GovernmentExecutive.com

Any FS employee who refuses an assignment should be terminated. They should abolish the labor union known as AFSA. They are trying to perpetuate a caste system among us diplomats. THere are many highly qualified diplomats committed to worldwide service, but AFSA is blocking their assignments, claiming that they were illegally appointed to the Service. These dedicated diplomats are serving on limited appointments, but AFSA claims they are not "real" members of the Foreign Service. They
are barred from all but the most dangerous assignments, like Iraq, yet they serve willingly, at the Department's discretion.

We need to break down the caste system and fill overseas posts based on needs of the Service instead of AFSA's personal preference

They even went so far as to threaten one eof our outstanding diplomats (DCM in PERU) calling her a "civil servant" taking a FS positions. "Civil Servant" is afsa's designation for any person appointed to the FS without their approval.

That person was forced to curtail, due to AFSA's threats and pressure tactics.

So this would be a good time to do away with the caste system for once and for all and open up diplomatic assignments to all qualified employees.

diplomat  | Thursday, December 20, 2007 |  04:14 AM

---

All these comments are written with a bit of ignorance about State Dept jobs. In fact, FSOs are already serving in many more critical threat locations, besides IQ & Afg everyday. Yes, there are few cozy assignments (like the DOD in UK, Italy, Bahrain, & Japan) for DoS, but actually overwhelming more critical threat or difficult to staff (Pakistan, Jakarta, Rangoon, Bogota, Georgetown, Khartoum, Beirut, Jeddah, Tirana, Tashkent, Ulanbaator, Abuja, Freetown, & other places you may not be able to find on a globe). Over 200 places in the globe we work everyday, much more than people are aware & many prohibit the bringing of families due to terrorism or landmines or health reasons. Read Doug's comment above & see we have volunteered & served in places where diplomats typically don't due to the overwhelming need for security that the military is not willing to provide. No one has refused to go, & none have been ordered yet...don't base your opinion on few facts, just like we don't judge the military on the actions of the deserters we read about. Diplomats didn't sign up to carry guns and train for reacting to ambushes and IEDs, unlike the soldiers who DID knowingly sign up for warfare conditions. Nonetheless, DoS volunteers keep stepping up to the plate.

Jim  | Thursday, November 22, 2007 |  11:42 AM

---

There is a lot of misinformation about this issue. Not one single FSO has refused, or even attempted to refuse an assignment to Iraq. There is just no truth to that belief. Sending FSOs to Iraq cannot be compared to sending soldiers and sailors to Iraq. DOD creates an entire cacoon around their people that includes families. DoD families live in familiar communities for several years while the soldier is deployed. They go to familiar schools, are supported by extensive social support systems. FSOs families will be relocating for the year of the Iraq assignment, attending unfamiliar schools in unfamiliar communities. Nothing like what DoD provides exists for the FSO families who are left behind. Most of the concern from FSOs has nothing to do with their personal safety or desire to serve in Iraq, it's usually about specific family situations. Only 16% of the military has served or ever will serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. Already 25% of all FSOs have served in Iraq or/and Afghanistan, and the number will go higher as time goes by. That doesn't even include the FSOs who go to all the other dangerous posts abroad and leave their families behind. 65% of the FSOs are abroad serving, mostly in dangerous posts. Only 16% of uniformed personnel are overseas at any one time. DoD is so huge compared to the Foreign Service. It has more bandmembers than there are members of the Foreign Service total. If the State Department had as extensive a support system for families left behind as DoD does, there would be less concern. But in any case, FSOs do serve, they don't refuse, and that will always be the case.

Doug Ellrich  | Tuesday, November 20, 2007 |  06:15 AM

---

We sure did learn how committed state employees are to their jobs. All I kept hearing was about plum assignment to Paris, I wonder if they even know if there is a world out there

dan ketter  | Monday, November 19, 2007 |  12:38 PM

---

Every Soldier, Marine, Sailor and Airman must be shaking their head in disbelief. They are constantly being ordered to hostile areas of the world and these career "diplomats" at the State Dept can refuse to go? Those that refused to go should all be downgraded and moved to positions of non-responsibility, at a minimum. In the military, the same behavior would result in bad conduct discharges, court martial or brig time. And rightfully so.

David  | Monday, November 19, 2007 |  12:01 PM

---

What would have made sense would have been for state department employees to remember their oaths of office and to bring some guts to their jobs. "Oh, yes, I want all of the glamor of foreign assignments, but no danger, thanks." The foreign service is now even more a laughingstock than it was before.

Ron Elglish  | Monday, November 19, 2007 |  08:27 AM

---

The problem for FSOs in Iraq was not because of the volunteers. There aren’t supposed to be volunteers. It’s required of their jobs. They get paid alot and that is why.

Bush should have fired those FSOs who refused to honor their contract and replaced them with recess, statutory, or whatever other type of appointment works. Congress is going tosay they control those appointments because they are worried about their federal employee constituuents and term limits for them and themsleves.

Because Bush and Rice are cowards, FSOs were allowed to violate their contracts and not be fired; they will continue to violate their contracts because it was allowed once

Fedinsky  | Saturday, November 17, 2007 |  09:43 AM

---