in the provisions made for armed forces members as opposed to public service employees, and these need to be dealt with.
bout: Going back to the reclassification of the FS, what are some of the new “anomalies” you refer to?
RC: “Anomalies” may not the word I should use — “travesty” may be more accurate. There were three issues that surfaced during the implementation of the new FS classification standard in 2005: the length of the Foreign Service Development Program and what to do for the incumbents; the maximum rate of pay at the FS-2 level; and, the rate of pay at the FS-4 level.
The FSDP problem As part of the new FS classification standard Treasury Board decided to shorten the length of the development program for FS employees (FSDP), from five years to three. The idea was to bring this program in line with the Management Training Program (MTP) that was used as the template for the introduction of the FSDP. PAFSO sought to protect employees already in the program, or in official language training. We advocated that they be allowed to continue in the five-year program and, upon graduation, enter at the new FS-3 level. The employer did not accept this, employees in the program with less than the requisite five years would now graduate into the new FS2 level. A compromise was reached but proved quite unsatisfactory.
In the last round of negotiations PAFSO attempted to address the problems this compromise had created. We cited, as the example to follow, the protection afforded to MTP employees when its classification standard was revised. In effect, that protection was the same solution that PAFSO had proposed earlier. Nonetheless, the employer would not accept it as a solution. Subsequently, PAFSO was caught in the tentacles of Bill C10 that legislated pay packages — the result?…deux poids, deux mesures!
The FS-2 Pay Issue Among other things, the creation of a new FS classification standard was meant to address the wage disparity between FS and other occupational groups doing similar work within employing departments. For example, FS officers in the trade commissioner stream earned considerably less than their Commerce Officer (CO) group counterparts. In the 2002 round of negotiations we fixed this problem by ensuring that FS officers were paid at least as much as their CO colleagues. However, when the new FS classification standard was negotiated we ended up going backwards and FS-2 level employees received $10,000 less than CO-2s doing the same work. We endeavoured to deal with this issue during the last round of negotiations but met heavy resistance from Treasury Board. The problem persists as we were constrained by the effects of Bill C10. We need departmental support if we are going to solve this issue.
The FS-4 Pay Issue The new FS classification standard was intended to create a different career path for those specialist FS officers who did not want to pursue a management career within the EX group. Essentially the FS-4 level was meant to be equivalent to an EX-1. The rate of pay for FS-4 officers is now 4% behind that of an EX-1…PAFSO continues to pursue the issue with the employer.
The idea to create a new FS classification standard may have been a good one, but it has fallen short on its most important deliverables.
bout: what about spousal issues?
RC: We need to pay more attention to the recommendations made by task forces created to deal with them. The McDougall Report was tabled in the House of Commons as far back as December 15, 1981. Other departmental task forces followed, as well as an Auditor General’s audit. Although all echo the same concerns, none of their major recommendations was acted upon.
That speaks volumes about how the Foreign Service is perceived by both politicians and mandarins. As long as there is no respect, the inequities will persist.
As regards the current situation of spouses, plus ça change, plus c’est la meme chose. Three things must change: a) we need to create more real employment opportunities for spouses; b) we need to change the unemployment insurance act to end discrimination against spouses (they are deemed disqualified for benefits because they followed their spouses abroad and thus were “unavailable” for employment in Canada…yet when a prisoner is released from jail he or she is entitled to unemployment benefits — what kind of message is that?); and, c) spouses are effectively denied the right to their own pensions because working while on posting is often impossible for reasons of language, cultural differences, employment law barriers…not to mention the huge disparity in wages between Canada and much of the rest of the world.
bout: What do you see as the key issues for 2011?
RC: 2011 brings with it another year of economic uncertainty and political instability. Our collective agreement expires mid-year. We intend to pursue solutions to the problems generated by the new FS classification standard. Also, there is the five year review of changes made to the Public Service Employment Act. This Act governs staffing in the Public Service and created the Staffing Tribunal. The review is an opportunity to address some of the problems of the FS.
There are many other issues that need to be addressed. We need a level playing field for FS officers assigned to the hot spots of the world along with their armed forces counterparts. FS officers in Afghanistan know all too well the dangers associated with Provincial Reconstruction Team convoys regularly outside the wire. One serious challenge will be to find the time to lobby and educate decision makers so positive change can take place.
There is also the perennial problem of DFAIT and CIC trying to meet their mandates on shoestring budgets — with band-aid solutions. CIC continues to offer “training assignments” to non-FS employees on a single assignment basis for postings abroad. At last count 25% of the CIC Canada-based positions (CBS) were filled by single assignment employees. Unfortunately, the experience they gain is not as easily transferable to a public service position as it would be in a cross posting.
At last count 25% of the
The larger point being that CIC has had a chronic shortage of FS officers for at least 15 years and nothing is being done about it. Similarly, DFAIT recruits FS officers yet converts FS positions to other occupational groups. It too pleads a chronic shortage of FS officers but never really addresses the issue.
The latest band-aid “solution” is the creation of a rotational pool, made up of non-rotational CO and EC employees. They would have access to headquarters assignments and would be considered for FS positions abroad on a single assignment basis — without losing their substantive position. It’s not clear why an EC or CO employee should give up a secure and substantive position for a career in a rotational pool — like the FS — jumping from position to position every two years. By the same token, this rotational pool will create fewer opportunities at headquarters for returning FS officers resulting in many cases of potential underemployment. In addition, the department could lose valuable experience gained by FS career officers through progressively more difficult assignments abroad.
To add more confusion to the mix, new staffing rules allow all employees in the department — FS and non-FS — to compete for FS positions. That encourages employees to jump the queue, to avoid the arduous initial recruiting exercise, and the three-year training period. It makes a mockery of the FSDP apprenticeship program. None of this bodes well for a professional Foreign Service. Someone has to decide if DFAIT’s role is to deliver a first class foreign service or simply act as a platform provider for other departments that have the willingness, the budgets and the resources to pursue their own international program needs.
bout: Any last words?
RC: We need meaningful and productive consultations with the concerned departments to resolve these issues in 2011 — or any other year. We need to be heard.
bout: Much food for thought — and many thanks; looks like there’s enough here for another 10 years!
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 25, No. 3 (2010) — Fall 2010 // Automne 2010, pp. 5–7. Read the rest of this issue →
