bout de papier, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1987) — Summer 1987 // Été 1987, pp. 4–5
Stephen Lewis, the self-declared socialist Excellency, held forth to a packed breakfast meeting of PAFSO the other day. Renowned for his grasp of the English language, he delivered a lively polemic on the plight of Africa. He is convincing even when he is being outrageous. Time has rubbed some of the rougher edges off him but the discipline of power has tempered none of his passion. He still has fire in his belly. He is especially popular with the junior set at his mission in New York. It is not hard to see why. He inspires a certain confidence and possesses a kind of charisma. He hath solitary certitude of light.
One old head, wise in the ways of the Department, put the final question of the day to Mr. Lewis. In anyone younger it might have been dismissed as impertinent; he spoke of political appointments and Lewis’ unique perspective. Lewis had the grace to look uncomfortable, and the wit of mind to admit such nominees should be first-rate and nominal. He noted, however, that outsiders have no monopoly on mediocrity. A fair riposte.
This excellent socialist could not let the moment pass without a cri de coeur on feminism and the requirement for more women in senior positions. That skirts are in and trousers out is bandied about whenever conversation turns to head of post assignments. Even the Under-Secretary has entered the debate. I am told he noted at a recent luncheon for officers that the paucity of women heads of post, a known bugbear of the current Minister, was due in part because some women would not accept such appointments saying they were not ready for the task. Mr. Taylor’s remarks were considered tactless and angered some colleagues who muttered unkind words about the unnatural fears of middle-aged men. If they were, it would be out of character for a man who is generally seen as gentle. One hard truth, however, is that the Department does not meet the requirements set by affirmative action policies as regards representation by the fair sex.
That politics plays its part in the zealous pursuit of this aspect of affirmative action one need only listen to Conservatives on the stump. The boilerplate on women inevitably includes reference to the number of women they have appointed ambassadors – 13 and counting. Ms. McTeer, Wife Of, has devoted her column in the July Chatelaine to a profile of these ladies. Interestingly, there is no allusion to the party connections of Pierrette Lucas (she was a former federal candidate, an aide to Mr. Clark when he was leader of the Conservative party and the only head of post to survive in that role after the recent post closures) and Joan Price Winser (she was President of the Westmount Conservative Party when Mr. Mulroney lived on that hill). Are they where they are because they were good “party” people or because they are women?
Affirmative action is a controversial policy. Promoting one group over another to correct perceived historical injustices is a very tricky thing to accomplish. It raises many unsettling questions. At what point, for example, will the government decide that persons who have been “victims”, personally or through their ancestors be restored to “the position they would have occupied” but for discrimination? Another truth is that talents will never be equally distributed nor equally rewarded.
Affirmative action emphasizes entitlement and preference on the basis of such distinctions as sex, mother tongue or race. To be successful it mandates preference to all four steps in the employment process: recruitment, hiring, promotion and firing. In practise government enforced “goals” can lead to reverse discrimination in the form of quotas, whether acknowledged or surreptitious. This flies in the face of the merit principle and equality of treatment. It also repudiates the principle of our legal system and political order that justice can only result from considering the rights and interests of individuals. The idea behind affirmative action is that justice results from governments assigning rights and benefits to specific groups. There remains much debate on its efficacy, both in theory and in practise.
Appointing pals to office in the name of affirmative action is doubly dubious. Abusing what can be a questionable approach with the crass politics of a sexual spoils system can only further demean whatever worthy objectives such a policy is designed to achieve.
Mr. Lewis concluded his lively address with some caustic comments on PAFSO. “A more namby-pamby union, I’ve never seen…A real union would take a much stronger stand on political appointments… PAFSO reps don’t walk into management offices, they crawl…”. He offered to advise the association on how to run a union after he is relieved of his ambassadorial responsibilities. His comments are outrageous but not without some foundation. I wonder if the issue is not more complicated than simply meekness on the part of union leaders portrayed as Uncle Toms. The basic problem is the schizophrenic nature of an organization and membership that has never come to terms with itself: is it a trade union or is it a professional association? While in the past we were essentially an association of professionals, more and more, especially during contract negotiations, we find ourselves having to act as a trade union. But the unique nature of the foreign service does not readily fit into the rules and regulations set by Treasury Board for the rest of the domestic service. This could be largely addressed by legislating a Foreign Service Act, an idea whose time has come and which, like Cato, we cry for again.
Now that the Mighty Helmsman has heeded his Prime Minister’s call to duty we fear the proposal may slip back into oblivion. It should not. The Foreign Service is continuing to evolve. Should the Government heed the recommendation on decentralization of CIDA’s activities contained in the Winegard Report on Canadian Development Assistance, we may see another burgeoning of our ranks abroad. The terms and conditions which Treasury Board applies to the domestic service in Canada do not travel well abroad. We need a Foreign Service Act which addresses these concerns. Now this would be a project worthy of Mr. Lewis’ talents!
