bout de papier, Vol. 6, No. 4 (1989), pp. 37–39
Carol Markham has been a member of the Executive Committee of PAFSO since 1987 and chairs the sub-committee responsible for the elaboration of a PAFSO policy on spousal employment. This policy, reprinted below, has been endorsed by PAFSO and was presented to the Special Advisor to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Personnel on the question of Spousal Employment, Mr. W. Sinclair. Carol Markham has served in Bangkok and is now assigned to the Energy and Environment Division of the Department of External Affairs.
Spousal Employment is rapidly becoming a sensitive issue for the majority of rotational employees at External Affairs (DEA) and CIDA. A widespread perception exists that DEA and CIDA either are failing to address the spousal employment interests and concerns of their employees’ spouses, or at best, are not addressing the issue adequately. This has serious implications for employee morale and for human resource management in both organizations.
The two-career family is the norm in Canadian society today. Public sector employees are no exception to this trend; nor is the Foreign Service immune. We do not foresee any decrease in this trend; on the contrary, prognoses are for an increase, particularly as long as public sector salaries are depressed and annual increases continue to be well below the annual rate of inflation. Just as the traditional, non-working female spouse is no longer a universal reality, significantly different in today’s situation is the fact that spouses (whether male or female) tend to have established careers of their own. The result is that many spouses today are no longer willing to accept the notion that simply “working at a job” (whether volunteer or paid labour) is an adequate substitute for having a personal career.
It is essential, therefore, that both DEA and CIDA acknowledge the fact that the working spouse (and as DEA’s own survey shows, most are professionals) is a permanent reality of the foreign service and as such requires immediate, active, practical, and transparent policies and practices.
Spouses recognize fully the imperatives of rotationality and the majority try to be flexible and attempt to adapt their particular career to that of the foreign service. They recognize that adaptability demands they be 1une to accept employment abroad wnic lav verv we de outside uneir own arca c interest or specialization, and at a salary below that which they could rightly expect to obtain were they in Canada. Rotationality, with the ongoing stress and uncertainty of the spouse’s career generally coming second to that of the employee, creates very difficult situations for the family, with inescapable repercussions for the employer and in the case of the two-career family — two employers). The economic realities of modern life make it virtually impossible for many families to forego spousal income should alternative, paid employment for the spouse be non-existent either at post or at headquarters. There is a responsibility, therefore, on the part of both DEA and CIDA to facilitate substantively the finding and obtaining of employment for spouses of rotational employees, whether at post or at headquarters in order to alleviate unnecessary hardship. Attrition rates should DEA and CIDA not take stronger steps in the concrete assistance provided to spouses. Monies spent by DEA and CIDA in recruiting, training and posting highly competent and motivated employees may be wasted due to failure to recognize that working couples are now an accepted part of the Canadian reality and that this issue must be dealt with effectively and expeditiously. DEA has already taken some steps to ensure spousal employment be increased both at post and at headquarters; unfortunately these have not been applied universally and have not proven sufficient. A pro-active stance on the part of both organizations is definitely a necessity.
Foreign service spouses are an asset to DEA and CIDA; their academic backgrounds, international experience and expertise (whether general or specialized) constitute an invaluable pool of resources which, if properly managed, could contribute significantly to the operations of both organizations. In addition, spouses constitute a stable, reliable and dedicated work force because their length of stay at a location is largely pre-determined, their commitment is to the foreign service, and their specialized knowledge of the milieu outranks that of many outsiders.
There are several factors which PAFSO considers must be addressed substantively, transparently and expeditiously by both DEA and CIDA:
a) Change of Corporate Attitude: Negativism is the single, most significant stumbling block which affects adversely all spouses of rotational employees and all employees themselves. In spite of whatever attempts may have been made nominally in the past by the employer, both DEA and CIDA have failed to establish a corporate atmosphere which universally demonstrates anything other than that working spouses have the lowest priority, and that employees with working spouses are complainers or nuisances. This attitude has got to be changed throughout the organization without exception for there to be any meaningful progress on this issue.
b) Facilitation: In many instances, the lack of facilitation is simply the concrete manifestation of the lack of interest in working spouses which exists in DEA and CIDA. Many spouses are ready and eager to help themselves but require assistance and guidance to do so. The kinds of facilitation inter alia which are required include:
- money to assist in job-searches, resumes, courses on interview techniques, proposal preparation and presentation, relocation, re-training, etc.;
- greater access to more specialized language training;
- cross-cultural training geared to the reality of working abroad in a foreign enterprise (as opposed to at a Canadian mission abroad);
- job search consultants/specialist services;
- information on employment possibilities; and
- assistance in procuring employment.
c) Roster of Spousal Resumes: Spouses should be encouraged to file and maintain current resumes jointly with both CIDA and DEA. For the system to work properly, both organizations must have an obligation to consult this roster first before going to outsiders, and must ensure that the roster is cross-referenced to the Public Service Commission, the CIDA Consultants Register (if applicable), and the COSICS system. There should be no occasion which occurs where a qualified spouse has not been notified in a timely fashion of an employment opportunity which exists or is coming vacant.
d) Post Briefing Centre: This centre should demonstrate a more cooperative and friendly atmosphere conducive to the needs of working spouses. In addition, the facility lacks qualified personnel who can assist professional spouses and seems capable at best of dealing with only those spouses who are thinking notionally about returning to the workforce after a lengthy absence.
