bout de papier, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1991) — Spring 1991 // Printemps 1991, pp. 6–7
I live in an elegant apartment for which I pay more or less the same as for my place back home. It is located in a country full with wonderful, hospitable people, surrounded with physical beauty and fascinating antiquities. I am a proud diplomat at a Canadian embassy and judging from the job ads in the Globe and Mail, financially I am not doing too badly at all. I love my job and have a modest amount of success in my efforts.
In full support of my program-related activities, my wife works hard at organizing hospitality functions, when needed. She also feels privileged to have a servant and therefore the freedom to explore, which she loves. In other words, we live a good life in the service of our country.
I therefore am somewhat shocked to read Mr. Small’s comments in his article in bout de papier, Volume 8, No. 1, which hopefully are his own and not sanctioned by the executive or PAFSO members. They are so typical of the remarks heard in the corridors of 125 Sussex by those with little else to do, or the busy ones on their seventh cigarette break in front of the entrance.
We live in a free world and represent a very democratic country. Nobody forces us to follow a particular route in our careers. We are free to change direction at any time and free to quit. Anybody who does not appreciate the undoubtedly better living and working conditions abroad and sticks with it, is spineless. All one has to do is write a letter to HQ with regrets and return to the good life of two hours of commuting.
Contrary to the statements made about the poor assistance given to our colleagues caught in the Gulf crisis, they have been and still are being cared for in an exemplary manner. It is too bad that the writer’s spouse has such a good income that they are better off living in Canada. He sounds somewhat bitter that he cannot live that adventurous life without a financial loss. But I can only assume that he and his wife chose their path with wide open eyes. It does not seem fair to blame the Department if things panned out differently from those originally planned. As mentioned before, there is no need to play if one does not enjoy the game.
I have no problem paying double for the same accommodation as secretaries. Often they are excluded from diplomatic functions, have no partner to come home to. So why not let them have a break for half the price?
Many before us have retired on one pension. If the writer does not like that, why does he not join the millions he refers to? I have no problem with the golden handshake principle. It is a welcome break for some who are sickly, unhappy, unsuitable or very close to retirement in any case. And it does create some breathing room for those at the beginning of their career. I never saved enough to purchase a villa at Costa del Sol, but have a nice place in the Gatineau, where I enjoy living in between postings. And would you believe it, when there I scrape by on a one-salary income.
Yours sincerely, Michael Wondergem, Counsellor (Commercial) Ankara
Dear Editor:
Greetings from Paris. The President’s paper in the latest issue of bout was a great piece (“Warm Beer, Lousy Food”). It inspired the following drawing. Perhaps you could use it.
Yves Brodeur
Paris, France Rebuttal to “Warm Beer and Lousy Food”
Dear Editor,
The letter which was excerpted in “From the President’s Desk” in Vol. 8 No. I deserves a rebuttal. As a recently confirmed FS-1, I have the following comments:
I will not argue about what compensation is appropriate. Doubtless the debate concerning the proper level of remuneration will be with us always.
What I do take issue with is the notion that a higher calibre of foreign service officer would be hired if the compensation package were improved. I doubt that this assumption is true. There are clearly other motivations besides pecuniary gain in selecting employment.
The letter writer’s only evidence to support the assumption is anecdotal relating to the experience of one interview period. Even this provided “ …perhaps o … ot FS quality.” From a pool of 55 candidates interviewed. To me such a proportion is reasonable and ought to be expected in any interview process.
Regardless of the compensation package, a great many people will not seek to be foreign service officers. There are several reasons for this which ought to be obvious.
Since joining External Affairs after nearly a decade of employment in the private sector, I have worked with or otherwise come to know, several dozen FS-IDs and junior FS-1s. As a group I believe that they possess as much talent and potential as any group who may have been dissuaded from writing the foreign service exam due to a perceived poor compensation package. Of course, this cannot be proven and is a subjective opinion.
There may be other justifications for improving the salary and benefits for the FS category but please spare me from specious questions such as “Where are all the high flyers, the leaders, the top scholars?” and the self-serving assumption that better candidates would be attracted.
Yours sincerely, Michael MacKenzie
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1991) — Spring 1991 // Printemps 1991, pp. 6–7. Read the rest of this issue →
