bout de papier, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1987) — Summer 1987 // Été 1987, pp. 6–7
More crucially, they fooled themselves through a tragic misunderstanding of the issues… and a misguided faith in the prowess of their own diplomacy.
Charles Taylor, Snow Job
On the eve of my resignation from the PAFSO Executive Committee, I felt that it might be useful to highlight a number of issues relevant to to the foreign service prospect in the hope of stimulating constructive discussion and effective action.
There is certainly much to recount concerning the brief period between the promise of last fall’s elections and the disappointment of this spring’s contract charade. Just a few memorable incidents include – fathers voting against paternity leave, FS-1s inveighing mightily against proposals for salary increases, and working level professionals speaking passionately in defense of management rights. Rather than dwelling on the amusing anecdotes, however, I’d like to begin with a close look at the question of representation.
Matters of constituency, ideals and consciousness are central to PAFSO’s raison d’être which, simply put, is to serve its members. Without fidelity to certain principles, PAFSO cannot be expected to operate effectively as the certified bargaining agent for our occupational group. If fundamental responsibilities are ignored, nothing constructive can be accomplished, and no progress made.
This is an important point of departure because of the widely held conviction (shared by prominent members of the contract negotiating team, for instance) that it is the proper role of the PAFSO Executive to represent the interests of management. This astonishing misapprehension goes much of the way towards explaining PAFSO’s frayed legitimacy and disinclination to act.
One might think it reasonable to expect members of the Executive to be aware of their obligations as set out in such a basic document as the PAFSO Constitution. They are not. This is no trifling matter; Article 2 is unequivocal in terms of mandate:
The aims of the Association are: to further the interests of its members, to protect the status and standards of their profession, and to maintain and promote the effective functioning of the foreign service to Canada; to act as the bargaining agent on behalf of its ordinary members: and to formulate and express the corporate view of the members on matters affecting them.
Ignorance of the fact that our primary responsibility is the representation of the views and interests of the membership to management, not vice-versa, is a very serious problem. It is the rank and file, not associate or affiliate members, (who tend to occupy management positions), who pay the bills and are our most significant constituency by any measure. In these difficult times the last thing PAFSO needs is an Executive committed to a vision of the union as the downward extension of management or as an apparatus for control. But this is, regrettably, the case.
It is worthwhile to consider how and why such views have found expression in the deliberations of a union executive. The answer, I think, is intimately related to PAFSO’s failure to respond to significant changes, over time, in the structure, culture and orientation of the Department. Everything has changed..except PAFSO.
A strategy of systematic collusion with management may have made sense once, but the returns have diminished dramatically. There is more to it, however, than increasing marginal utility. The costs have been real, and are growing. Members serving in Ottawa, for instance, now pay an economic and career premium to work at External Affairs. Remuneration, and the terms and conditions of employment in comparison to other public sector professions, have slipped appreciably. Promotion rates are already the lowest in the public service by a factor of three over the next lowest group and they are, incredibly, slowing further. I would add that it is FS-1s, whose economic and career prospects could generously be described as dismal, who have paid the highest price in this respect. FS-1s now seem to require an appetite for exploitation and desire for abuse in addition to the more conventional virtues of submissive and obsequious behaviour.
The modern bureaucratic organization is the only major social institution that brings large numbers of people together in a way that prevents them from developing a commitment to each other or to the enterprise.
Loren Baritz, Backfire
Over the years, PAFSO’s ability to produce tangible benefits for its membership has suffered as a result of the persistence of a fundamental contradiction. Specifically, the Association’s leadership has backed away from the forceful pursuit of members’ interests because those involved have aspired to promotion out of the organization (or, at the very least, appointment to “management exempt” positions, with the promise of greater rewards to come. With key elements of the Executive inclined to avoid any actions which might jeopardize their own career expectations, PAFSO’s overall performance has been, with few exceptions, insipid. Until service on the Executive is seen as something more than a vehicle for personal advancement, this situation is not likely to improve.
There can be no question that the combination of careerism and complicity has hurt us badly. And as if the legacy of cautious conservatism was not enough, PAFSO now seems to be approaching a catatonic phase. The timing couldn’t be worse.
There is considerable evidence and broad agreement that the Foreign Service is under sustained and systematic attack. Witness the proliferation of non-career appointments, the lateral entry of disparate classes of employees into the upper echelons of the FS group, the resource famine at the working level coupled with the multiplication of management strata…The Foreign Service is coming increasingly to resemble little more than a bureaucratic receptacle for wasted talent and frustrated ambition. Yet it’s hard to complain too loudly about a bad hand from a stacked deck when you’re in league with the dealer.
Last year’s elections went part of the way towards turning the situation around, but only through more far-reaching democratic action can an effective remedy be provided. Constitutional amendments governing the behaviour of the Executive in terms of conflict of interest are essential. Clauses covering discipline are badly needed as well. To ensure higher standards of accountability and to give the conflict guidelines some teeth, impeachment proceedings should also be included.
These issues could be addressed at the forthcoming Annual General Meeting, which might then be transformed into something more than an icon of apathy and disdain.
Tinkering with the Constitution could well provide part of the solution, but it is also clear that the entire operation of the union must be placed on a much more professional footing. Here there is enormous scope for reform, in such areas as office procedures and activities, the training and development of our staff, general administration, and, especially, in the way in which meetings of the Executive are approached and conducted.
On this point I must again digress: PAFSO deliberations have at times vested the notion of collective irresponsibility with a whole new range of meaning. Entire meetings have been permitted to disintegrate into a dark, visceral wilderness which would delight both Freud and Kafka. Quite predictably, the results have been textbook examples of squandered opportunity and the gross mismanagement of the decision-making process, punctuated throughout by manifestations of exceptional bad faith.
Given the prevailing adversity, this is unacceptable. When the blind lead the weak, we can anticipate nothing more than the pathetic posturing and timid twittering which have come to pass for activism. PAFSO must surely be expected to function as something more than a forum for the expression of the paranoia of the permanent underclass.
The temptation to surrender, or to draw together the wagons and adopt a siege mentality must be resisted. Instead, it is imperative that we respond creatively and move decisively to defend our interests. In this sense, and despite the uninspiring record, PAFSO remains the only game in town.
It is, moreover, modestly encouraging that PAFSO has come some distance since the days when it functioned as little more than a gentlemen’s club in which office was unquestioningly conferred by anointment or the pass of a baton. But one can’t become too optimistic — until we get quality leadership committed to representing the interests of members with courage, determination and vigour, the drift towards genteel oblivion is certain to continue.
In sum, PAFSO is in serious trouble. Continuing acceptance of a compromised and confused Executive, dedicated singularly to the defense of the status quo and propagation of the complex mythology which sustains it, will inevitably lead to a further loss of confidence. Notwithstanding the occasionally muted enthusiasm of our members, this crisis will be not only justified, but largely self-inflicted. By virtually any standard, great achievement has not been the hallmark of PAFSO’s existence. Such is the sad history of company unions. Languishing in the pale aura of grim tradition, PAFSO’s future will remain as bleak as its past. Lashed to the wheel in a deep, deep sleep, PAFSO can only be headed from whence it came, that is, precisely nowhere.
There is much to be done. If PAFSO members think they deserve something better, now is the time to act.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1987) — Summer 1987 // Été 1987, pp. 6–7. Read the rest of this issue →