e) Security Clearances: These should be conducted on spouses at the same time as the employee’s clearance is being carried out, and maintained for the duration of the employees’ career. This initially is an expensive cost, but the benefit over the long-run is cost effective and the incremental cost of doing a clearance on a second family member will not be high in most cases. In addition, for those employees who are already federal government employees, both DEA and CIDA should ensure that their security clearances are maintained while abroad, especially while on a leave of absence without pay.
f) Superannuation: DEA, CIDA, DND, and HWC must join together to repeal the legislation which either does not give spouses an option of foregoing the coverage which would have accrued while on LWOt, or which does not obviate spouses from paying both their individual share and that of the employer for the period of the LWOP. This is particularly unfair and onerous for the employee who was unable to find employment while on the LWOP and yet on return must pay for the privilege of not working.
g) Unemployment Insurance: Spouses who have paid into it should be able to benefit from their contributions like any other Canadian who has made contributions. Spouses should be entitled to draw on it either when abroad or on their return to Canada while looking for employment. DEA, CIDA, DND, and HWC must join together in effecting a change in policy on this by CEIC.
h) Personnel Policies: It should be a matter of personnel policy for both DEA and CIDA in posting the employee that the interests of the working spouse are also taken into consideration. Great efforts should also be made to assign the employee to post where the particular skills or experience or employment opportunity of the spouse could be realized. If the spouse intends to work, then Personnel should direct the mission to attempt to assist the spouse. This would include assistance in obtaining the appropriate documentation from the host government to allow for the necessary visas and work permits, providing a letter of introduction, and making telephone calls to appropriate officials if required, to confirm the identity of the spouse. Personnel should also insist on regular updates by the post on activities undertaken in this area.
i) Reciprocal Employment Agreement (REA): The perception is that REAs have the lowest priority for most posts. This attitude needs to change. REAs permit family members of a diplomat to work, not just the spouse (i.e. the university student who requires work experience, or a period of internship before being granted a degree, also benefits). Canada ties much of its foreign development assistance; if no progress is being made on REAs, then we should consider “sweetening” the incentive if necessary. It is pointless to hold out for a straight quid-pro-quo in many countries because their spouses of diplomats frequently are expressly prohibited by their domestic legislation from working abroad. Posts must be expected to factor this into their annual post plans with a requirement for regular reporting back to headquarters.
j) Elimination of all FSDs that Specifically Discriminate against Working Spouses: It is contrary to the spirit of the spousal employment policy to allow FSDs which either specifically discriminate, or are interpreted in a manner which discriminates against the rights of a spouse. Spousal employment considerations are as important to some employees as the educational needs of children are to other employees. Examples are:
- family separation expense (employment reasons specifically excluded; educational reasons permit the expense) (34);
- shelter cost waiver (25);
- number of days at a post – if the household/residence is at a post, verification of the number of days a spouse is at post is an inexcusable intrusion into personal lifestyles, and discriminates agaist the spouse who may be a consultant and required to travel frequently. (25)
k) Job-Sharing: There are many positions in posts abroad which would be amenable either to job-sharing by employee couples or which could be designated LES positions available to qualified spouses:
- public affairs officer
- commercial officer
- aid officer
- consular officer
- administrative officer
- tourism officer
DEA and CIDA should be looking at more creative ways of approaching job-sharing. Certain jobs could be either specifically designated, or targetted for spouses simply by having a criterion such as “previous experience at post abroad”. l) CIDA Decentralization: The MOU on Human Resources Management should be amended to include specific mention of qualified spouses as one of the selection categories when seeking “additional sources”, and such a spouse should have priority over all non-departmental employees.
m) Access to Facilities: The corporate atmosphere must be changed so as to enable working spouses better access to the use of departmental facilities, especially when seeking employment. This is particularly a problem at post, where significant variations exist from post to post.
n) Conflict of Interest: The perception exists that this is raised frequently as a pretext for not facilitating spousal employment. If this is the case, (i.e. that a conflict of interest situation exists), then DEA and CIDA should be prepared to pay the cost of the foregone salary.
o) Area of Competition: Rotationality as a condition of employment imposes costs on working spouses of rotational employees by making it more difficult to begin or maintain a career. It is essential that DEA, CIDA and other federal government departments and agencies with rotational employees under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission, consider measures which would expand the area of competition to include qualified spouses of rotational employees. The usual practice is to limit the area of competition to the employees of a particular department or to employees in the National Capital Region appointed pursuant to the Public Service Employment Act. Spouses of rotational employees, some of whom either are working abroad for the federal government or are federal government employees on unpaid leave of absence, are prevented from applying as are other spouses who are not already federal government employees but whose experience and educational qualifications suit them for positions.
p) Employee Couples: There are two types of employee couples. One is where both are rotational employees; the other where only one employee is rotational as a condition of employment and the spouse is a federal government employee. Insufficient recognition has been given to the benefits that accrue from both types of employee couples and their special needs. The employee couple represents a double investment for the government at less cost than other family configurations. couple’s commitment to public service is mutually supportive and of long-term duration as long as appropriate joint assignments are provided. However, efforts by DEA and CIDA to meet the special requirements of these employees have fallen short. Within existing constraints, greater attention must be given to harmonizing the timing of assignments and permitting the rational career progression of each to be realized through meaningful assignments. Better efforts in this direction also will enhance the retention of women at progressively more senior levels.
q) Lost Income Adjustment. A growing and increasingly accepted approach to the fluctuating income due to employment disruption suffered by the spouse as a result of the employee’s rotationality is to develop a compensation program which accurately reflects the income lost to the family as a result of the posting. Such calculations typically would take into account the spouse’s income on an average of 3 to 5 years prior to the posting.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 6, No. 4 (1989), pp. 37–39. Read the rest of this issue →