As for the lackies in the PAFSO Executive, the old order changeth, to use Tennyson, yielding place to new as postings and accession to management takes its toll. Of the five veterans from the bad old days when selection was by anointment rather than ballot only Gordon Morrison remains. Rob Mackenzie ascended to the office of executive assistant to Gerry Shannon shortly after the elections. Len Mader, the president becomes Director of the Domestic Communications Division. Jon Fried, our Chief Negotiator for the Contract, leaves for Washington. I leave for Hong Kong. In other moves, Professional Committee chairman David Adam leaves for Caracas. Daryl Copeland, PAFSO’s young turk and author of a lively depêche d’adieu in this issue, leaves for Addis Ababa. Jean Roberge, Cécile Latour, and Richard Crouch have already departed. In a move, hotly debated, the Executive decided in favour of annual by-elections to replace departing members. The thought is to have annual elections which would elect half the Executive members for a two year term. Members leaving between elections would be replaced on an interim basis, and with due consideration to sex, creed, steam, mother tongue, etc., until the next election. Democracy has its discontents but to paraphrase the Great Commoner, there is still no better alternative. Sitting with some of the class of the mid-seventies in the cafeteria the other day, we wondered why it was the best of the fast-track set often made the worst of managers. Having made their reputations as clever desk officers stickhandling their way through the daily rigour of unnecessary but perpetual crisis-management they have never adjusted their work habits. It is not a new complaint. Perhaps it is the inevitable consequence of a competitive system which puts so much emphasis on individual performance. Administering others is too often dismissed as counterproductive; something best left to lesser beings. Unhappily, it has produced some rather dreadful results. I recently read a relevant comment by Ronald Spiers, Under-Secretary of State for Management in the US State Department.
Most members of the Foreign Service regard management as something you leave to the clerks. We’ve paid for that. The political officers have kind of been the royalty who were made ambassadors for their brilliant cables, their sharp analyses and their diplomatic savvy. But they knew nothing of budgets, personnel management or bureaucratic organization. A lot of them have fallen on their faces.
And like Humpty Dumpty, when they fall the mess they leave cannot easily be put back together again.
“The people die so, that how it seems they are fain to carry the dead to be buried by daylight, the nights not sufficing to do it in… Great fears of the sickenesse here… God preserve us all”. The writer is Pepys and his reaction to the Black Death of 1665 could apply to the great fear sweeping the world today over our new plague — Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. It is a killer for which there is no cure.
At least one employee of our department, a friend of mine in New York, has already died of AIDS. The odds are that the grim reaper will add to his toll with more of us in the next few years. Portrayed on this continent as the scourge of sodomites and drug-addicts, it has in fact exacted its greatest toll in the central part of Africa where it is estimated that up to 60% of the population may be afflicted. More will die this year from AIDS in Africa than from the starvation caused by the Great Famine, which is now being contained through the assistance efforts of countries like Canada.
AIDS is usually transmitted through sex but it can also be passed in blood transfusions and, as we have learned recently through the sad tales of lab workers and nurses, through mere contact with the blood of its victims. The implications of the latter are especially chilling, particularly for those who come in contact with its victims. Outside of North America and part of Europe, where blood is now screened (although even this is not entirely fail-safe) you take your life in your hands when you enter a hospital.
For the Foreign Service, this presents a compelling case for having Treasury Board provide additional no-fault life insurance for officers and their spouses serving in high risk countries. For individuals preparing for a posting in high-risk regions, have yourself and your family tested by Health and Welfare Medical Centre. This would help establish the basis for any future claim of liability should the worst happen. The Foreign Service Directives should also be amended by raising the post hardship level to more accurately reflect the dangers of the situation. For example, testing for potential servants of employees should be an approved medical expense. Those posts should be declared “unhealthy posts”; the employer should undertake to pay the special health care expenses for AIDS and AIDS-related illnesses.
The Department is moving to come to terms with what it means for those at post. At a minimum, screened blood should be kept on hand. For PAFSO, which administers its own life insurance program, all applicants should be subject to mandatory testing before life insurance can be granted through our plan. Our coverage already demands identification of symptoms or experience with maladies such as high blood pressure, cancer, or diabetes. Other life insurance programs are already refusing coverage for those with AIDS. Prospective immigrants to Canada are already being tested on the assumption that countries have a right, even a duty, to bar entrants with communicable diseases.
In preparing for the contract negotiations and FS Directives triennial review, PAFSO surveyed the membership on its expectations. The results are interesting. We espouse middle class virtues probably because most of us feel we come from this background Twenty percent claim either lower or upper class background. Over two-thirds said that their spouse had given up their job for the partner’s assignment. We are a well-educated and reasonably experienced lot — over 60% had a second degree while 80% had worked for at least a year before joining, while a third had worked for more than five years. Forty percent say they took a pay drop to join the Service. That promotion is slow was made abundantly clear: 62% of FS2s had been at least five years in grade, 28% for nine years or more! At the FS1 level it is slightly better, 59% have been in grade for at least five years, 23% for more than nine years. We feel hard done by in comparison to our mates both in and outside the public service. Not surprisingly, most felt an increase in our pay should take precedence over all other demands in the negotiations. We think we work hard – 93% say they put in overtime during the week, over 70% work on weekends.
Finally, praise for a good idea long in coming. A sense of community is the foundation of any successful and proud organization. For too long retirement from the Foreign Service meant the end of the associations built up over a lifetime in the service of our country. Like old soldiers, our old hands simply faded away. Now, thanks largely to the efforts of old hand Jim Nutt they have established an association of former heads of post. They were the glory of their times and among the best of their generation. May they prosper.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1987) — Summer 1987 // Été 1987, pp. 4–5. Read the rest of this issue →
