bout de papier, Vol. 6, No. 4 (1989), pp. 5–6
The Foreign Service contract expired in April 1989. In considering the current negotiations for the next FS contract, it may be helpful to reflect upon the experience gained in the negotiation of the last contract, and to review developments subsequent to the last settlement.
By way of objectives in the current exercise, it is crucial that our collective sights be raised in a determined effort to improve on previous performance. While there are many contractual goals worthy of contemplation, the following might be considered as elements of a minimalist platform:
Salary. In the present era of slow to nonexistant promotions, it is essential to improve emoluments, especially for the lowest paid segment of our membership. To address this need in a progressive fashion would involve increased remuneration based on a sliding scale which would reward those at the bottom of the scale with a higher percentage increase that those at the upper end.
The time is long overdue that recognition be accorded to the fact that those at the lower end of FS scales — including all FS-1-’s – are grossly underpaid. Nurses and bus drivers have recently joined the ranks of school teachers, skilled tradesmen, policemen, postal workers, and many others, whose salaries are the envy of a substantial number of our members. PAFSO has been severely disadvantaged in the past by its inability to illustrate this case with convincing data. It would be unconscionable to fail again.
Prior to the last round of negotiations PAFSO approached the Pay Research Bureau (PRB) to secure its cooperation in undertaking a study of comparative pay rates. The PRB survey bogged down hopelessly in problems of exact comparability. The need, however, remains. PAFSO could commission a wide-ranging study of salary and benefits among generally comparable professional groups. There are many reputable private sector firms with experience in the field.
The analysis should cover salaries, benefits, terms and conditions of employment, and rates of promotion. It could include samplings drawn from groups within the public service (for example lawyers, economists, historians and information officers), as well as appropriate provincial government and private sector employees. To avoid a recurrence of the PRB’s problems, these groups would be selected on the basis of general comparability only. This exercise walla not require identical too packages, or directly equivalent levels of responsibility. None of that is necessary to show that, compared with persons of similar professional and academic background, Foreign Service Officers are underpaid and deserve better.
Productivity/efficiency bonus. This proposal is designed to benefit those at the ceiling of their pay scale who have seen their salaries shrinking in real terms because successive economic increases have been less than the rate of inflation. In lieu of performance pay or promotion, those affected should expect full protection for their incomes.
Vacation leave. The current contract approaches, after the second year, the leave provisions enjoyed by the Commerce Officer group prior to their conversion to FS. In exchange, the bargaining team traded away unlimited vacation “banking” (i.e., cumulative carryover covering annual leave). These provisions remain far from generous by comparative standards. This is one area, even in a period of continuing financial constraint, where we could make real gains.
Acting pay. The current provisions stipulate that an employee must work a minimum of thirty working days at a higher level to qualify. This rules out many common acting situations and in practical terms means that this compensation is much less accessible than it should be. The threshold should therefore be dramatically lowered and brought into line with other contracts — that is, a qualification period of 10 to 15 working days.
Secondly, and probably more importantly, acting pay should be provided for in the regular assignment process. If an employee is asked to fill a position classified at a higher level than his/her own, payment should be provided accordingly. There has been much misleading subterfuge surrounding this issue, usually involving the attribution of enhanced flexibility for the employer and improved career opportunities for the employee. This is little more than a thinly disguised excuse for paring the Government’s wage bill at the expense of PAFSO members. To pay fairly would not eliminate one opportunity and the same number of appointments could, and in likelihood would, be made. The only difference would be a more just reward for those involved.
Once PAFSO has identified its objectives and adopted a suitable strategy to attain them, it will be essential to review the approach to the negotiations themselves. These arcane, tedious proceedings have proved virtually irrelevant in the settlement of our last two contracts; there is scant reason to believe that the situation will be otherwise in the forthcoming round. Wooden, formulaic, and characterized mainly by endless repetition, it seems inadvisable to waste much time or effort on this biennial ritual. Sitting through these endless meetings evoked a vaguely anthropological image — the dance of the dead. Any sincere intellectual commerce or the give and take of hard bargaining was entirely lacking. place was substituted a numbing exchange of empty litanies. This chanting embodied the triumph of form over substance. If it appears at the outset that there is insufficient common ground to enable agreement, PAFSO should cut its losses and proceed directly to arbitration.
A second observation involves ratification, and in particular extending the vote to PAFSO members outside Ottawa. Some time ago, PAFSO won the right to use departmental communications facilities for association business; there is no reason to deny a large proportion of the membership the opportunity to express its views on a proposed settlement. It is, therefore, essential to ensure that this is possible.
In dealing with an institution as unresponsive and lacking in imagination as the Treasury Board, PAFSO should be prepared to take its case before the court of public opinion. This would require both solid research and great confidence in the strength of our arguments. PAFSO’s stand on patronage was a useful and instructive precedent. In the absence of a more pro-active approach, we will continue to suffer from a serious image problem — as illustrated, in no uncertain terms, by the Aberdeen Club fiasco.
Our needs might best be met through the preparation of a comprehensive and integrated communications strategy. Consideration could also be given to the publication of occasional papers on key issues.
For a group which has every reason to consider negotiating abilities among its more formidable assets, it is surprising that PAFSO has fared so poorly when it comes to defending and advancing its own interests. It is perhaps even more curious that this failure has received so little attention from those most affected. We should be capable of improved performance on our own behalf. PAFSO’s record has been highly unsatisfactory, across virtually the entire range of issues subject to contractual agreement. This trend can be reversed, but only with the full support of all concerned. It is unfortunate that this critical component has been visibly absent in the past.
It is clear that desperate clinging to notions of gentlemanly behavior and reliance upon departmental management to act on our behalf have produced meagre returns. The legitimate place for collaboration with the employer is in pursuit of foreign policy objectives and the national interest. In collective bargaining, management’s proper place is on the other side of the table. There is a fundamental divergence of interests here which has not, to date, been fully recognised. In 1987, for example, PASO’s negotiating brief was surrendered to senior management in the vain hope of securing their successful intervention. The only tangible result, however, (following the suspension of performance pay awards), was an additional two month delay in reaching settlement.
The Foreign Service is still struggling to shake off an enormous burden of historical baggage which still informs its collective self-image. Although it is always difficult to break with the past, the need has become acute. In refusing to see the writing on the wall we only delude ourselves. If Foreign Service Officers are to begin to exercise full responsibility for their own destiny, the 1989 contract seems a reasonable place to begin.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 6, No. 4 (1989), pp. 5–6. Read the rest of this issue →
